Reporting posts: what's the point if the system is not transparent?

Iwannahurl

I have reported a few posts in a particular forum and the response has been inconsistent, to say the least.

Members are thanked for trying to make Boards a better place, but how can the Report Post function contribute to this effort if it is so lacking in transparency and accountability?

When you report a post the message goes to the Mod(s) but there is absolutely no feedback regarding the Mods opinion of the reported post or of the reporter's comments on it.

It is frustrating to report a post only to find that no action has been taken and no explanation forthcoming for that inaction. Attempting to enquire by PM is not satisfactory either, as in my experience this approach can just be ignored.

Without an 'audit trail' for the Report Post function, it is not possible to use it systematically and constructively, IMO.

Insect Overlord

Same problem as last time, or something new?

Iwannahurl

Jeepers, you have a good memory. I had to go back and remind myself.

Same forum, but not the same problem exactly (as I see it). On that occasion I was thoroughly hacked off at what I saw as a disingenuous response not just from a Mod but from a CMod too. Clearly I am not on the same wavelength as they are!

I realise and accept that there is bound to be subjectivity and individual difference in these matters. That is why I refer to the transparency of the Report Post feature rather than to the specifics of the post I reported and my reasons for reporting it.

Fair enough, a Mod may not concur that the post needs reporting, but where is there a record of the refereeing process?

Mr Magnolia

It's been explained to you previously that every reported post gets reviewed and it's up to the mod to make a call on any appropriate action. If the mod is unsure a discussion normally starts either on the reported post thread or by PM or in the specific moderator forum. If you feel no action has been taken and you are certain that the post required an intervention from a mod that isn't forthcoming you are of course entitled to PM the mod to ask the question (give the mods 24hrs or so after the report). If you get no response then PM the CMod.

You should really go to the helpdesk and start linking specific occurrences of concern as the speculative threads in feedback don't seem to be mitigating any of your concerns.

Elmidena

With the high volume of reported posts, it would be not only impractical but all the more time consuming for mods to reply to the ones that reported them. They're here on an unpaid voluntary basis, giving up their time to help run the site. You can't really expect them to give up even more of their time responding to everyone--what if there's say fifteen reports on one post? The time taken to reply to each of those could have been spent cleaning up fifteen other posts.

As suggested, PM the mods of the forum in question, and if you don't get an answer then drop the CMod a line

Zaph

Just as an indication, since yesterday to right now, there have been 188 reported posts. And bear in mind that boards is much quieter at the weekends, that number increases significantly on weekdays. The sheer volume of reported posts makes it impossible to respond to each one individually, if mods were to do that they'd be doing little else. If you have a concern over a particular reported post then PM the mods. If you get not response pass it on to the CMods.

EPM

Elmidena wrote: »

With the high volume of reported posts, it would be not only impractical but all the more time consuming for mods to reply to the ones that reported them. They're here on an unpaid voluntary basis, giving up their time to help run the site. You can't really expect them to give up even more of their time responding to everyone--what if there's say fifteen reports on one post? The time taken to reply to each of those could have been spent cleaning up fifteen other posts.

As suggested, PM the mods of the forum in question, and if you don't get an answer then drop the CMod a line

I'd have to agree. There are often times where forum moderator may not be online for a day or more due to work/life commitments. If action isn't taken on a reported post a PM is most definitely the way to go. However, give a day to allow people review the posts. Reporting posts an hour later and bombarding mods with PM's almost as regularly just serves no other purpose than to clog inboxes and get people's back up.

P. Breathnach

Zaph wrote: »

Just as an indication, since yesterday to right now, there have been 188 reported posts...

Can you clarify, please? Does that mean that across all of Boards in a period of almost 36 hours there were 188 reported posts? Have you excluded double-counting, where particular posts have been reported more than once?

pickarooney

P. Breathnach wrote: »

Have you excluded double-counting, where particular posts have been reported more than once?

Why differentiate if each of the people reporting it would expect a response?

Zaph

P. Breathnach wrote: »

Zaph wrote: »

Just as an indication, since yesterday to right now, there have been 188 reported posts...

Can you clarify, please? Does that mean that across all of Boards in a period of almost 36 hours there were 188 reported posts? Have you excluded double-counting, where particular posts have been reported more than once?

That's 188 individual posts that were reported and excludes how ever many multiple reports of posts there may have been.

