No feedback from the Moderators after reporting inappropriate posts

Deedsie

Hi,

I have reported two posts on the Ray Darcy show thread in the last two days, one about masturbation the other with casual homophobic references. Both posts were removed and rightly so. However it seems neither poster received an infraction or any comment to warn the posters to behave.

Why is there so little infractions handed out on a thread that so many poster break the charter on a regular basis? I'm no big fan of Ray D'Arcy but some of the behaviour on that thread is disgraceful.

Thanks

Overheal

How do you know they weren't actioned?

(Preamble: Mods don't generally need to share actions with the general audience/users - doing so often gives ammunition to their counterparts, especially in debate threads)

Mods can action in lots of ways: infractions directly on the post, you can see. However, if a mod instead adds the infraction to their profile, or bans them, a non-mod has no way of viewing either event; your only way of determining if such a hidden action took place is if the mod makes an announcement on the thread in question - which they can always elect not to do.

Zaph

It's also worth noting that an infraction can be given on a post and then the post removed. As you've noted, the posts have been deleted, but you would have no way of knowing whether or not infractions were given for them.

Deedsie

Overheal wrote: »

How do you know they weren't actioned?

(Preamble: Mods don't generally need to share actions with the general audience/users - doing so often gives ammunition to their counterparts, especially in debate threads)

Mods can action in lots of ways: infractions directly on the post, you can see. However, if a mod instead adds the infraction to their profile, or bans them, a non-mod has no way of viewing either event; your only way of determining if such a hidden action took place is if the mod makes an announcement on the thread in question - which they can always elect not to do.

Zaph wrote: »

It's also worth noting that an infraction can be given on a post and then the post removed. As you've noted, the posts have been deleted, but you would have no way of knowing whether or not infractions were given for them.

I understand that, but even a small acknowledgement that the report was seen and the action taken etc?

Ruu

Some mods might post a note on thread but sometimes it is impossible given the amount of traffic and it is asking a bit much for mods, who are volunteers to start with.

Zaph

Deedsie wrote: »

I understand that, but even a small acknowledgement that the report was seen and the action taken etc?

That's not something we expect mods to do. If some mods want to do it it's entirely their choice, but there's no compulsion for them to do so. All mods are volunteers and we appreciate the time and effort they put into keeping the site running. However adding something to their workload which, let's face it, is merely to satisfy the prurient curiosity of the person who reported the post, achieves little or nothing. What if there was no action taken, as is often the case? At what point would the reporter be satisfied with the action taken? Insisting that mods report what action was taken on every post that is reported would simply become a stick to beat them with before very long and some would spend more time explaining their actions than actually modding.

Nody

Hello Deedsie,

In the thread in question there are 3 post 1 mod warnings (all posted in post 1 as well as in the thread at the time) which even though clearly advertised have resulted in over 15 mod actions. In regards to the Homophobic comments there was a stand alone sticky by Hulla for a month which is now part of the charter thread on the topic as well. Hence there is clearly outlined the expected behavior of people and further on thread warnings is not really needed or expected to make a big difference in posting behavior; esp. on a fast moving thread as Darcy's. Without commenting on individual reports or actions the fact that a post disappears (or ends up edited) should give you a confirmation that it has actually been actioned; any further mod actions against the user is dependent on the user's history and how severe the transgression is and may wary from a PM to the user to a ban from the forum.

padd b1975

Zaph wrote: »

That's not something we expect mods to do. If some mods want to do it it's entirely their choice, but there's no compulsion for them to do so. All mods are volunteers and we appreciate the time and effort they put into keeping the site running. However adding something to their workload which, let's face it, is merely to satisfy the prurient curiosity of the person who reported the post, achieves little or nothing. What if there was no action taken, as is often the case? At what point would the reporter be satisfied with the action taken? Insisting that mods report what action was taken on every post that is reported would simply become a stick to beat them with before very long and some would spend more time explaining their actions than actually modding.

This is untrue, and to be honest, a little unfair towards us users.

I think it's vital that posts that cross the line are visually acted upon as far as practicable.

Why? It creates a benchmark of acceptable standards within a thread and nips any inclination to 'fight fire with fire' or jump on a bandwagon in the bud.
It also gives the Mod presence on a thread which can only be good for behaviour.

MrWalsh

I think that the lack of feedback fosters an environment where people are less inclined to bother reporting posts. Why bother if you never know if anything was done about it?

hullaballoo

MrWalsh wrote: »

I think that the lack of feedback fosters an environment where people are less inclined to bother reporting posts. Why bother if you never know if anything was done about it?

I think this kind of logic fosters an environment where volunteers who rely on reported posts to benefit everyone on the site just go, fcuk the lot of ya.

MrWalsh

hullaballoo wrote: »

I think this kind of logic fosters an environment where volunteers who rely on reported posts to benefit everyone on the site just go, fcuk the lot of ya.

Yeah, probably it does. Which is why feedback would be good, to stop fostering negative environments.

Its been brought up loads of times as something posters would like to see so being smart about it doesnt foster much positivity either eh?

Overheal

I just watched a 9 yr old tattle on a 7 yr old for something trivial.

This is what highlights to me why it's not always a great idea to publicly flay or otherwise grandstand many moderator actions. Because frankly a lot of children use the website despite that being against the terms and conditions.

Tombi!

You'd be surprised (and I mean on forums and well, places in general) how often people will report others just so they get into trouble.

It's like adding a "dislike/thumbs down/etc" button. It's going to cause a lot more problems.

I mean if you really, really must know, you can check the post you reported and see if a card was given. If you see a yellow or red card then you know that the post was given a warning/infraction.
You could also check the person's quoted posts to see if a mod quoted them to say "stop this/behave/banned/whatever".
Of course that above sounds a bit like obsessive behaviour.
But end of the day... does it really matter?

