Collecting feedback on the Dispute Resolution Process

Spear

We've had the Dispute Resolution Process running for several years now, and it's time (with Davs blessing) to gather some general feedback from the users about it.

Are you happy with how it works?
Is it okay for admins to skip the cmod level in clear cut cases?
Should the mods be allowed respond by default?
Is the level of transparency working?
Is the exception of allowing PMs to be posted working?

or more basically:

Is it effective?

Or are there other asepects or suggestions regarding it?

KomradeBishop

There's a feeling/level of 'uphold mod action by-default' about some DRP threads.

Also, sometimes things are sorted out over PM with a bunch of mods, instead of in DRP - and things seem to be evaluated differently in both cases - e.g. PM's can have a wider scope of discussion, that in DRP might feel like it'd get shut down fast.

So on the one hand with DRP, mods and their decisions are publicly on-show and I think that factors in to how DRP threads go (maybe creating a defensiveness bias for mods, towards 'uphold-by-default' and limiting discussion more? I don't know.), which can make PM'ing instead less intimidating - but then the PM's don't have the benefit of transparency like DRP is intended for.


It feels like there can be a dissuasion to post things in DRP - a feeling that it's risky - but if you don't, little things can pile up.

For example, there's a non-zero chance of action against you being escalated, and mods can have unhelpful attitudes such as 'if you keep turning up on our radars you must be guilty' (i.e. some mods judge you on quantity, not severity, of mod action - which is not justified), and its frequently stated that taking up mod time marks you for trouble, which naturally would dissuade you from posting (DRP's put you on the radar even more, and take up more mod time). To be honest, a tiny bit of that feeling applies posting in this thread too - but I've never let that feeling here/DRP/elsewhere stop me pursuing something.

Sometimes as well (with more complicated DRP cases, not the usual shut-and-close ones), mod action can escalate totally unexpectedly, in really odd/unpredictable ways - especially true if there are historically up to half a dozen or more mods/cmods/admins involved, with each one having different interpretations of the past and the present problem - and the more this happens, the less likely it is that any mistakes/injustices by mods will be rectified (unless they are really clear and obvious mistakes).


DRP is effective in easy cases, and I'm sure for the vast majority of DRP cases, but when things get a bit complicated and start to go wrong, it can be a bit of a nightmare.

Skipping cmod in obvious cases is fine. When an action against a poster begins with an admin though, I don't think there's recourse to DRP - which is an issue because admins judgement can be as flawed as mods/cmods.

I thought mods could respond by default - but I've seen mods use rhetorical/smearing tactics to sabotage an appeal before - but then...maybe better that be public on a thread, than done behind-the-scenes.

On the level of transparency: Nobody has any idea what is said, or the information gathered (that the poster may not get a chance to contest) behind the scenes. I don't really have any suggestions here though, because mods need a private place to discuss stuff too.

Have noticed these nuances/problems - but not sure what suggestions to give regarding them.

One eyed Jack

I think it works very well as most moderator actions appear to be resolved at moderator level, without needing to go to DRP forum level. The only thing I wondered though is why is the DRP forum visible?

I think there's enough transparency in the procedure itself, so I'm just wondering would it be better if the forum were made access only and like the Prison forum, a poster who was infracted could only see their own thread.

I think it would be a good thing if Admins could step in at any point to avoid timesink threads, but I understand that they may not want to as reviewing cases takes up a lot of their time.

HanaleiJ5N

Works very well, there may be a perception that the majority of appeals are rejected but as an avid reader of that forum for years now (bit of an embarrassing admission that one) I believe that at least half of the threads started there are frivolous appeals which haven't a leg to stand on and couldn't possibly be overturned. A lot of the thread starters just outright refuse to accept that they have done wrong.

Feedback; have a stickied thread with links to (all?) successful appeals.
Why? So posters can see that some appeals are successful (plenty are), and posters can have examples set out on how to approach their appeal.

Also, I think a lot of people get away with essentially abusing the process. From deliberately omitting relevant (normally incriminating) information (which leads to extra CMOD/Admin work to uncover the whole story) to people who start appeals and come out with accusations of 'circling the wagon' and the like.