ToadVine

So if there has been 188 reported posts ... and if there are (say) 300 mods ... would that mean that responding to the reported posts wouldn't actually be that big a deal? The maths would suggest this would create very little extra work for mods ...

Or am I missing something here?

EPM

ToadVine wrote: »

So if there has been 188 reported posts ... and if there are (say) 300 mods ... would that mean that responding to the reported posts wouldn't actually be that big a deal? The maths would suggest this would create very little extra work for mods ...

Or am I missing something here?

To be fair it is the weekend, and on top of that you're relying on that particular forums mod(s) being available too. Mods might be online but may not have control of the the forum where the reports originate from.

Insect Overlord

ToadVine wrote: »

So if there has been 188 reported posts ... and if there are (say) 300 mods ... would that mean that responding to the reported posts wouldn't actually be that big a deal? The maths would suggest this would create very little extra work for mods ...

Or am I missing something here?

Take into account that most mods have lives outside of the site (*forever alone*), and that Friday and Saturday nights are, typically, the times when people go out/meet up/switch off. Then there are people out shopping, parents with children to look after, students with weekend jobs, sports people playing/training/coaching, musicians jamming, motorists travelling, etc...

Certain busy forums also generate more reported posts than many other (quieter) forums put together. The work-load isn't always evenly spread.*

It wouldn't take too long to send a reporter a quick PM in response. A lot of mods do that anyway, when the time allows. The trouble is when the reporter isn't satisfied and that one message leads to a few hours of back and forth arguing. If that happens during a busy spell, or during a major event, then it gets in the way of the whole forum being looked after.

(* there's more to modding a forum than just looking after reported posts, of course.)

P. Breathnach

pickarooney wrote: »

Why differentiate if each of the people reporting it would expect a response?

I'm not taking a position on that at the moment. From time to time we are told that the volume of reported posts is very high. The figure Zaph has given us is interesting, and far lower than I would have expected.

Morag

It depends on the amount of traffic and posts a forum gets.
A quiet forum with a small group of posters using it may not get even one reported post in 9 months. The likes of the soccer forum over the time frame of a 'lively' game could end up with 188 reported posted in the space of 2/3 hours, the same may be possible with forums with the bulk of the traffic like AH.

So the load is not spread evenly.

Ickle Magoo

Take this morning; according to my inbox we're around the 13/14 reported post mark at the last count since I logged off late last night - I've also had to deal with the troll who was re-regging and generating many of the reports. Add being obliged to reply to each of the reported posts on top of that and suddenly my "job" just got much harder/longer/more like an actual job.

That's before you even get to those who report posts which don't need actioned and who would argue why that shouldn't be the case, those who report posts they disagree with or want sanctioned and you'd find yourself discussing/arguing/defending one posters warnings/infractions/bans with the poster who is gunning for that action to be taken.

Reports are a handy tool that alerts mods to posts that potentially require action, I don't there is any need to view them as a personal message to the mods that require a personal response. It's not obligatory to report posts, it's often helpful as a heads up but I certainly wouldn't be keen on getting into the situation where as well as taking action and often having to deal with the fall-out from that from the poster concerned, I'm also potentially required to get into PM tennis with multiple posters regarding whether that action/inaction is warranted/correct/harsh/etc - decisions which are often based on a posters history and details which are not available for public viewing.

Zaph

ToadVine wrote: »

So if there has been 188 reported posts ... and if there are (say) 300 mods ... would that mean that responding to the reported posts wouldn't actually be that big a deal? The maths would suggest this would create very little extra work for mods ...

Or am I missing something here?

I'm afraid you are. You're assuming that those 188 posts are spread across all forums equally, however the vast majority of forums will have no reported posts at all, whereas others such as AH and Soccer (particularly at the weekend) will be responsible for a fairly high percentage of the reports. There simply wouldn't be the resources available to reply to every single report in those forums, and if we were to introduce such a requirement for mods it would have to be across the board, not just for smaller forums where the mods may have time to respond to the odd reported post.

P. Breathnach wrote: »

I'm not taking a position on that at the moment. From time to time we are told that the volume of reported posts is very high. The figure Zaph has given us is interesting, and far lower than I would have expected.

That's just a quick count, but I have no idea how that compares to the same period on other weekends so I wouldn't be reading too much into it. And as I said, the volumes are much higher during the week.