You don't report something to see what punishment was handed out*, you do it so the place is better off.

*obviously certain things like rereg trolls or spammers are reported with the intent for them to be gone

KomradeBishop

Sometimes also though, you're encouraged to report posts that are not actionable by mods, in order to highlight an overall problematic trend in how a poster behaves, to build a history on them - but it's not possible to know when reporting like this, is actually useful to the mods, or is just being a pain in the hole by generating reports that might seem overly trivial.

In general - not just with reported posts - there is a disconnect/gulf between how mods and posters perceive things, so a little bit more feedback might help with that.

Something as simple as: Adding a card to reported posts (not to anyones profile, just post), that is only visible to the person who reported - which displays whether the report has been dealt with or not, even the ability for the mod to add a comment "cheers", or "no need to report this" like you would see in an infraction card - something simple like that, would give people a much better idea if their reports are useful, unhelpful, awaiting action, etc..

hullaballoo

MrWalsh wrote: »

Its been brought up loads of times as something posters would like to see so being smart about it doesnt foster much positivity either eh?

No, you're right. It doesn't and I apologise for being blunt and flippant. I also shouldn't have posted that way considering this thread revolves around a forum I currently moderate. I had forgotten this thread was about Radio.

Nonetheless, the point as badly made as it was, is a valid one. Moderators are not equipped to provide feedback to every reported post to users for many reasons. These reasons will also vary between moderators but for me, primarily they are as follows:

1. If someone is warned by a moderator, that's no one else's business in the main. I am not in favour of moderation by public censure except where it is absolutely necessary.

2. There may be underlying circumstances that mean that it would be inappropriate to let the world at large know why a particular course of action was taken over another. I'll give two examples just to show what I mean:

a. A moderator is concerned as to the well-being of the person who posted the reported post because they are privy to information about that user that gives rise to this. There may be a concern that any sort of censure could be dangerous for one reason or another and the best approach is to approach the user (or have someone else do it) unbeknown to any other user.

b. A new user pops into a forum, breaches the charter, and the moderator responds with a PM sent only to the new user. Publicly calling the new user out is not going to encourage them to come back.

c. A moderator might deem an individual post inactionable but might make a mental note that it's close to the line and to keep an eye on the user. It is inappropriate for this to be communicated to anyone else aside from co-mods in some circumstances.

The above are just two examples of myriad reasons why it might be inappropriate for anyone other than the moderator and the individual to know anything about the issue.

3. It is infeasible for moderators to administer the task of ensuring every reported post is either dealt with publicly or the reporters are informed as to why it is not being dealt with. This might be something that could be fixed by adding a feature such as that suggested by KomradeBishop, that might indicate whether a report has been seen. I don't think much more information than that is needed.

Personally, if I was to ensure every reported post I get is either actioned, or not actioned and the reporters informed, I would spend hours alone at that and would have no spare time left to actually enjoy the site. And, despite the number of forums I moderate, none are peculiarly busy.

4. Some moderators don't use the reported post function. I use it because RPs come to my email and that's handy but that feature doesn't work for everyone. I never look at the Reported Posts forum unless I want to add a note for another moderator but it's not the type of place you could browse just to see whether anyone has reported a post in your forum. Some moderators do what they do simply by reading every post in the forum they mod.

Personally, I prefer to read every post but that's not always possible if I'm afk for a day or two. That way, I find the reported posts feature useful.

5. As someone else pointed out above, some people already abuse the reported post feature and I think that if this gets a reaction that's mandated by a change in the system, that encourages further abuse.

Again, all of the above are just a few from the top of my head as to why moderator reactions to reported posts are less valuable to the good of the site than users knowing what punishment others face, whether that's quite innocently so that they know they ought to be reporting that sort of post or the more sinister reason of looking to get someone they don't like in trouble.

As I said, these are my own reason. I suspect moderators in very very busy forums would focus more on the fact that giving feedback to users who report posts is simply such a time drain that it would be an impossible task to administer.

Buona Fortuna

I'm genna tag this on to this otherwise spent thread. If its worth doing someone will no doubt salute it.

The thread OP is about reporters of posts knowing that they are not firing blanks as it were. I wonder if the opposite is worthwhile. As posters we merrily sail along posting various forms of rubbish and wisdom, until a pm arrives saying that you have been warned, infracted or banned :eek:

I wonder if a user's posts are being reported that they should recive some notification, or some tab in their CP "see reported posts".

I'm not suggesting that the reporters are identified. Just if you post something believing you are the next Mock the Week star, and 4 people report it maybe its pause for thought even if no mod action ensues.

Spear

Being reported doesn't mean validly reported. Anyone could use such a mechanism as a way to intimidate someone when they post. It's for similar reasons there's also no No Thanks button. A lack of feedback may be less than satisfying, but it's better than having a chilling effect on users and their willingness to post.

Buona Fortuna

Spear wrote: »

Being reported doesn't mean validly reported. Anyone could use such a mechanism as a way to intimidate someone when they post. It's for similar reasons there's also no No Thanks button. A lack of feedback may be less than satisfying, but it's better than having a chilling effect on users and their willingness to post.

Spear that's a valid point. I think you are right.

Dan_Solo

hullaballoo wrote: »

I think this kind of logic fosters an environment where volunteers who rely on reported posts to benefit everyone on the site just go, fcuk the lot of ya.

I don't know what mods see to click on when they are given their option on what actions to take against posts, but is it significantly more difficult to add a visible red or yellow card to a post than to enact the punishment? This is without getting into adding a mod decision in text within the post.
And when a single threads has a mix of secret and visible moderation actions for seemingly similarly bad posts (due to moderator discretion) it doesn't do anything at all to raise the standards as nobody knows what the standards are.