Essentially, DR is the courtroom of boards and a certain level of etiquette should be expected. Abuse of the forum should potentially lead to increased sanctions.

Oryx

An extension to the above suggestion: instead of marking threads resolved, mark them 'upheld' or 'overturned'

Beasty

Oryx wrote: »

An extension to the above suggestion: instead of marking threads resolved, mark them 'upheld' or 'overturned'

Many disputes get resolved behind the scenes, not necessarily fully upheld or indeed overturned. Sometimes a ban can be curtailed on the basis of "time served" or a red replaced with a yellow for example. In my view "resolved" is by far the best way of tagging a dispute thread that has been concluded in any fashion.

Spear

Beasty wrote: »

Many disputes get resolved behind the scenes, not necessarily fully upheld or indeed overturned. Sometimes a ban can be curtailed on the basis of "time served" or a red replaced with a yellow for example. In my view "resolved" is by far the best way of tagging a dispute thread that has been concluded in any fashion.

There's also in-between states like "agreement reached" or similar. Resolved at least just means resolved, one way or another.

K-9

From a mod perspective, if somebody makes a false claim I think mods deserve a right of reply, something short and to the point should be enough, so as not to derail the thread.

I wasn't aware until recently we could ask to get involved, mod replies always seem to be deleted so I just assumed we couldn't give our take on it. C-mods see things from a user perspective so DRP threads can be lonely places when all kinds of stuff is thrown at you.

Spear

K-9 wrote: »

From a mod perspective, if somebody makes a false claim I think mods deserve a right of reply, something short and to the point should be enough, so as not to derail the thread.

I wasn't aware until recently we could ask to get involved, mod replies always seem to be deleted so I just assumed we couldn't give our take on it. C-mods see things from a user perspective so DRP threads can be lonely places when all kinds of stuff is thrown at you.

Mod replies are deleted by default. They're only allowed unless explicitly asked, and that permission is also made clear on thread.

Spear

Feedback for the feedback thread...

I've started a thread in site dev to see if we can get the flowchart showing on touch. Apparently it's never been visible for the mobile users.

Dav

Quick answer on that - we can't and won't since touch. will be disappeared permanently in about 3-6 months.

Spear

Dav wrote: »

Quick answer on that - we can't and won't since touch. will be disappeared permanently in about 3-6 months.

Ah, okay. We could possibly rename the charter sticky to make it more obvious then.

muffler

The DRP is imbalanced as I see it from a mods pov. In any dispute you have 2 parties which in the case here is a poster and a mod. The poster has full right to post whatever they like whether it be truth or lies and its up there for all to see but the mod has no right of reply.

The mod's side of the dispute is given either by PM to a Cmod or in a mods private forum. That just throws the transparency aspect of the process right out of the window. But the wider public arent seeing things as they should be seen.

I have strong reservations regarding the posting of PMs. A poster is at liberty it seems to post a PM exchange but a mod cant do so in a public forum unless he gets the poster's permission first.

So for anyone to suggest that the process is biased towards mods is pure folly.

El Guapo!

Dav wrote: »

Quick answer on that - we can't and won't since touch. will be disappeared permanently in about 3-6 months.

Well that's a different matter altogether then. Personally I think that's an absolute disaster.
Getting rid of the touch site is pointless when the apps are absolutely dire.
I bet there's a massive number of members who use the touch site only. Myself included.

Dav

The whole point of building a responsive website is that you don't have a separate www. and touch. it works for both.

Diamond Doll

Dav wrote: »

The whole point of building a responsive website is that you don't have a separate www. and touch. it works for both.

Except when it doesn't.

I've tried Beta on my phone, it certainly doesn't work. The Touch site works very well, and it's what I use most of the time.

The Touch site is actually pretty good, maybe work on improving that? Rather than imposing something new.

I know the Beta site isn't something I'd ever use, either on my phone or my laptop. It's incredibly crap and frustrating.