What also needs to be pointed out is that if mods did have to PM everyone who reported a post, it wouldn't just end there. There are a number of posters, no names mentioned, who report posts quite often and would not be satisfied with a PM telling them that no further action was necessary. The mod would get drawn into long PM debates with these people, and ultimately we'd get to the point where nobody would ever agree to be a mod if they knew they had to put up with that sort of thing. I'm not in any way saying that mods (or CMods or admins) are without fault and cannot be questioned on their actions or inactions regarding reported posts, but it should be reasonable and reporters should realise that they may not always be right themselves.

P. Breathnach

Zaph wrote: »

That's 188 individual posts that were reported and excludes how ever many multiple reports of posts there may have been.

Thanks.

Supplementary question: is there any way of knowing if a mod has seen a report in his/her forum? Something like it being marked as having been read?

I ask this because I sometimes check if a mod has been online after I have reported a post, and if he or she has, and no action has been taken, I infer that the mod has deemed that no action is needed.

There is also a situation where I reported a post several days ago. The sole mod of that forum has not posted there in years (yes, literally years) and seems to be online only sporadically. Is there a mechanism for having reports dealt with where there is prolonged mod absence?

Elmidena

I report posts because it's impossible for a mod to read every thread and every comment (no need to PM me about the few I gave you heads up on this morning Ickle :P) I don't for one minute think that anyone has to get back to me. Once or twice I've thrown in a couple of sentences on why I think it's worth a look over (such as the one in Prison Gordon changed to disemvowelled) but the majority of the time I write things like "repost" if it's in YLYL, "spam" if the shoe fits, "troll" if it's obvious or "unhelpful to OP/sharp tones" if in RI. I'm doing my bit to help out, why on earth should I expect people to come along and thank me for it? I don't do it for gratitude after all. If a post isn't sanctioned, either it slipped through the cracks or you need a think about why it doesn't really need modding. If you still have questions after thinking with an unbiased mind, then PM. But I am not in favour in any way to force more pressure on the staff. They've enough to deal with without dumping more rules and restrictions on their plate. They're people too, and I think a lot of people forget that. Namely the ones that start going off about them being jumped-up gods on a power rush!

Otis Driftwood

IMO,if there is a forum with only one mod and said mod isnt active then it should be brought to cmod/admin attention to address.Its possible that for smaller forums,say like the mustard forum for example,that gets little no traffic that the mods just dont bother logging in and as a result,for all intents and purposes it is unmodded.

I think though that when a post is reported in a forum,the cmods get email notification too however Im open to correction on this.

It was discussed before I believe that a number of mods,particularly on a mental busy forum like AH thank reported posts as a way of letting the other mods know its been seen/dealt with.

Insect Overlord

P. Breathnach wrote: »

Supplementary question: is there any way of knowing if a mod has seen a report in his/her forum? Something like it being marked as having been read?

Not always. When a post is reported, it creates a new thread in the Reported Posts forum. Sometimes another mod can tell it's been looked at from the "threads views" column, or if the OP/reporter has been thanked. However, the report also automatically e-mails the relevant mods. A lot of mods just follow the e-mail link instead of stopping off in the RP forum along the way.

P. Breathnach wrote: »

I ask this because I sometimes check if a mod has been online after I have reported a post, and if he or she has, and no action has been taken, I infer that the mod has deemed that no action is needed.

There's also a feature on your profile that lets you "hide" whether you're on-line or not. I use it, so the green light and "last time on-line" status don't show up for me, even though I tend to spend a lot of time on the site. Just to confuse matters!

P. Breathnach wrote: »

There is also a situation where I reported a post several days ago. The sole mod of that forum has not posted there in years (yes, literally years) and seems to be online only sporadically. Is there a mechanism for having reports dealt with where there is prolonged mod absence?

PM the CMods. They'll sort that out.

Zaph

P. Breathnach wrote: »

Supplementary question: is there any way of knowing if a mod has seen a report in his/her forum? Something like it being marked as having been read?

I ask this because I sometimes check if a mod has been online after I have reported a post, and if he or she has, and no action has been taken, I infer that the mod has deemed that no action is needed.

Some mods may thank a post or comment on it in the Reported Posts forum to indicate to their co-mods that they have seen it and dealt with it appropriately, which may mean no further action is required. However this isn't a specific requirement and the only way of knowing if a report has been thanked would be to trawl through every thread in the Reported Posts forum individually, which isn't really practical.

P. Breathnach wrote: »

There is also a situation where I reported a post several days ago. The sole mod of that forum has not posted there in years (yes, literally years) and seems to be online only sporadically. Is there a mechanism for having reports dealt with where there is prolonged mod absence?

