Reporting Mods.

Delirium

Brown Bomber wrote: »

OK, you are misunderstanding me. I am only talking of the occasions when a mod considers that the charter has been breached but they consider the best course of action to take is have a word in secret with the offender and ignore any potential victim(s).

It's like I said before, I can't see any benefit at all giving the false impression that you are ignoring rules and posters who have taken the time to report posts.

well unless the mods of a forum are consistently moderating via PM to such an extreme as to give the impression of an unmoderated forum, I don't see what the problem is. The poster made their report. There is no mention anywhere on the site that they will be PM'ed with a mod update on their report if action doesn't occur on thread.

Could you give me some kind of idea how often that you would do this on an average day?

I'm not a mod, so the perception of ignoring reported posts doesn't apply.

Insect Overlord

kneemos wrote: »

Reported mods.Should be fairly quite I'd imagine.

You're hilarious. That would be some really weird voyeuristic stuff.

kneemos

The_Morrigan wrote: »

You want an open forum that just shows posts from moderators that have been reported?

Wha.
Action taken against reported mods.

The_Morrigan

kneemos wrote: »

Wha.
Action taken against reported mods.

I have no idea what you're on about

El Weirdo

kneemos wrote: »

Wha.
Action taken against reported mods.

I fail to see the point in this.

As has been said countless times before, mods are just regular users outside the forums that they mod. Why should they be treated any differently?

kneemos

The_Morrigan wrote: »

I have no idea what you're on about

Have you read the thread?It's about reporting mods.
When someone reports a mod the action is shown in an open forum.Simples.

The_Morrigan

kneemos wrote: »

Have you read the thread?It's about reporting mods.
When someone reports a mod the action is shown in an open forum.Simples.

Why though?

..and yes I have read the thread, you still don't make any sense.

kneemos

El Weirdo wrote: »

I fail to see the point in this.

As has been said countless times before, mods are just regular users outside the forums that they mod. Why should they be treated any differently?

People were on about PMing every reporter,just offering an alternative.

The_Morrigan

kneemos wrote: »

People were on about PMing every reporter,just offering an alternative.

Fair enough, but why only applicable to mods?

Beasty

So you think that whenever I report my own post for the info of the local mods the whole site should get sight of it? It becomes a magnet for anyone wanting to sh!t stir it for any mod they don't get on with. "Oh I'll report him and give the whole site a laugh." The whole idea is ridiculous and will basically put people off from taking the roles on in the first place

kneemos

Beasty wrote: »

So you think that whenever I report my own post for the info of the local mods the whole site should get sight of it? It becomes a magnet for anyone wanting to sh!t stir it for any mod they don't get on with. "Oh I'll report him and give the whole site a laugh." The whole idea is ridiculous and will basically put people off from taking the roles on in the first place

Fair enough.

El Guapo!

kneemos wrote: »

Fair enough.

So in summary:

If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

Sounds like case closed to me.

Brown Bomber

SW wrote: »

well unless the mods of a forum are consistently moderating via PM to such an extreme as to give the impression of an unmoderated forum, I don't see what the problem is. The poster made their report. There is no mention anywhere on the site that they will be PM'ed with a mod update on their report if action doesn't occur on thread.

As far as I am aware there is also no mention anywhere on the site that users will occasionally be warned over their infringements in secret. I stress again that no mod update to reporters is necessary; merely an acknowledgement that rules that are supposed to apply indiscriminately are being applied without favour.

Also, I don't see it as a "problem". I see it as fine-tuning. I was genuinely trying to help but some got over defensive as if I was talking about revolution and not evolution.

SW wrote: »

I'm not a mod, so the perception of ignoring reported posts doesn't apply.

OK, but I am 99% certain you were previously. Is this the case?

Brown Bomber

Beasty wrote: »

So you think that whenever I report my own post for the info of the local mods the whole site should get sight of it? It becomes a magnet for anyone wanting to sh!t stir it for any mod they don't get on with. "Oh I'll report him and give the whole site a laugh." The whole idea is ridiculous and will basically put people off from taking the roles on in the first place

I agree. However, it could be an idea for reported posts of mods to go directly into a CMOD/Admin only forum, especially if you are reporting a post of a mod in their own forum

I've been hesitant to report posts of mods ever since one made an off-the-cuff reference to my reporting of him. Something like "why don't you report me for this too like you normally do." I had no idea that all mods could read their own reported posts.

The_Morrigan

Brown Bomber wrote: »

I agree. However, it could be an idea for reported posts of mods to go directly into a CMOD/Admin only forum, especially if you are reporting a post of a mod in their own forum

I've been hesitant to report posts of mods ever since one made an off-the-cuff reference to my reporting of him. Something like "why don't you report me for this too like you normally do." I had no idea that all mods could read their own reported posts.

That won't work as we often report our own posts if we need to draw attention to something - like a re-direct to another forum, which the new forum mods will then need to see. No point only cmods and admins seeing that.

