Bans and DRP

mitosis

I had been watching with interest a DRP thread. Started in August, the OP contested a weeks ban. The DRP was finally resolved in October with the result that in hindsight the ban was too long for the crime.

In my opinion this is a shambles. The ban has been served a long time before it was discussed and considered mistaken, and cannot be undone.

My suggestion is: Where a ban is disputed it should be suspended until after the DRP has completed. To prevent spurious objections, perhaps a doubling of the ban where it is upheld?

Spear

In that case it would be easy for a troll to prolong their unwanted access to a forum by stretching out and prolonging the DRP thread on it. One rare exception like that thread hardly warrants giving trouble makers another avenue to abuse the site.

Tombi!

Isn't the entire point of the dispute system to dispute the moderator's action and have it removed/downgraded to a lesser punishment?

Spear

The point is to get it reviewed, but that doesn't necessarily mean a reduction. There's been a handful where bans were increased, or sitebans applied instead.

Tombi!

Spear wrote: »

The point is to get it reviewed, but that doesn't necessarily mean a reduction. There's been a handful where bans were increased, or sitebans applied instead.

No, I know that. But isn't the goal of the person disputing to either get it reduced/removed?
So it wouldn't matter so much if it takes a few weeks to sort out a week banned if it gets removed.

Spear

And if someone has a valid case or issue to raise, is it not worth waiting a few weeks to get a proper hearing and vindication, even if it's longer than the ban involved? This is what did happen in the overly long DRP thread being referred to.

But having to automatically lift disputed bans just undermines the ability of mods to stop troublesome posters. The risk of an increased ban, if a dispute is deemed spurious, would also undermine the discretion of mods by arbitrarily inflicting a longer ban than the offence originally warranted. It could also have a chilling effect and dissuade users from questioning bans at the risk of a longer ban.

Tombi!

Spear wrote: »

And if someone has a valid case or issue to raise, is it not worth waiting a few weeks to get a proper hearing and vindication, even if it's longer than the ban involved? This is what did happen in the overly long DRP thread being referred to.

But having to automatically lift disputed bans just undermines the ability of mods to stop troublesome posters. The risk of an increased ban, if a dispute is deemed spurious, would also undermine the discretion of mods by arbitrarily inflicting a longer ban than the offence originally warranted. It could also have a chilling effect and dissuade users from questioning bans at the risk of a longer ban.

The first part was my understanding of the entire process. It's fine if it takes longer than the ban since what would matter would be the fact that there's still a record of the ban?
So (if for example), I get banned from here, dispute it and "win" the dispute, then my account no longer is considered as having a ban from Feedback, right?

Spear

Brutal Deluxe wrote: »

The first part was my understanding of the entire process. It's fine if it takes longer than the ban since what would matter would be the fact that there's still a record of the ban?
So (if for example), I get banned from here, dispute it and "win" the dispute, then my account no longer is considered as having a ban from Feedback, right?

It'll be on record but noted as being reduced/reversed.

Daemos

Spear wrote: »

And if someone has a valid case or issue to raise, is it not worth waiting a few weeks to get a proper hearing and vindication, even if it's longer than the ban involved?

No, tbh. The point of the DRP is to appeal bans or infractions, and hopefully have them overturned. It's pretty pointless saying after the ban has expired that you were right all along. You can't get the time back

I've posted about this before that responses to the DR Forum need to be quicker. And yes, I do realise that mods/admins are volunteers and can't visit daily, and I haven't seen the DR Forum for ages so can't comment on whether it's improved or not, but given the example in this thread there is still a lot left to be desired

Spear

Daemos wrote: »

No, tbh. The point of the DRP is to appeal bans or infractions, and hopefully have them overturned. It's pretty pointless saying after the ban has expired that you were right all along. You can't get the time back

And the point of DRP isn't to undermine or delay bans. Where there's a chance to abuse something, then someone will be there to abuse it. If the DRP is running at the same time as the ban, then at least there's a quicker overall time then applying a ban, awaiting a DRP thread, lifting the ban, and only then processing the DRP thread.