CMods also receive e-mails advising them of posts reported in their category. In this case I'd say your best bet is to PM the CMods and tell them what you've posted above. It sounds like there's a need for an additional mod or two in that forum and they can look into it.

P. Breathnach

Insect Overlord wrote: »

... There's also a feature on your profile that lets you "hide" whether you're on-line or not. I use it, so the green light and "last time on-line" status don't show up for me, even though I tend to spend a lot of time on the site. Just to confuse matters!

I don't see the point of hiding your online status. If I was checking whether you had been online, I'd look at your posting history: post, and I'll know that you were online.

PM the CMods. They'll sort that out.

I thought that might be the case. That leads to another thing that irks me: I don't have a record of reports I made - when I reported, and what I said.

Insect Overlord

P. Breathnach wrote: »

I don't see the point of hiding your online status. If I was checking whether you had been online, I'd look at your posting history: post, and I'll know that you were online.


I thought that might be the case. That leads to another thing that irks me: I don't have a record of reports I made - when I reported, and what I said.

Part 1: personal preference at the moment. I always invite PMs when I moderate a thread, and there's a note in the Midwest charter that I can be contacted any time, so I suppose it doesn't make much of a difference.

Part 2: I found the report you were talking about using the thread display options. Given the time-frame and the thread-starter, the reports can be found very quickly, even if you don't have the link yourself. Not the most elegant of solutions, but a perfectly feasible one all the same.

Gordon

I think our system is much more transparent and accountable than many, many websites out there like Facebook, Twitter, Google+ for example. Every reported post is viewable by all boards mods if needs be which means full transparency. Also, the mods of the forum are accountable for the reports, so you'll know who to check with in case you need to.

The Volt

Out of curiosity, what happens if you report a mod's post? Can that mod see it?

Zaph

Voltwad wrote: »

Out of curiosity, what happens if you report a mod's post? Can that mod see it?

Yes, all reported posts are visible to all mods, although I doubt anybody actually goes searching for posts of theirs that have been reported.

RoundyMooney

Otis Driftwood wrote: »

IMO,if there is a forum with only one mod and said mod isnt active then it should be brought to cmod/admin attention to address.

This. I reckon no forum, no matter how much tumbleweed floats by in there, should have any less than two mods anyway. Private and hosted fora in particular.

I think the reporting system is quite transparent-there are a couple of hundred people who can see it-and all it is is a headsup anyway, nothing more.

P. Breathnach

Zaph wrote: »

Yes, all reported posts are visible to all mods, although I doubt anybody actually goes searching for posts of theirs that have been reported.

You were doing well in this thread up to this point, where you seem to have abandoned your understanding of human nature.

Zaph

P. Breathnach wrote: »

Zaph wrote: »

Yes, all reported posts are visible to all mods, although I doubt anybody actually goes searching for posts of theirs that have been reported.

You were doing well in this thread up to this point, where you seem to have abandoned your understanding of human nature.

I take your point, but unless it's a post in their own forum they won't be alerted to it, and why would you go looking for something that may or may not be there? The only exception might be if they post something that they expect to be reported. Regardless, if a post needs to be reported for any reason, the fact that it's a mod's post and that they can see the report should they be bothered looking should not stop anyone from reporting it. But if people are really concerned about this they can PM the CMods instead.

pickarooney

Elmidena wrote: »

Browser crashed and when I rebooted it wound up with a double post, sowwy

Tip: You can use the Delete button to get rid of the second post.

Question: If a mod thanks your reported post, does your number of thanks increase?

Dravokivich

pickarooney wrote: »

Question: If a mod thanks your reported post, does your number of thanks increase?

It should do. You just won't be able to see it.

Quazzie

I really dont underatand why the reporting of posts isnt the same as the reporting of sigs. That system was effective and transparent.

Zaph

Because whatever about a sig being reported and the reporter being able to see the thread, reported posts very often require discussion between mods/CMods/admins that the reporter should not be party to.

Malice

Otis Driftwood wrote: »

I think though that when a post is reported in a forum,the cmods get email notification too however Im open to correction on this.

Just to confirm this, yes, CMods do get reported post notifications for all forums in their category.

Iwannahurl

Thanks for all the responses.

This thread moved faster than I expected, so I probably won't be able to respond to all the key points.

A few thoughts.