Sunflower 27

I agree that if a poster is given a warning or whatever, it SHOULD be made public. Having it visible for some and not others fosters an environment of mistrust and favouritism.

I got a warning in a thread for quoting a mod and suggesting a sticky should be placed on it to say what is and what not acceptable to post about (as posters were arguing amongst themselves about this). Result to me: Warning issued and put on the post.


A day later someone else quoted a mod, saying the exact same thing: perhaps we should have a sticky?

The result: that poster got no warning that I was aware of as it was not publicly displayed.

I think it is fairly clear what precedence this sets.

If it is a site-wide action to give a warning if you quote a mod, then that is fair enough (I get that it stops mods being publicly scrutinised and sure, we can't have that) but at least do it the right way. There should be none of this 'I do it but other mods don't' carry on. And it is carry on.

It is not hard for a mod to click for a warning to be displayed. In fact it is curious that it isn't mandatory.

(Puts on cynical hat). Maybe it suits a mod to place a warning on someone that is posting an unpopular opinion that posters can all thank them for.

I also agree with the point that showing publicly a warning keeps people in check. There would be far less warnings given if we all knew what they were given out for - every time they were given out.

I really don't care about the warning, I broke a rule (I was actually not aware of it so it was not intentional) but I fully accept I deserved a warning, but fair is fair here. It's either all or nothing, anything less than that is sloppy and lazy.

MrWalsh

Im a bit confused (nothing new there really!)..

Are we saying that there are yellow cards and red cards and warnings and infractions but that not all of the above are visible to other users in all cases?

Can there be a warning without a yellow or red card?

Can there be an infraction without a yellow or red card?

Why are some posts deleted but others carded?

Sunflower 27

MrWalsh wrote: »

Im a bit confused (nothing new there really!)..

Are we saying that there are yellow cards and red cards and warnings and infractions but that not all of the above are visible to other users in all cases?

Can there be a warning without a yellow or red card?

Can there be an infraction without a yellow or red card?

Why are some posts deleted but others carded?

Something I got from a mod two days ago:

... you can't see every moderator action on thread - for all you know the user could have been bannrd, could have been given a profile infraction, etc - none of those are visible on thread, so for all you (and I, as I haven't looked into it) know it has been actioned.

Pawwed Rig

Dan_Solo wrote: »

And when a single threads has a mix of secret and visible moderation actions for seemingly similarly bad posts (due to moderator discretion) it doesn't do anything at all to raise the standards as nobody knows what the standards are.

I don't agree. The vast majority of posters seem very clear as to what the standards are. It is only a very small percentage of posts that require any action.

Nody

MrWalsh wrote: »

Im a bit confused (nothing new there really!)..

Are we saying that there are yellow cards and red cards and warnings and infractions but that not all of the above are visible to other users in all cases?

Yes; I can give you a yellow card and delete your post for example (lets take Game of Thrones as an example; you posted in the non book reader about the book for the first time, that's a yellow card and I'd delete your post). I as a Mod in my forum how ever can check any user who's posted in said forums to see their history of mod actions which would not be publically available (it's only of interest when it comes to handing out an infraction; hence I could not check it in this forum for example as I'm not a Mod of this forum).

Can there be a warning without a yellow or red card?

Yes; this can be on thread (Poster XXX tone down your aggressive tone or more general of "It's getting a bit to personal people; tone it down") or via PM ("Tone it down about the pink color not being pink or I'll have to infract you").

Can there be an infraction without a yellow or red card?

No (well technically yes by profile infractions by they would work as a yellow card in reality).

Why are some posts deleted but others carded?

A post can be carded and/or deleted; there's no necessary correlation between the two actions as such. Personally I tend to delete offending posts because, well they are offending but if it's a single word / sentence in a longer post that adds value I'll edit it out instead.

Dan_Solo

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

I don't agree. The vast majority of posters seem very clear as to what the standards are. It is only a very small percentage of posts that require any action.

The number of posts requiring moderation has no connection at all to the point. Why are some moderation actions secret and others not for what appear to be exactly the same moderation issue? If we are all clear what the standards are, as you claim, why do mod warnings (secret and visible) exist at all?
The only case I can see is for abusive PMs where the card isn't for anything in a thread. This isn't what's happening though.

MrWalsh

Nody - thanks for the detailed response.

Nody wrote: »

Yes; I can give you a yellow card and delete your post for example (lets take Game of Thrones as an example; you posted in the non book reader about the book for the first time, that's a yellow card and I'd delete your post).

What is the deciding factor between the entire post being deleted (such that it appears I never posted at all in the thread) or the content of the post being deleted (such that it is clear I posted something unacceptable in the thread) and why are there two different ways of doing this? Is there a set formula?

Nody wrote: »

Yes; this can be on thread (Poster XXX tone down your aggressive tone or more general of "It's getting a bit to personal people; tone it down") or via PM ("Tone it down about the pink color not being pink or I'll have to infract you").

I think the above should be standardised, not some by PM and some in public. Either all one way or the other.

Nody wrote: »

A post can be carded and/or deleted; there's no necessary correlation between the two actions as such. Personally I tend to delete offending posts because, well they are offending but if it's a single word / sentence in a longer post that adds value I'll edit it out instead.

Again, if a post is carded I think that it should stay visible even if the content is deleted OR that all carded posts should be deleted.

Nody

Dan_Solo wrote: »

The number of posts requiring moderation has no connection at all to the point. Why are some moderation actions secret and others not for what appear to be exactly the same moderation issue? If we are all clear what the standards are, as you claim, why do mod warnings (secret and visible) exist at all?
The only case I can see is for abusive PMs where the card isn't for anything in a thread. This isn't what's happening though.