I've posted about this before that responses to the DR Forum need to be quicker. And yes, I do realise that mods/admins are volunteers and can't visit daily, and I haven't seen the DR Forum for ages so can't comment on whether it's improved or not, but given the example in this thread there is still a lot left to be desired

All DRP threads are left public (the legit ones, not the relatively rare timewaster rants/drivel) and aren't archived, so they can be easily and freely viewed by anyone. The timespan thread in question is an extreme case, and the exception shouldn't be the basis of the rules.

-Corkie-

I think the whole thing is a waste of time especially for the Mods, Cmods. Posters are infracted/banned and then start there thread.

It then takes a load of time for a Cmod to read PM`s and previous posts and then reply. I often see totally long winded replies from both poster and Mod. Surley these people have better things to be doing rather than dealing with this crap....

MugMugs

-Corkie- wrote: »

I think the whole thing is a waste of time especially for the Mods, Cmods. Posters are infracted/banned and then start there thread.

It then takes a load of time for a Cmod to read PM`s and previous posts and then reply. I often see totally long winded replies from both poster and Mod. Surley these people have better things to be doing rather than dealing with this crap....

Are you proposing no appeal system?

Steve

Maybe DRP would work better if the mod concerned could reply there and scrap the 'have you discussed it via pm' bit and enforce a rule that appeals have to be in public (except where there is sensitive information involved obviously)?

I've been around here for a bit and IMO this is the major stumbling block for DRP. Having been through a more than a few, I can say it takes frikkin ages to liaise with a cmod and bring them up to speed on everything - and this is no fault of anyone involved, it's just a tedious thing that all involved have to do in order to expose the underlying issue.
From experience, openly discussing things between the parties directly involved generally leads to a more polite and amicable resolution then can be achieved via private messages - that goes for all involved parties.

Overheal

Have the disputer shout something in Klingon like "I declare Khaplokjiy!" at which point there ban is suspended at the DRP becomes a fight to the death, where failure means they are permanently banned from the forum in question. Or the site. It is Klingon after all. Should be to the death.

On a serious note though there should always be aims to smooth and speed the process but the end result is not always that the banned user gets their time back but rather that the ban/infraction doesn't count against them later. The acquittal as it were is pretty important when - if - a user shows up on the moderating radar again. Admins review such things during subsequent DRPs.

-Corkie-

MugMugs wrote: »

Are you proposing no appeal system?

Its hard to say yes or no. The current system is a huge waste of time for the volunteers here, I would be intrested in there opinion as to what they think of it.

I think its silly that someone keeps looking for a ban to be reversed even though its lifted over 2 weeks.

Spear

-Corkie- wrote: »

I think its silly that someone keeps looking for a ban to be reversed even though its lifted over 2 weeks.

Why should some tolerate an injustice, just because it's a short one?

pickarooney

A bit of pragmatism wouldn't go astray. There should be no appeals for warnings or 24-hour bans, IMO.

Spear

pickarooney wrote: »

A bit of pragmatism wouldn't go astray. There should be no appeals for warnings or 24-hour bans, IMO.

I don't have any numbers, just what I've seen from having to read so many DRP threads, but warning/infractions are a very small proportion. Similarly for short bans in the region of less than a week.

Frank Serpico

pickarooney wrote: »

There should be no appeals for warnings or 24-hour bans, IMO.

If that came in, I would invest heavily in the number of 24 hours bans quadrupling overnight (is there a Boards bookies that would take my action?).

I think to solve the problem of the OP, bans should be frozen once they are disputed and then whenever the call is made on whether or not the appeal has been a success or not, unfrozen.

Of course, this will mean that the time spent in the DRP will be time added on to the ban, but that will be the call a user will have to make as to whether or not the risk is worth it or not.

-Corkie-

Spear wrote: »

Why should some tolerate an injustice, just because it's a short one?

The very most of those treads are from specific forums like PI or soccer and 99% are well deserved..