I'll be sad to stop using Boards if you get rid of the Touch site. But I won't be using the Beta site as an alternative, absolutely not. I'm sure most others won't either.

Dav

It's a Beta - it's incomplete - that's the whole point of beta testing. It takes far more of it's leads from touch. than www anyway - the reason being that more people use a mobile device than a PC when browsing Boards.

Aint Eazy Being Cheezy

I can't see myself using boards either, once the touch site is pulled. The vast majority of my browsing is done on my phone, the full site isn't suitable for this and the beta version is beyond shyte. I think you'd be making a big mistake in getting rid of touch.

Oryx

I realise this is off topic, but I just turned on Beta on my phone. It needs a lot of work. More than 3 months of work. Half the things I tried didn't perform correctly. If that is the only option for phone use, I think Ill be another who drifts away. I hope the fixes are good ones before the change is made. I can get used to the new look, but the functionality leaves a lot to be desired.

I always knew the flowchart didn't appear on touch, I'm surprised those involved didn't seem to realise.

What % of sanctions are overturned in drp? (Just curious)

Penny Tration

Tbh if touch goes, I'll be using boards a hell of a lot less, if at all. The beta isn't something I'd use. Not as it is anyway and I dunno if it'll be much better in 3 months.

As to the drp, I think mods should have right of reply.

muffler

Wow, from DRP discussion/feedback moving swiftly along to touch to beta to.......

Diamond Doll

muffler wrote: »

Wow, from DRP discussion/feedback moving swiftly along to touch to beta to.......

Just to note, it was Dav that brought all that up!

muffler

Diamond Doll wrote: »

Just to note, it was Dav that brought all that up!

A temp ban wouldnt go astray but seeing as its Xmas we could probably excuse him

Zymurgist

Also to be fair the responsive site testing forum is now a ghost town.

A lot of feedback provided and very little acknowledged.

Spear

Getting back on topic...

We've since implemented an archive for DRP threads, much like Helpdesk and N&F have. It should help visiblity and make it less likely for threads to be overlooked and left waiting.

OldGoat

Transparency is overrated. All that becomes transparent in the DRP is belligerence.

Do away with the Admin layer. It's become the normal route rather than a last resort for exceptional and controversial disputes. It's time-sinking just for the appearance of transparency and it's over used.

Create a short list of Cmod volunteers that users can select from if they are not comfortable with their own forums CMod. These volunteer Cmods can call on the other listed Cmods if necessary to discuss the dispute though their deliberations will be private.

Cmods decision is final thus reducing the appeal level to two layers rather than three but allowing the user a choice, a wider scope of 'judge' for their dispute if they feel that the forums Cmod might be showing a bias.

Admin maintain the right to interfere/over-rule with the process at any point.


Too draconian?

Spear

The only thing I'd object to myself there is the option to choose the cmod involved. There's a number of possible issues there, including the perception of bias since it gives rise to the perception that users would choose a cmod that may be favourable to them. And more practical issues that the cmod chosen could be unavailable/diong real world stuff/sick etc, which lead to needless delays in resolution. Additionally it would need tech staff work, which is scare and unlikely therefore.

Penn

OldGoat wrote: »

Create a short list of Cmod volunteers that users can select from if they are not comfortable with their own forums CMod. These volunteer Cmods can call on the other listed Cmods if necessary to discuss the dispute though their deliberations will be private.

Can't see that working. Other CMods wouldn't have access to the relevant mod forums where discussions concerning the user or ban may have taken place.

Beasty

OldGoat wrote: »

Create a short list of Cmod volunteers that users can select from if they are not comfortable with their own forums CMod. These volunteer Cmods can call on the other listed Cmods if necessary to discuss the dispute though their deliberations will be private.

It's got to be a CMod from the category in question, as we cannot see deleted/edited stuff or discussions in relevant mods forums from outside the category we have responsibility for. Certainly within Sports we usually would not deal with anything from any forum where we continue to be active mods anyway. In addition, what if the nominated CMod is simply not available?

There was a very long period when I did every Soccer appeal as Gav is a mod there. At that time there was simply no-one else available at CMod level to consider the appeal.