Tokyo

Brown Bomber wrote: »

I've been hesitant to report posts of mods ever since one made an off-the-cuff reference to my reporting of him. Something like "why don't you report me for this too like you normally do."

Did you report the off the cuff reference?

Delirium

Brown Bomber wrote: »

As far as I am aware there is also no mention anywhere on the site that users will occasionally be warned over their infringements in secret. I stress again that no mod update to reporters is necessary; merely an acknowledgement that rules that are supposed to apply indiscriminately are being applied without favour.

Also, I don't see it as a "problem". I see it as fine-tuning. I was genuinely trying to help but some got over defensive as if I was talking about revolution and not evolution.

It's mentioned in the FAQ for the site that mods have discretion on how to handle their moderating duties. Sometimes a polite PM is good enough to deal with a reported post. I'd have no expectation to be kept in the loop after reporting a post. Just because a warning happened via PM doesn't mean the rules haven't been applied.

OK, but I am 99% certain you were previously. Is this the case?

Briefly and for a forum that had little to no reported posts beyond reports for spamming.

If a post is reported, there are at least 3 possible scenarios that can give perception of being ignored.
1. Private PM is sent to offending poster to warn them to be mindful of how they post.
2. Reported post doesn't warrant any action.
3. Mods haven't read the report yet.

Are the mods to flag the post if scenario 1 or 2 have occurred? If a user isn't being infracted or banned, why does the reporter of the post need any feedback from mods? If users have concerns that reported posts are being ignored, then PM mods, or if needs be, the CMods.

Brown Bomber

mike_ie wrote: »

Did you report the off the cuff reference?

It was a long time ago. I honestly can't remember, doubt it though. I rarely report posts.

Tokyo

Brown Bomber wrote: »

It was a long time ago. I honestly can't remember, doubt it though. I rarely report posts.

Reporting posts would be a good first step towards improving the site, before worrying about the fine-tuning of how moderators deal with them.

Brown Bomber

SW wrote: »

It's mentioned in the FAQ for the site that mods have discretion on how to handle their moderating duties. Sometimes a polite PM is good enough to deal with a reported post. I'd have no expectation to be kept in the loop after reporting a post. Just because a warning happened via PM doesn't mean the rules haven't been applied.

I still don't think you are understanding me at all.

I think it is a good thing that mods can be fluid and empowered to handle situations in they way they think is most beneficial.

I do believe that the "polite PM" route can be very effective in letting people know where they stand in an adult way and can contain potential problems before they really start.

I do not believe that every person who reports a posts has an entitlement to be kept in the loop after this.

All reported posts should be considered. After this there are a number of routes to go down.

Mod considers no breach of charter
No action taken.

Mod considers breach of charter.
1. General on-thread warning
2. Specific on-thread warning
3- Secret PM to rule breaker
4. Infraction
5. Banning

3 above is the only scenario where the reporter of the post, someone who quite possibly is the victim of the rule breach, who has played by the rules in not responding to the reported post but reported it in good faith is left in the dark and apparently ignored.

Under all other circumstances it is made clear that the rule breach is not acceptable. This is educational for newer users of the site.

Secret PM's give the appearance of inaction, which is tacit approval of the rule breach while at the same time giving the appearance of sticking two fingers up to the person who has played by the rules and guidelines.

It makes no sense why this would be preferable.

Insect Overlord

Brown Bomber wrote: »

3- Secret PM to rule breaker

3 above is the only scenario where the reporter of the post, someone who quite possibly is the victim of the rule breach, who has played by the rules in not responding to the reported post but reported it in good faith is left in the dark and apparently ignored.

Secret PM's give the appearance of inaction, which is tacit approval of the rule breach while at the same time giving the appearance of sticking two fingers up to the person who has played by the rules and guidelines.

It makes no sense why this would be preferable.

It's preferable because Private Messages are private and none of your business.

Delirium

Brown Bomber wrote: »

I still don't think you are understanding me at all.

I think it is a good thing that mods can be fluid and empowered to handle situations in they way they think is most beneficial.

I do believe that the "polite PM" route can be very effective in letting people know where they stand in an adult way and can contain potential problems before they really start.

I do not believe that every person who reports a posts has an entitlement to be kept in the loop after this.

All reported posts should be considered. After this there are a number of routes to go down.

Mod considers no breach of charter
No action taken.

Mod considers breach of charter.
1. General on-thread warning
2. Specific on-thread warning
3- Secret PM to rule breaker
4. Infraction
5. Banning

3 above is the only scenario where the reporter of the post, someone who quite possibly is the victim of the rule breach, who has played by the rules in not responding to the reported post but reported it in good faith is left in the dark and apparently ignored.

Under all other circumstances it is made clear that the rule breach is not acceptable. This is educational for newer users of the site.