I'm not sure if you're trying to achieve here honestly.

Let's say a poster posts this:

"All mods are **** who should be shot in the head"

Why would this be left up and not deleted and a card/ban be handed out? And if all that's left is an empty post how would you know what the card/ban was for and learn from it?

You took the case of arguing with a mod on thread; that's a sitewide rule as a big no no for ages and if people have not picked it up yet from all the charters etc. yet then nothing is going to change that fact. Half the time I get people complaining "It's not my fault I broke the charter because I did not read it" so why would you think on thread warnings (which assumes you read the post before actioning of it AND the thread does not run away pages upon pages from said warning) would somehow be an improvement?

Multiple times in DRP the argument is "The warning was on another page in the thread" / "I did not see the warning" so why would this now suddenly become a great help in setting the tone when 99% of the posters can grasp the tone with out needing such on thread warnings to guide them?

MrWalsh wrote: »

What is the deciding factor between the entire post being deleted (such that it appears I never posted at all in the thread) or the content of the post being deleted (such that it is clear I posted something unacceptable in the thread) and why are there two different ways of doing this? Is there a set formula?

Mod discretion. Obviously a one liner "Mod sux" is pretty much guaranteed to be deleted while a well thought out post with 5 paragraphs is more unlikely to be fully deleted but in the end it's always mod discretion as each forum has their own standards of posting.

I think the above should be standardised, not some by PM and some in public. Either all one way or the other.

Once again mod discretion; certain forums do better with PMs and others with public warnings.

Again, if a post is carded I think that it should stay visible even if the content is deleted OR that all carded posts should be deleted.

What point is there to show a yellow card without any text (for example)? You don't know what the post said unless you read it so how do you know what the yellow card relates to?

hullaballoo

MrWalsh wrote: »

Im a bit confused (nothing new there really!)..

Are we saying that there are yellow cards and red cards and warnings and infractions but that not all of the above are visible to other users in all cases?

Can there be a warning without a yellow or red card?

Can there be an infraction without a yellow or red card?

Why are some posts deleted but others carded?

I don't know what other mods do but there is something called a profile infraction that can be applied. I've never applied one as a moderator and I'm not entirely sure it's something that's open to anyone who isn't an admin or some other manner of overlord. I've only ever applied an infraction (i.e., red/yellow card) for a post as a moderator.

There are also PM warnings, which might be used where a post is close to the line but not worthy of a yellow. Or, on the other hand, it might be more appropriate to PM a member instead of giving a red/yellow card if they are new to the site or forum.

In terms of deleting posts, different moderators probably have different approaches but I would delete a post if it is particularly offensive or potentially troublesome for the site or completely off topic. If a post is simply trolling or disruptive, it will probably be deleted. However, in my view, it is preferable where possible to leave posts visible with a note as to any moderator action taken in relation to it, so that people can gauge what type of post breaches the charter etc. It is simply not always possible to leave certain posts visible and by deleting a post to which a warning or infraction has been applied necessarily removes from public view any record of such an action having taken place.

The role of a moderator very much janitorial and if there's a mess, it has to be dealt with on that basis. We are not in a position to manage every situation that we encounter on some sort of regimented, pre-mandated basis because of the nature of the site. As such, we have to use our own discretion at times in order to deal with certain messes. It's not possible for a janitor to use a mop to clean up every mess that s/he comes across in the same way as it's not possible for a moderator to use one tool to deal with every situation that arises on boards.

In my own personal opinion, the card system does not help moderators in general. There are some exceptions like the Soccer forum where moderation is so strict that the moderators there have very little discretion. The red and yellow card system gives rise to situations such as this where moderator actions are seemingly publicly viewable but they're not really. The whole system means that users are inevitably confused by it. The only benefit is for higher-ups who can use it as a measure of the overall behaviour of a member and whether that merits some sort of site-wide action. On the other hand, the infraction system unnecessarily fetters moderator discretion to apply sanctions that are appropriate for the level of the rule breach.

That said, it seems that there is a broad preference in favour of transparency over efficacy so I can see why the card system is preferred to the old system where moderator actions were potentially totally invisible if any given moderator felt that suited them better. (Personally, if I was ever to be sanctioned by a moderator, I'd prefer it to be a quiet word in my ear than a public flogging but that seems to be a minority view.)

Dan_Solo

Nody wrote: »

I'm not sure if you're trying to achieve here honestly.

Let's say a poster posts this:

"All mods are **** who should be shot in the head"

Why would this be left up and not deleted and a card/ban be handed out? And if all that's left is an empty post how would you know what the card/ban was for and learn from it?

I think your example is being deliberately obtuse. You know full well that posts of that nature aren't up for debate. They're abuse in anybody's book. I never questioned deleting posts in any case, so perhaps you have me confused with somebody else?

Nody wrote: »

You took the case of arguing with a mod on thread; that's a sitewide rule as a big no no for ages and if people have not picked it up yet from all the charters etc. yet then nothing is going to change that fact. Half the time I get people complaining "It's not my fault I broke the charter because I did not read it" so why would you think on thread warnings (which assumes you read the post before actioning of it AND the thread does not run away pages upon pages from said warning) would somehow be an improvement?

This is also disingenuous. Sunflower 27 (not me as you are incorrectly stating) isn't contesting the warning about discussing moderation at all. He was very specific about this.
The question he asked was why what you are confirming is a "sitewide rule" can be ignored due to moderator discretion.

Dan_Solo

Nody wrote: »

What point is there to show a yellow card without any text (for example)? You don't know what the post said unless you read it so how do you know what the yellow card relates to?

That's more or less the opposite of what is being asked.
If a post isn't so bad that it has to be deleted but is infracted, then what is the advantage of NOT making the card public?