MugMugs

pickarooney wrote: »

A bit of pragmatism wouldn't go astray. There should be no appeals for warnings or 24-hour bans, IMO.

On the merit that your posting / warning ban history has an impact on future bans, I'd completely disagree.

P. Breathnach

-Corkie- wrote: »

The very most of those treads are from specific forums like PI or soccer and 99% are well deserved..

I'd hazard a guess that the 99% is not a fully researched finding. And even if it is in the right ballpark, do the other 1% have to suffer an injustice?

mitosis

I'd hazard there are maybe five new DRP threads a week on average. Maybe someone can confirm or contradict that?

The very very vast majority, therefore, of infractions and bans must be accepted without quibble. How many cards are handed out weekly?

Obviously re trolling posters dragging out their stay, there has to be a degree of pragmatic moderation wherein the Appeals Mod can simply decline the appeal as a nuisance one. But these kind of posters are unlikely to appeal, and more likely to take their punishment (if they are Soccer trolls e.g.) simply create a new account (if they are more general).

I still think it is poor procedure to allow a resolution process to take longer than the punishment being appealed lasts, whether overturned or not, because you start out from the assumption of guilt, and in the event of an overturn the penalty has already been served in part or full.

LoLth

no. you start from the assumption that the moderator acted correctly.

The moderators decision is reviewed by a third party. If there is still disagreement the decision can be reviewed by the admins - thats the disagrement between user and mod, user and cmod, mod and cmod.

Lifting a ban for the duration of DRP is not a workable solution as it is too open to abuse: user trolls, banned, opens DRP, ban lifted, trolls unmercifully and closes account.

The vast vast vast majority of users would not do this or anyhtign like it but its the minority that spoil things not the users just having a laugh or a discussion.

Old way: mods made a decision only comeback was in helpdesk where a user spoke to the admins and all posts were pre-moderated. this was deemed too confrontational as user and mod often went head to head and the pre-moderation was not transparent with (false) claims of posts being hidden on purpose.

DRP gives users the ability to appeal a decision. Sometimes mods dont like the DRP because it feels like they are being questioned, they're not, the decision they made at that point in time is being reviewed by a non-involved third party to see if it was fair or not. If a decision is not clear cut, especially those that involve a mod's "gut feeling" - something which should never be ignored by a cmod or admin by the way - then it becomes more difficult to review the issue properly and thoroughly.

In the DRP thread in question: yes, we took too long. it was a lot more complicated than it appeared on the surface and it requried a lot of discussion behind the scenes and raised some very interesting points that need to be addressed by the admins, cmods and mods.

One thing that would help a lot would be if everyone, users/mods/cmods and admins stopped treating a warning (yellow) as the end of the world or some permanent black mark that will scar them for life. its a warning. thats all. a reminder from the mod that the post is close to crossing the line or has just crossed over it.

Even an infraction (red) isnt the end of the world or a ban for that matter. Its only when there is a pattern of repeated warnings/infractions/bans that things become serious and need to be tackled. many mods, cmods and admins have yellows, reds and even a ban or two from before they were asked to join the mod team. Everyone makes mistakes , misunderstandings happen. It doesnt mean teh user is being marked "do not trust" in any way.

Does the DRP need to be modified: yes it does. absolutely.

Does it need to be removed compeltely: no. imho, that would be a shame and a disservice to the majority of users just to make life easier for the modding team (thats all mods/cmods and admins).

How to improve it and reduce the workload to avoid the delays and workload? Well, this is feedback, please feel free to suggest options that we can consider. I wont guarantee that a suggestion is implemented or even discussed in depth here but you can be sure the admins will discuss all suggestions and then present options to the cmods and mods.

From the user point of view the process should not change: you feel a ban or infraction is unfair, you start the DRP. Thats all the interaction and red tape any user should have to face in order to question a decision. How that question is handled behind the process, thats what needs to be changed to speed things up.