Firstly, I wouldn't expect a personalised response to a Reported Post. This is about transparency, not about my personal expectations. It's also about efficient systems, which are things I like, and not about any particular post or forum that might be bugging me.

My impression is that engaging in PMs about reported posts creates the kind of extra work and hassle that Mods understandably would like to avoid. So why propose that as the solution to members wondering what happened regarding the posts they reported?

In any case, I have found PMs unsatisfactory in this context. The process doesn't ensure that what I would regard as proper responses are forthcoming from Mods or CMods. Furthermore, PMs are not transparent either. Nobody else knows what post has been reported, by whom, for what reason, or what the Mods/CMods response was. Additionally, PMs cannot be discussed in-thread, AFAIK.

It's a bit like in camera court cases, where the media are not admitted and no written judgments are issued! The outcome is that no precedents are created and nobody knows what the Mods think, unless of course the Mods choose to comment in-thread. But here I am interested as much in the reasons for NO action being taken.

I'd like to see something along these lines. For the sake of argument, let's say the forum is Region > West Virginia. Any topic of interest might be discussed, but when it comes to Law & Order opinion tends to polarise. Let's call the two camps the Hatfields and the McCoys. One of the Hatfields posts a comment which tars the McCoys as "Nazis". A McCoy reports the post to the new transparent system, and the Mod's response, through some technical wizardry, is logged in a way that can be openly accessed by all members.

Post Reported: McCoys are Nazis[URL][/url]
Reported by: Calvin McCoy, Jeff McCoy, Sam McCoy, Randolph McCoy.
Mod: Dom
Action taken: None.
Reason: Dom agrees that the McCoys are Nazis, and their record shows it.

I have no idea whether such a system would be technically possible, but in terms of what I would regard as an open, accountable, systematic and precedent-setting approach, I imagine it would be better than sending a Report Post message into the ether, followed by exchanges of PMs that nobody else can see and which may not lead anywhere useful.

Boards.ie: Danny

Iwannahurl wrote: »

I have no idea whether such a system would be technically possible

Leaving aside non-technical considerations (which I won't be drawn into) everything is possible. It's just a matter of time to develop and money for that time, of course. That being said, I'll flat out tell you with almost 100% certainty this won't be implemented at any stage under vBulletin. While we are moving away from that the move is still a fair bit down the road.

Steve

Mostly, when I get a reported post, I will read the thread in the RP forum and if there is a stock response such as "got it" or "sorted" from a co-mod then I breathe & just move on as I know I can trust them to have dealt with it - otherwise I dive in and start to assess the complaint and post my own replt there. Some mods, however, don't reply when they've sorted the issue and this is probably as annoying to me as is the point of this thread as it makes me needlessly read thru may posts just to discover they've already dealt with it.

There surely is merit in a future system that at least lets both the reporter and co-mods know that the report has been ticketed and is being looked at?

Difficult one to implement though as three still needs to be room for mods to collectively think and chat about what needs to be done in the borderline or new cases.

Quazzie

Zaph wrote: »

Because whatever about a sig being reported and the reporter being able to see the thread, reported posts very often require discussion between mods/CMods/admins that the reporter should not be party to.

My answer to this would be to implement the best of both worlds. When I report a post, two things happen.
1. A post is made in a new (or existing if the post was previously reported) thread that is private in the report post forum on here. This is as it is currently, and is only viewable by mods of Boards and not by anyone else.
2. A second thread is started, similar to the report sig function where a mod can come and just acknowledge that the report has been noted. There would be no need to mention what action was taken unless the mod felt comfortable with doing that. Merely a "I've reviewed the post and taken the neccessary measures". This lets the person who reportet the post know that the mods have looked into it, and not simply ignored it.

I don't think anyone here is implying that reported posts are ignored, but sometimes it does feel like that, and it puts people off reporting posts in future. I know this is probably something that will never happen but for me that would be the perfect solution.

Just my 2c

Orion

Quazzie wrote: »

I don't think anyone here is implying that reported posts are ignored, but sometimes it does feel like that, and it puts people off reporting posts in future. I know this is probably something that will never happen but for me that would be the perfect solution.

Just my 2c

Sometimes they will look ignored.
Sometimes a post is reported that needs no action. So it is ignored.
Sometimes a post is reported that purely results in a PM to the poster and that's the end of it - nothing on thread as it's been dealt with off thread.
Sometimes there's a visible warning or infraction.