Sunflower 27

Nody wrote: »

You took the case of arguing with a mod on thread; that's a sitewide rule as a big no no for ages and if people have not picked it up yet from all the charters etc. yet then nothing is going to change that fact. Half the time I get people complaining "It's not my fault I broke the charter because I did not read it" so why would you think on thread warnings (which assumes you read the post before actioning of it AND the thread does not run away pages upon pages from said warning) would somehow be an improvement?

Was this in relation to me? I think arguing with a mod is a stretch when you suggest a sticky because people are supposedly posting things they were apparently not meant to be posting over and over again.

A suggestion done in a courteous manner does not equate to arguing. But if it is the case that we can't quote a moderator - ever - then OK I get that. But surely, that should be site-wide and the 'punishment' dished out should be the same in every case. it should be shown on site in every case.

Nody

Dan_Solo wrote: »

That's more or less the opposite of what is being asked.
If a post isn't so bad that it has to be deleted but is infracted, then what is the advantage of NOT making the card public?

But a public card is only of use if you know why a card was handed out; an empty post (or a post with the <issue> deleted) with a card is meaningless for correcting behaviour if you did not read the thread before. Since the editing out of the <issue> would not list the exact reason for edit the only person(s) who can adjust their posting from it are the people who read the post before.

This means that the only time you'd be able to know why a card was given to a user AND know what was written is in case of low level issues left on thread. In all others it would say for example "Mod: Stop calling people names" but if you did not read the post you don't know what insults/words was considered to be name calling and what would not be.

This is why I'm having trouble seeing why you'd insist on all cards being visible because it's only relevant if you know what was deleted from the post (be it the full post or the <issue> part of the post).

Sunflower 27 wrote: »

Was this in relation to me? I think arguing with a mod is a stretch when you suggest a sticky because people are supposedly posting things they were apparently not meant to be posting over and over again.

A suggestion done in a courteous manner does not equate to arguing. But if it is the case that we can't quote a moderator - ever - then OK I get that. But surely, that should be site-wide and the 'punishment' dished out should be the same in every case. it should be shown on site in every case.

I got no clue to what thread or post it relates to so I can't comment on your specifics in this case but in general commenting on a mod decision on thread = off topic and arguing with mod. If someone thinks a mod decision is wrong it should be done via PM and that's common rule throughout boards. I've issued cards for it, I've seen cards issued for it and I've seen mods giving people one chance not to comment further before issuing cards or adding "Don't respond to this on thread" and yet people still ignore it and comment on it. Which triggers an off topic discussion in the thread with people joining in etc. which is why it's a no go in the first place. I have no issues discussing my mod decisions but that's always done off thread to avoid pulling a thread off topic OR in an approved dedicated thread (i.e. using GoT again we set up a Moderator feedback thread for example).

Dan_Solo

Nody wrote: »

But a public card is only of use if you know why a card was handed out; an empty post (or a post with the <issue> deleted) with a card is meaningless for correcting behaviour if you did not read the thread before. Since the editing out of the <issue> would not list the exact reason for edit the only person(s) who can adjust their posting from it are the people who read the post before.

This means that the only time you'd be able to know why a card was given to a user AND know what was written is in case of low level issues left on thread. In all others it would say for example "Mod: Stop calling people names" but if you did not read the post you don't know what insults/words was considered to be name calling and what would not be.

This is why I'm having trouble seeing why you'd insist on all cards being visible because it's only relevant if you know what was deleted from the post (be it the full post or the <issue> part of the post).

Why are you insisting again I am talking about cards not being visible for deleted posts? I am talking about cards not being visible for posts which have received an infraction which are NOT deleted. (well I am talking about it now, this was originally Sunflower 27's point, not mine).

Dav

Mods have the discretion to act as they see fit in the best interests of the discussion and/or the community and/or the site in some cases. We are not going to try and take that discretion away by having fixed and inflexible rules for the sorts of rules lawyers muppets who make moderation a soul destroying exercise (and we've all seen plenty of them and yes, they are muppets, they're well aware of what they're doing).

Dan_Solo wrote: »

Why are you insisting again I am talking about cards not being visible for deleted posts? I am talking about cards not being visible for posts which have received an infraction which are NOT deleted. (well I am talking about it now, this was originally Sunflower 27's point, not mine).

This doesn't happen, it can't. Cards are automatically displayed on a post that receives an infraction or warning - it's part of the software.

KomradeBishop

To be honest, the whole idea of 'mod discretion' often allows mods to just pick and choose when rules apply (even when they actually don't apply), and often this is accompanied with accusations of 'rules lawyering' when inconsistency in the rules is pointed out - which is used as a bit of a "mods can never be wrong" trump card sometimes.

There are valid uses/needs in both cases - mod discretion is obviously needed, and rules lawyering does happen - but the 'rules lawyering' excuse is often used as a cover for mod screwups (or when mods don't care if a rule is applied inappropriately, but are gunning for someone anyway), or to threaten users who criticise/contest mod decisions (even when done through proper channels, and when the criticism is valid).

Often it is mods who engage in rules lawyering really - I would say that this counts for quite a large proportion of overall 'rules lawyering' - take the example of the poster above, who was warned for replying to a mod post, even though the reply was harmless and they weren't causing any trouble - there is supposed to be the idea that there is 'mod discretion', yet often mods engage in rules lawerying in a "computer mod says no" fashion, to insist that a warning is upheld, even when (in the example of the above poster) there is clearly mod discretion available for reversing a warning placed on a harmless post.

hullaballoo

KomradeBishop wrote: »

To be honest, the whole idea of 'mod discretion' often allows mods to just pick and choose when rules apply (even when they actually don't apply), and often this is accompanied with accusations of 'rules lawyering' when inconsistency in the rules is pointed out - which is used as a bit of a "mods can never be wrong" trump card sometimes.