One last point: please dont link to specific DR threads to make a point when suggesting, there may be more to it than you know and it may be information that it would be unfair to the parties involved to provide publicly. If at all possible try to keep suggestions general so they can be applied to the DRP overall and not just to a particular instance or forum charter rule etc.

Ken.

I'm not gonna quote the whole of what LoLth said but in the case you mentioned and in other cases where stuff has to be similarly investigated could the ban in such cases not be suspended.

It happens so irregularly that it wouldn't be a big thing for an admin or cmod to look at the case,confer with their fellow cmods/admins and come to a conclusion that there is a chance this persons ban is in error. Then temporarily lift the ban till the process is completed. If the ban was unfair the user is free to continue posting and if the ban was just it is reapplied for whatever duration it was originally meant to be.

LoLth

ken wrote: »

I'm not gonna quote the whole of what LoLth said but in the case you mentioned and in other cases where stuff has to be similarly investigated could the ban in such cases not be suspended.

It happens so irregularly that it wouldn't be a big thing for an admin or cmod to look at the case,confer with their fellow cmods/admins and come to a conclusion that there is a chance this persons ban is in error. Then temporarily lift the ban till the process is completed. If the ban was unfair the user is free to continue posting and if the ban was just it is reapplied for whatever duration it was originally meant to be.

that is a possibility but you have to remember that mods are humans too and if a mod bans a user for something then, until the review is complete then the mod is right to assume that their actions were correct. What happens if the user makes a similar post and gets a further ban by the same moderator? Do we assume that the moderator was wrong to apply a ban? Do we expect the moderator to leave the post until another moderator sees it and decides? Do we get two DRP threads for the same user about two different mods?

it comes down to this: we select the mods because they are users who have demonstrated an ability to reason well and maintain good judgement 99% of the time. there will be that 1% but until we decide in a review that this is the 1% then we have to trust that the mod was acting correctly. At the end of the day, we have to trust someone and in the best interest of the site we place that trust in the moderators. Do mods make mistakes? Yes they do. And so we need the DRP to bring those situations to light and let us correct them as much as we can and hopefully the mod will learn from that and realise where the mistake was. Are mods punished for making mistakes? No. that would be unfair to ask them to take on a position of responsibility and then beat them for not doing it the way we want it done, exactly the way we want it done, every single time. However, as has been found in the past, if a mod consistently abuses the trust placed in them (and here the DRP can help highlight that too) then we have to reconsider if we were wrong in the first place to appoint that mod. Admins are human too you know (except Ber, she's a troll-stompin' bot we stole from the young scientists expo before the "cake" wore off....).

Thats also why we have multiple levels of review in the DRP. If the cmod makes a mistake the admins might spot it. if the mod, cmod and admins agree then while the possibility of error is there, it is greatly reduced (I wont say its practically zero as I am sure someone's search-fu will prove me wrong )

The argument that it happens so irregularly that it doesnt matter if we lift the ban can be easily applied to the opposite argument. it happens so irregularly that we shouldnt have to make it a rule and instead leave it as an exceptional circumstance, of course, if we make an exception for one, we'll have to make an exception for others and then we'll have to set out strict rules that govern what situation allows for the exception to be made or the precedent will be cited by other users and refusal will just "prove" that we are indeed all against them.

Mods dont, in general, ban for no reason. if they do ban it is usually because they see it as a measure to help the community they moderate continue with day to day business without disruption. To arbitrarily overturn that decision while we deliberate would be quite rightly seen as undoing the work the mods are trying to do and leave them reluctant to make a judgement call in a 50/50 situation which is exactly the situation we (the site as a whole) need them to feel confident enough in their decision making skills. Instead, they would wait until the issue is black and white and the majority of users have had to unnecessarily put up with frustration and annoyance or possibly even abuse.

padd b1975

One thing I noticed about that DRP thread, apart from the time it took to reach a ruling, is that no offer to reply to the ruling was made to the OP.

After waiting very patiently for a ruling, the least he could have been asked was if he was happy with the result before the thread was closed.