Reporting posts is appreciated. But consider it like an anonymous* call to the Revenue. You may never hear the result but what needs to be dealt with generally will be. And imo reporting a post doesn't entitle you to hearing the result. If I give a warning to someone - from a reported post or just one I spotted - that's between me and the poster - it's nobody else's business (bar the other mods of the forum).

*That anonymity is double sided too. If a public thread was started it would show who the reporter was - you can imagine the $hite that would ensue from that.

Quazzie

Orion wrote: »

Sometimes they will look ignored.
Sometimes a post is reported that needs no action. So it is ignored.
Sometimes a post is reported that purely results in a PM to the poster and that's the end of it - nothing on thread as it's been dealt with off thread.
Sometimes there's a visible warning or infraction.

Reporting posts is appreciated. But consider it like an anonymous* call to the Revenue. You may never hear the result but what needs to be dealt with generally will be. And imo reporting a post doesn't entitle you to hearing the result. If I give a warning to someone - from a reported post or just one I spotted - that's between me and the poster - it's nobody else's business (bar the other mods of the forum).

*That anonymity is double sided too. If a public thread was started it would show who the reporter was - you can imagine the $hite that would ensue from that.

I'm not sure if you get how the report sig function works. It creates a thread only viewable by admins and the reporter. No one else can see it. When you stated that some reports are ignored because no actions is needed, well thats not entirely true. They weren't ignored, they were consider and it was judged that no action was needed. It's the acknowledgement of the report, no matter what the action is what is being sought. If you read my post again nowhere did I demand action, or demand to know what if any, just that the report was read and considered. After that it's all down to the mods, and I wouldn't have it any other way.

Orion

Quazzie wrote: »

just that the report was read and considered. After that it's all down to the mods, and I wouldn't have it any other way.

I didn't know that about the reported sigs thing. But now that I do it doesn't change my opinion.

My point was - and I probably didn't articulate it well - that by reporting a post you've done your duty. Then, like you said, it is down to the mods. If the mods decide to do nothing or to take action I don't see why the reporter should care anymore.

I report posts occasionally in forums I don't mod. I don't do looking in the Reported Posts forum to see if they've been read, or if I've been thanked, or if there's a discussion about it. Once I've reported it I'm done - over to the mods.

As a mod; when a post is reported I, or one of my co-mods, will deal with it as necessary. But I don't feel obliged to acknowledge that to the reporter just as I wouldn't go looking for it when I report.

Iwannahurl

Orion wrote: »

If the mods decide to do nothing or to take action I don't see why the reporter should care anymore.

So is the Report Post function just a casual, ephemeral sort of thing?

If no action is taken can the reporter conclude that the content of the reported post is acceptable?

And can the reporter, not caring any more, contentedly refer to other members as, say, "Nazis" from now on, knowing that no visible action will be taken?

P. Breathnach

Iwannahurl wrote: »

... If no action is taken can the reporter conclude that the content of the reported post is acceptable?
...

That point deserves attention. The threshold of acceptable behavior seems to vary from one forum to another. If I report a post because I think it is a personal attack, and no action is taken, then I infer something about the threshold in that forum. I might modify my own behaviour accordingly.

Penn

Steve wrote: »

Mostly, when I get a reported post, I will read the thread in the RP forum and if there is a stock response such as "got it" or "sorted" from a co-mod then I breathe & just move on as I know I can trust them to have dealt with it - otherwise I dive in and start to assess the complaint and post my own replt there. Some mods, however, don't reply when they've sorted the issue and this is probably as annoying to me as is the point of this thread as it makes me needlessly read thru may posts just to discover they've already dealt with it.

There surely is merit in a future system that at least lets both the reporter and co-mods know that the report has been ticketed and is being looked at?

Difficult one to implement though as three still needs to be room for mods to collectively think and chat about what needs to be done in the borderline or new cases.

I just tend to thank the reported post to show the co-mods I saw it and have dealt with it, unless I feel the need to post something on the thread to discuss it

Iwannahurl

Orion wrote: »

Sometimes they will look ignored.
Sometimes a post is reported that needs no action. So it is ignored.
Sometimes a post is reported that purely results in a PM to the poster and that's the end of it - nothing on thread as it's been dealt with off thread.
Sometimes there's a visible warning or infraction.

Reporting posts is appreciated. But consider it like an anonymous* call to the Revenue. You may never hear the result but what needs to be dealt with generally will be. And imo reporting a post doesn't entitle you to hearing the result. If I give a warning to someone - from a reported post or just one I spotted - that's between me and the poster - it's nobody else's business (bar the other mods of the forum).