Where is this happening?

I would be very uncomfortable with a situation where moderators are going rogue and applying rules they've made up in their head without the DRP picking up on it.

I don't think moderator discretion covers some sort of making-it-up-as-we-go-along scenario - in fact, I think this thread has painted quite a clear picture of when and where moderator discretion is applicable. It is used as a means to enforce the rules that actually exist.

I'd just like to point out (not directed at you, KB), that I find the term 'rules lawyering' hateful and meaningless. The site has empowered moderators with the interpretation of the rules. If a further interpretation is required, it can be done via the DRP. I think the term is supposed to refer to people who are trying to plaster their own interpretation over the rules to aid their case. It's insulting to lawyers to make the comparison tbh.

Sunflower 27

KomradeBishop wrote: »

To be honest, the whole idea of 'mod discretion' often allows mods to just pick and choose when rules apply (even when they actually don't apply), and often this is accompanied with accusations of 'rules lawyering' when inconsistency in the rules is pointed out - which is used as a bit of a "mods can never be wrong" trump card sometimes.
.

Of course this is the case, but I don't imagine any mod is going to say they agree.

Mod discretion sounds good, but I wonder who it actually benefits, because it sounds to me like me it only benefits the mods who can pick and choose which posters to publicy attempt to "shame" by warnings and what-not and which not to.

I enjoy posting on boards, but if we are honest, there are quite a few times where I have seen a mod response that I have thought was nothing more than them bowing to public opinion.

MrWalsh

hullaballoo wrote: »

Where is this happening?

Of course this is happening. But because some mod actions are secret there is no way for a user to show this is happening.

But over time you occasionally find out thing because a user PMs you or because it happens to you.

KomradeBishop

hullaballoo wrote: »

Where is this happening?

I would be very uncomfortable with a situation where moderators are going rogue and applying rules they've made up in their head without the DRP picking up on it.

I don't think moderator discretion covers some sort of making-it-up-as-we-go-along scenario - in fact, I think this thread has painted quite a clear picture of when and where moderator discretion is applicable. It is used as a means to enforce the rules that actually exist.

I'd just like to point out (not directed at you, KB), that I find the term 'rules lawyering' hateful and meaningless. The site has empowered moderators with the interpretation of the rules. If a further interpretation is required, it can be done via the DRP. I think the term is supposed to refer to people who are trying to plaster their own interpretation over the rules to aid their case. It's insulting to lawyers to make the comparison tbh.

Ya I dislike the term rules lawyering myself, it's a term I think is incorrectly/inappropriately used at times.

I have an example of (what I view as) inappropriate throwing around of the rules lawyering accusation, in response to inconsistent application of the rules (which there are innocent/understandable reasons for on part of mods), but - long story short - I can't post it because, funnily enough, it'd be against this subforums rules.

Dav

MrWalsh wrote: »

Of course this is happening. But because some mod actions are secret there is no way for a user to show this is happening.

But over time you occasionally find out thing because a user PMs you or because it happens to you.

They're not secret to me or the Admins and if a mod pulls that sort of stunt, they don't remain a mod - in fact, they don't remain a member on this site.

To hullaballoo: I appreciate the point re: the term Rules Lawyering - common parlance we can agree, but something I'll try to avoid using because that doesn't make it right.

MrWalsh

Dav wrote: »

They're not secret to me or the Admins and if a mod pulls that sort of stunt, they don't remain a mod - in fact, they don't remain a member on this site.

What I am saying is that I cannot (nor can other ordinary users) show you where inconsistent rule application is happening very easily when some mod actions are invisible from ordinary users.

And with respect, I dont imagine you have the time nor the inclination to be going over every single mod action daily?

And even if an example was made clear, certainly my perception is that the mods and admins will "circle the wagons" (sorry I cant think of a better phrase) and us users will just be told that some things are mod discretion only - because its not in Boards best interests for mods to be made look bad in public.

K-9

Sometimes its best for the thread and everybody's sanity to delete loads of crap, no record would be visible but chances are ye are missing nothing.

As regards discretion, we do need room to make decisions and not just be ticking boxes. Rules lawyers are the death of forums and serious time wasters for both users and the mod team.

You'll often see the essay posts dealing with every single possible point, and often they might be right in minute points, but they are so focused on the minutae they don't get the bigger picture.

K-9

Sunflower 27 wrote: »

Of course this is the case, but I don't imagine any mod is going to say they agree.

Mod discretion sounds good, but I wonder who it actually benefits, because it sounds to me like me it only benefits the mods who can pick and choose which posters to publicy attempt to "shame" by warnings and what-not and which not to.

I enjoy posting on boards, but if we are honest, there are quite a few times where I have seen a mod response that I have thought was nothing more than them bowing to public opinion.

Tbh that's very unfair on mods, and it's so wide ranging and cynical I just don't know how I could allay your fears. It just doesn't tie in with my experience of mods I've worked with.

Dav

MrWalsh wrote: »

What I am saying is that I cannot (nor can other ordinary users) show you where inconsistent rule application is happening very easily when some mod actions are invisible from ordinary users.

And with respect, I dont imagine you have the time nor the inclination to be going over every single mod action daily?

And even if an example was made clear, certainly my perception is that the mods and admins will "circle the wagons" (sorry I cant think of a better phrase) and us users will just be told that some things are mod discretion only - because its not in Boards best interests for mods to be made look bad in public.