In case number 3 it is also made clear that the rule breach is not acceptable by virtue of PMing a poster.

Sometimes in a fast moving thread it actually makes sense to PM a user rather than warn them on thread if the problem doesn't warrant an infraction/banning.

Secret PM's give the appearance of inaction, which is tacit approval of the rule breach while at the same time giving the appearance of sticking two fingers up to the person who has played by the rules and guidelines.

PMs are private messages, so the secret qualifier is redundant.

And your suggestion of "giving two fingers to the reporter" is unhelpful. The same could be said for not actioning any reported post. You're essentially saying that mods shouldn't be allowed moderate via PM under any circumstance because some posters require all action to be in public. Which puts the "offender" at a disadvantage as it's against the site-wide rules to discuss a mod action on-thread.

It makes no sense why this would be preferable.

Hopefully the examples above give you some idea of when it m,ay be preferable.

Brown Bomber

An File wrote: »

It's preferable because Private Messages are private and none of your business.

I accept this. However they can remain private in exactly the same manner that occurs with an infraction or banning. Do you accept this? The yellow or red card becomes attached to the post along with a private message to the offender.

Do you deny that a secret process of mod intervention to rule breakers gives the false appearance of inaction and therefore gives the false appearance to the average user of tacit approval of this rule breaking?

Brown Bomber

SW wrote: »

In case number 3 it is also made clear that the rule breach is not acceptable by virtue of PMing a poster.

Made clear to who? A solitary person, of itself not a bad thing but ought to be balanced with the baggage of making users feeling ignored for doing the right thing and giving the appearance to everyone else that the offense is acceptable which contradicts the charter and sends out mixed messages.

Insect Overlord

Brown Bomber wrote: »

I accept this. However they can remain private in exactly the same manner that occurs with an infraction or banning. Do you accept this? The yellow or red card becomes attached to the post along with a private message to the offender.

Do you deny that a secret process of mod intervention to rule breakers gives the false appearance of inaction and therefore gives the false appearance to the average user of tacit approval of this rule breaking?

It's not a "secret" process. It's called discretion. You don't need to make a spectacle of the event.

This sounds like the kid in the classroom who tells the teacher when another boy is writing with biro instead of pencil. It's petty and unnecessary and the kid takes satisfaction in seeing someone else getting given out to. There's no need for that here (for misdemeanours that aren't serious enough for cards/bans)

Delirium

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Made clear to who? A solitary person, of itself not a bad thing but ought to be balanced with the baggage of making users feeling ignored for doing the right thing and giving the appearance to everyone else that the offense is acceptable which contradicts the charter and sends out mixed messages.

And in a fast moving thread a mod action to a reported post can be missed by the reporter. Its happened on posts I've reported where the mod warning was a number of pages later.

A mod could choose a different post by the same offender that was also reported to action on. So unless all the offenders posts are marked on the thread or the reporter PM-ed, the issue of perception of inaction will still continue for some posters.

Brown Bomber

An File wrote: »

It's not a "secret" process. It's called discretion. You don't need to make a spectacle of the event.

This sounds like the kid in the classroom who tells the teacher when another boy is writing with biro instead of pencil. It's petty and unnecessary and the kid takes satisfaction in seeing someone else getting given out to. There's no need for that here (for misdemeanours that aren't serious enough for cards/bans)

OK, it is "secret". You are using your discretion to be secretive.

ˈsiːkrɪt/Submit
adjective
1.
not known or seen or not meant to be known or seen by others.

you are misjudging me and leaping to conclusions. It would be more productive here if you could just answer the questions I asked you.

Dozen Wicked Words

Brown Bomber wrote: »

you are misjudging me and leaping to conclusions. It would be more productive here if you could just answer the questions I asked you.

Your last few posts read like you are being deliberately obtuse, but I may have leaped to that conclusion.

Brown Bomber

SW wrote: »

And in a fast moving thread a mod action to a reported post can be missed by the reporter. Its happened on posts I've reported where the mod warning was a number of pages later.

I believe there is now a system in place where mod warning locations are listed in the thread title

SW wrote: »

A mod could choose a different post by the same offender that was also reported to action on. So unless all the offenders posts are marked on the thread or the reporter PM-ed, the issue of perception of inaction will still continue for some posters.

Surely two individual offenses warrant individual responses rendering this irrelevant to what we are discussing. In any case, while I appreciate your efforts to explain things to me I believe we are walking in the mud here.

Insect Overlord

Brown Bomber wrote: »

you are misjudging me and leaping to conclusions. It would be more productive here if you could just answer the questions I asked you.

You have asked several leading questions, and I don't feel comfortable answering them because you designed their phrasing to achieve either a) an answer you'll be happy with which is not actually factual or b) an answer you won't be happy with which will lead to more of the same questions and the thread continuing to go around in circles. You have already set your position, and you're not budging from it no matter what response you get. Answering the questions you asked me would be an exercise in futility.