LoLth

The user was notified by PM along with the post in the public forum.

the user responded by PM. Any further public posts were unnecessary.

padd b1975

LoLth wrote: »

The user was notified by PM along with the post in the public forum.

the user responded by PM. Any further public posts were unnecessary.

I thought one of the reasons for having a DRP forum in the first place was to show in an open and transparent manner how disputes are dealt with.

Do you not think that by using PMs that it devalued the spirit of openess and transparency?

Why do you think the mods/admins. felt it was necessary to conduct that part of the DRP off the public forum?

Should the fact that these PMs took place have been mentioned in public?

eg. "matter concluded by Pm"

Zaph

padd b1975 wrote: »

I thought one of the reasons for having a DRP forum in the first place was to show in an open and transparent manner how disputes are dealt with.

Do you not think that by using PMs that it devalued the spirit of openess and transparency?

Why do you think the mods/admins. felt it was necessary to conduct that part of the DRP off the public forum?

Should the fact that these PMs took place have been mentioned in public?

eg. "matter concluded by Pm"

The apology was PMd to the poster to ensure he was aware of it in case he didn't see it posted publicly on the thread. His reply was simply an acknowledgement of the apology and he thanked the mod for it. At the same time he apologised for his own behaviour that led to the ban and expressed a desire for everyone to move on from the whole business. There's nothing particularly sinister about the PMs, nor is there anything to hide. It's simply how the whole issue was wound up.

padd b1975

Zaph wrote: »

The apology was PMd to the poster to ensure he was aware of it in case he didn't see it posted publicly on the thread. His reply was simply an acknowledgement of the apology and he thanked the mod for it. At the same time he apologised for his own behaviour that led to the ban and expressed a desire for everyone to move on from the whole business. There's nothing particularly sinister about the PMs, nor is there anything to hide. It's simply how the whole issue was wound up.

O I am not for one second suggesting anything sinister.

My point is that the PMs at that point of the DRP were unnessesary and went against the spirit of the forum.

As you say there was nothing to hide and I accept that 100%, therefore what was left to be said should have been said on the public thread IMHO.

K-9

padd b1975 wrote: »

O I am not for one second suggesting anything sinister.

My point is that the PMs at that point of the DRP were unnessesary and went against the spirit of the forum.

As you say there was nothing to hide and I accept that 100%, therefore what was left to be said should have been said on the public thread IMHO.

I think I've had 5/6 DRP threads as a mod and I'd say all bar 1 was sorted through pm. If the poster is happy enough with the decision arrived at I don't see a need for public disclosure. Posters are entitled to their privacy too.

Zaph

padd b1975 wrote: »

O I am not for one second suggesting anything sinister.

My point is that the PMs at that point of the DRP were unnessesary and went against the spirit of the forum.

As you say there was nothing to hide and I accept that 100%, therefore what was left to be said should have been said on the public thread IMHO.

And as I pointed out, the poster was PMd to ensure he saw the apology. He may not have done so if he stopped following the thread, and therefore in this instance a PM was absolutely necessary. The PM that was sent was exactly the same as what was posted on the thread, and the poster responded to it via PM. That's how he chose to respond, it's outside the control of the mods and admins. There's nothing against the spirit of the forum using PMs in this case, and in fact ensuring the poster got the apology he deserved is very much in the spirit of the forum.

pickarooney

LoLth wrote: »

In the DRP thread in question: yes, we took too long. it was a lot more complicated than it appeared on the surface and it requried a lot of discussion behind the scenes and raised some very interesting points that need to be addressed by the admins, cmods and mods.

I think it needs to be made clearer in this case just what exactly is involved behind the scenes as what happens currently is that admins and CMods are spending hours on back and forth correspondence over a course of weeks and it really just appears to the poster as though he/she has been forgotten about in the hope they'll go away. If you just mentioned up front, for example, that the investigation may take two weeks and involve 20 PMs the OP might realise that he/she is actually occupying huge chunks of a volunteer's free time for the sake of a paltry yellow card on a web forum. I know I'd be embarrassed if I thought I was costing somebody a weekend over something so trivial.