Your perception and our realities are 2 very different things, especially considering you have no idea what communication goes on behind the scenes nor what I do and don't read. I don't read every mod action, I don't need to - I trust our mods. I read things that get reported to me to read. That's quite a lot of stuff and it does take quite a lot of my day - my job is, after all, support the mods. Humans are great at seeing patterns, it's one of the reasons we're able to beat computers at a lot of things. We're also great at spotting patterns that aren't there and selectively picking out data to support our hypothesis - that's why we have (or try to have) many eyeballs on many things to get consensus and head-check ourselves.

When people on this forum talk about circling the wagons etc, very, very few of them are willing to see or understand that the reason you see Mods and Admins all saying the same thing in those times is because those are the rules. If you think that the Mods and Admins agree on everything or have some sort of agenda to support each other no matter what, then you are grossly misinformed.

There is one more thing too that no one wants to say, but I'm going to. Sometimes there are people that you can only describe as arseholes who have little for doing than causing stress. We are, if anything, far too soft on these types, but the community wants accountability and transparency and I support that, so we have to show why someone's an arsehole and why we want them gone. When some of said arsehole's cronies start weighing in and muddying waters with half-truths and selective telling of events what happens? We see steaming piles of ..... of threads (and I'm not for one minute suggesting that this thread is even remotely close to this sort of thing by the way) and nothing but stress for 3 days for all concerned.

Now ask yourself this, if you were a volunteer and you thought, even for a second, that you might be slightly out of line, and knowing that this sort of thread I mention above is the potential result, would you go ahead and ban someone just because they ticked you off or they made a point you personally disagree with?

These issues keeps coming up and we're blue in the face telling people.

We will not be sending an acknowledgement of reported posts - it's not something that's easy to implement technically, nor is it something I would ask any mod to manually do. And above all else, and I say this with the greatest of respect and sincerest of thanks to all members of the site for making the reporting process work: it's none of your business what happens unless you're the one that's been reported.

We will not be getting a definitive and exhaustive list of what's allowed and what's not - aside from it being an impossibility, we have no interest in operating the site in that way.

We will not be insisting on standardised responses to rules breaches either - again, far too restrictive and unworkable. Every forum is different and some people either don't or won't accept this is the case, but that isn't going to change.

There aren't many hard and fast rules on the site (I'm actually in the process of re-doing them for clarity), but they're all common sense ones - don't be a dick, don't derail threads questioning what mods are at, don't post about illegal stuff and don't threaten to sue someone.

We've definitely got room for improvement in how all of this stuff works, I'm not suggesting it's perfect, but it is a process we've been refining for fifteen years and in that time we've gotten a pretty good idea of what we're at and what works or won't work. If people could give *US* the benefit of the doubt, that would be great and we'll give them the benefit of the doubt when they've made a mistake - everyone wins. It's easy to type something silly and forget where you are, especially if you're talking with friends and so on. A polite PM solves 90% of issues, but a polite PM is an unfortunately rare thing.

Sunflower 27

K-9 wrote: »

Tbh that's very unfair on mods, and it's so wide ranging and cynical I just don't know how I could allay your fears. It just doesn't tie in with my experience of mods I've worked with.

I don't need you to allay my fears. This doesn't keep me up at night. I don't think it unfair at all. I am not saying it is ALL mods, but certain forums, AH in particular, is a clear breeding ground for mods enjoying flexing their muscle.

Just an observation and something many others have said to me over the years on here (I was here before but left and came back, hence the post count).

MrWalsh

Dav wrote: »

Your perception and our realities are 2 very different things, especially considering you have no idea what communication goes on behind the scenes nor what I do and don't read.

Well thats exactly the point Dav. There is no transparency of what goes on behind the scenes so I cannot see your reality. Obviously I am only aware of my own perception. This is why this thread exists, and I have seen other threads over time where users have requested some kind of visibility of reported posts and if they were actioned or ignored or whatever.

However, it is clear that you do not want this.

I will bow out now as I am aware that raising ones head above the parapet to ask such questions is a risky business.

Sunflower 27

Dav wrote: »

Mods have the discretion to act as they see fit in the best interests of the discussion and/or the community and/or the site in some cases. We are not going to try and take that discretion away by having fixed and inflexible rules for the sorts of rules lawyers muppets who make moderation a soul destroying exercise (and we've all seen plenty of them and yes, they are muppets, they're well aware of what they're doing).

I think that is unfair and dismissive. I also think it leaves plenty of room for people to feel as if they have been treated unfairly. Not everyone that questions a warning is a muppet. Many just want to know why what is good for some is not good for others. And that is entirely fair enough. If you are given a warning for quoting a mod and the next person that does it isn't show to be reprimanded the same way, of course people are going to get miffed. It's human nature.

If there is to be no standardising of warnings and bans, and by that I mean all of them being made public, then you (mods in general) open themselves up for questioning and ridicule.

You may see it as not wanting to take away that mod discretion, but then if that is the case, you can expect people to question it because it clearly is unjust to have some outcomes for some and other outcomes for others.

K-9

Sunflower 27 wrote: »

I don't need you to allay my fears. This doesn't keep me up at night. I don't think it unfair at all. I am not saying it is ALL mods, but certain forums, AH in particular, is a clear breeding ground for mods enjoying flexing their muscle.

Just an observation and something many others have said to me over the years on here (I was here before but left and came back, hence the post count).

Flexing their muscles!

AH is so busy it's a tough and time consuming job to mod. Tbh while us mods have disagreed with mod decisions I don't think I've ever doubted the intentions of mods I've worked with.

Sunflower 27

K-9 wrote: »

Flexing their muscles!

AH is so busy it's a tough and time consuming job to mod. Tbh while us mods have disagreed with mod decisions I don't think I've ever doubted the intentions of mods I've worked with.

That's OK. We will agree to disagree on this one

Dav

Sunflower 27 wrote: »

I don't think it unfair at all. I am not saying it is ALL mods, but certain forums, AH in particular, is a clear breeding ground for mods enjoying flexing their muscle..