*That anonymity is double sided too. If a public thread was started it would show who the reporter was - you can imagine the $hite that would ensue from that.

What and how do Boards members, individually and collectively, learn from Reported Posts that are just ignored or handled in secret? By way of analogy, how would a game (or the sport) of soccer proceed if any alleged fouls were dealt with unseen and off the pitch in private discussions between a group of refs?

I disagree regarding "anonymity". Firstly, there would be no more and no less anonymity than there is on Boards generally. Secondly, any member ought to be accountable as much for their Reports as for their posts.

What matters, IMO, is consistency, transparency and accountability. I don't care who sees my posts or Reports, or condemns them, because one way or another I am prepared to stand or fall on what I say.

If anything, there is more potential for an opaque Report Post system to be unreliable, unjust and discriminatory. Conversely, Reported Posts that remain in place without qualification only serve, in the eyes of the reporter, to reinforce the belief that there might be discrimination going on.

Orion

Iwannahurl wrote: »

So is the Report Post function just a casual, ephemeral sort of thing?

No. It's a valuable tool. Mods can't read every thread/post. Assistance in reporting posts that may be problematic is very much appreciated.

Iwannahurl wrote: »

If no action is taken can the reporter conclude that the content of the reported post is acceptable?

Not necessarily. A poster may have been a dick and was reported - then the mods may well deal with it off thread via pm. I would usually operate on thread for transparency but not everyone does. E.g. if I banned someone for being a dick I would post on thread saying so. But if I was dealing with someone via pm I might not.

Iwannahurl wrote: »

And can the reporter, not caring any more, contentedly refer to other members as, say, "Nazis" from now on, knowing that no visible action will be taken?

I think you'd find the action would be swift and very visible if someone did this

Orion

Iwannahurl wrote: »

What and how do Boards members, individually and collectively, learn from Reported Posts that are just ignored?

Don't get hung up on the word 'ignored'. They're not and I'm sorry I used the word. Sometimes there is no visible action which may result in the appearance of it being ignored. That's not the same thing.

As others have said if you report a post and nothing happens - and you feel strongly that something should be done (e.g. personal attacks etc) - pm the mods. In my case I would certainly reply and would have no problem explaining the perceived lack of action if that was the case. Or it is possible that the report was missed and the pm would be a notification to act.

If you get no reply from the mods then pm the cmods.

But bear in mind that just because a post is reported doesn't mean that it's in breach of forum rules.

P. Breathnach

Iwannahurl wrote: »

And can the reporter, not caring any more, contentedly refer to other members as, say, "Nazis" from now on, knowing that no visible action will be taken?

Orion wrote: »

I think you'd find the action would be swift and very visible if someone did this

I think Iwannahurl might have picked the wrong illustration to make the point; most people would agree that "Nazi" is an unacceptable word. The real issue is nuancing: it might not be such a clear case if words like "Fascist" or "bully" were used.

Further, the impact of a word can vary depending on how it is used. A mod might disallow a sentence like "You are a Nazi/Fascist/bully" but tolerate "You are behaving like a Nazi/Fascist/bully".

And then we have the artful poster who might say "I don't want to call you a Nazi/Fascist/bully, but ..."

Cases are not always cut-and-dried, and it seems to me inevitable that the thresholds vary from one forum to another. In effect, the mods control the tone of their forums. It is helpful when mods post to clarify what is unacceptable in a particular forum; this usually happens in the context of dealing with reported posts.

Orion

P. Breathnach wrote: »

It is helpful when mods post to clarify what is unacceptable in a particular forum; this usually happens in the context of dealing with reported posts.

Isn't that what the charter is for? Also mods don't necessarily wait for a post to be reported. If we see a breach of the rules it's dealt with. Not every actionable post is reported - even if it should be.

P. Breathnach

Orion wrote: »

Isn't that what the charter is for?

Tone is tricky; you can't spell it out in the charter.

Also mods don't necessarily wait for a post to be reported. If we see a breach of the rules it's dealt with.

I did say "usually"! We frequently see mods explain that no action was taken on a particular post because nobody had reported it, and they don't read every thread in the forums they moderate. Anyway, let's not treat this as contested ground.

Not every actionable post is reported - even if it should be.

That's the way life works. Things are never going to be perfect. The Feedback Forum will always have a function.