I have been seeing statements like this for years - see my previous point re: selective data samples. The AH mod team is the biggest on the site, do you not think they don't check in with one another and make sure they're being as consistent as they can be? What you're suggesting simply doesn't add up. Given how busy AH is, the Admins and I are always available to them too for advice and guidance and they regularly make use of us because they have no interest in making stress for anyone.

MrWalsh wrote: »

Well thats exactly the point Dav. There is no transparency of what goes on behind the scenes so I cannot see your reality. Obviously I am only aware of my own perception. This is why this thread exists, and I have seen other threads over time where users have requested some kind of visibility of reported posts and if they were actioned or ignored or whatever.

However, it is clear that you do not want this.

I will bow out now as I am aware that raising ones head above the parapet to ask such questions is a risky business.

Just imagine for a moment that the entire process was transparent. How is a team of people meant to have a discussion about what someone has done and what actions it warrants when the person they're discussing is reading it? How on earth could that work? Explain it to me, cause I'm working at this for the last 6 years and I've been a volunteer here since we started having volunteers in 2000, and nothing I have ever seen has indicated to me that what you're proposing will result in anything other than chaos and upset. And hey, if you've (not you personally, I mean the rhetorical you) done something that warrants moderator attention, then you're the one at fault, not the mods for trying to clean up your mess.

And here I am trying to answer your questions and we get that stupid statement about heads over parapets. Do you see why no one wants to deal with people like you (and NOW I mean you personally)? I've given you an answer, you don't like it, you make some sort of "oh look, they're out to get me, beware everyone" and then you'll use this thread as justification for causing more stress when you next break a rule (and you will because you've already got a history of it). That's a pattern we see time and time again.

Sunflower 27 wrote: »

I think that is unfair and dismissive. I also think it leaves plenty of room for people to feel as if they have been treated unfairly. Not everyone that questions a warning is a muppet. Many just want to know why what is good for some is not good for others. And that is entirely fair enough. If you are given a warning for quoting a mod and the next person that does it isn't show to be reprimanded the same way, of course people are going to get miffed. It's human nature.

If there is to be no standardising of warnings and bans, and by that I mean all of them being made public, then you (mods in general) open themselves up for questioning and ridicule.

You may see it as not wanting to take away that mod discretion, but then if that is the case, you can expect people to question it because it clearly is unjust to have some outcomes for some and other outcomes for others.

No, it absolutely isn't. The real world does not work that way, how and why should it? This is not a single site, it's a collection of communities. They're all different. They're all supposed to be different, otherwise what's the point?

Here's the most obvious and clear cut reason why it can't work the way you think it should...

2 posts appear on a forum - both of them are talking about a subject that is taboo or that has been deemed inappropriate. Both posts are by someone who's been a member for a month, both get reported. The first shows that the member who posted it is a re-reg of a known idiot. It gets nuked and the idiot gets permanently site banned. The second is from a brand new member who simply didn't realise that the particular subject was trouble. It gets deleted and they get sent a PM from a Mod saying "hi there, we don't discuss this subject for <reasons>" and that's that.

2 radically different results to the same issue. You're proposing that we should treat both of these cases the same and I'm telling you why we can't or won't. Now of course, we can say "well obviously that doesn't apply because of the first person being a re-reg" and so on. So then we have to have an exception which has to be written down somewhere for the sake of clarity for people who are too ignorant to care about rules anyway.

Then we add "well obviously this second person shouldn't get off without a ban just because they're new and they didn't read the rules" and so now we have two exceptions to what was a black and white rule as you proposed.

What then when we have to add an exception for "Well I didn't see that the mod had posted a warning in the thread because I was typing a multi-quote response to 4 different people?" Suddenly your proposed black and white rule has layers of clauses and subsections all of which simply serve to confuse the issue and give numpties something they think they can fight over where as if we simply say "hey mods, do what you think is right and in the best interests of the discussion and community" then all of that stops being an issue.

*IF* there's an abuse of a mod's position, it's very obvious very quickly to an Admin or I if it's kicked up the line to us (and as I said, it frequently is). I can count on one hand the number of times this has turned out to be the case since I've been a member of this site, never mind an employee - that's because we pick people who are smart and not inclined towards being a numpty themselves to be moderators - some people are better at this sorta thing than others.

I don't know why people cannot accept that we have been down all these roads many, many times before - this site is practically ancient in terms of the internet and as I said previously, our policies are based on experience of what works for us and what works when you factor human behaviour into the equation.

KomradeBishop

Dav wrote: »

Just imagine for a moment that the entire process was transparent. How is a team of people meant to have a discussion about what someone has done and what actions it warrants when the person they're discussing is reading it? How on earth could that work? Explain it to me, cause I'm working at this for the last 6 years and I've been a volunteer here since we started having volunteers in 2000, and nothing I have ever seen has indicated to me that what you're proposing will result in anything other than chaos and upset. And hey, if you've (not you personally, I mean the rhetorical you) done something that warrants moderator attention, then you're the one at fault, not the mods for trying to clean up your mess.

A different topic, but people are entitled to this information due to data protection:
https://www.dataprotection.ie/docs/Accessing-Your-Personal-Information/14.htm

I agree with you though, that you can't have everything open and public all the time - but consider as well that discussions that happen behind the scenes, are ones where a poster doesn't have any right of reply to defend themselves, or to contest/correct any (innocently) misleading/mistaken claims about them - which is a way that biases can (again, innocently) be built up.

Just to disclaimerize a bit: I know mods/admins do their best to keep things running smoothly, and are under a high amount of workload, and appreciate all of that - so I wouldn't attribute any potential fault/bias on mods/admins part to bad intent or anything, only to perfectly normal human mistakes/biases.