Oryx

What does an admin appeal add to the process? What do they have access to that cmods dont? Do they ever overturn anything outright based on new info or is it more a case they have the power to grant a kind of benevolent pardon if they see fit?

OldGoat

In my haste to rant I totally forgot that CMods don't have access to other fora. Strike the idea as a non runner.

However I still maintain the the admin layer of the DRP is overused and (mostly) unnecessary.

seamus

Oryx wrote: »

What does an admin appeal add to the process? What do they have access to that cmods dont? Do they ever overturn anything outright based on new info or is it more a case they have the power to grant a kind of benevolent pardon if they see fit?

It adds a sense of fairness. Really it's the pursuit of fairness that causes the DRP to exist at all. It reflects what the original founders wanted but also what the community wants from a site.
It's funny that so many of the people who complain that boards is heavy handed and overmoderated congregate on places like Reddit, where you can be banned and censured with no reason and no route to appeal.

So in the interests of fairness, it doesn't seem right that a poster could have their appeal rejected, ask to speak to someone higher and be told just no, that can't.
But at the same time, a pointless appeal to the admin isn't just a waste of their time. Now everyone's time is being wasted even further.

The "council of mods" idea was one that we came up with way back when we were trying to figure out how to sort this timesink issue. Ultimately the problem is one of resources. These things take extensive development time to implement. Or significant manual effort on the part of one individual to track manually.

So in reality you have to work within the bounds of what's available to you. Big ideas require big effort.

Perhaps there could be a "court of appeals" style hard stop in the process. That is, give the Cmods the absolute power to reject an appeal to Admin and end the process.

It sounds unfair, but hell our actual legal process has this. Cmods (and mods) can easily spot the difference between someone being a dick and a genuine borderline or complicated query.

hullaballoo

What is inherently unfair is the unilateral nature of DRP. It's unfair on mods not to be allowed to reply publicly. Where a moderator has a good reason for taking a particular action but then agrees via PM with a CMod to reduce/rescind the action, their reasoning is unavailable, and that is unfair on everyone. From a moderator perspective, it can often just look like you have gone back over your previous decision but no one except the CMod will ever know why because they rarely post the reasons. From a user perspective, the explanation of rules/nuances of a forum is lost in the ether.

Even more unfair is the unilateral right of appeal to admin. If I disagree with a CMod's decision about an action I have taken, I just have to suck it up and may have to have my time further abused by the appellant.

In the legal system, such fundamentally unfair processes have been weeded out and everything works on a bilateral (or multilateral) basis.

I assume, although I do not know for sure, that the exclusion of moderators whose decisions are impugned is to prevent too-ing and fro-ing in the DR forum. The legal system has an answer to that too because obviously, the same issue could arise in Court.

Post #1: Appellant sets out background and facts and then grounds for appeal etc.

Post #2: Moderator adds any missing background/facts and gives reasons why the appeal should be rejected.

Post #3: Appellant responds but must limit the response to matters raised by the moderator and cannot at this stage bring in any new facts or issues. (If the Appellant strays beyond responding to the moderator, the decision-maker must disregard any newly raised information.)

Post #4: Decision-maker decision. (Incidentally, I agree that the CMod here should indicate whether it is open to the parties to appeal to admin or not.)


The reason fairness to both sides is important is because increasingly, moderators are being fettered by the site's commercial objectives and it's no longer enough for a moderator to use experience and discretion in order to deal with someone. We are being pulled into more uniform, one-size-fits-all moderating. Given that moderators no longer have any real discretion to deal with problems, we ought to be able to speak up for ourselves when our decisions are questioned and we really ought to be able to do so publicly.

Wibbs

hullaballoo wrote: »

The reason fairness to both sides is important is because increasingly, moderators are being fettered by the site's commercial objectives and it's no longer enough for a moderator to use experience and discretion in order to deal with someone. We are being pulled into more uniform, one-size-fits-all moderating. Given that moderators no longer have any real discretion to deal with problems, we ought to be able to speak up for ourselves when our decisions are questioned and we really ought to be able to do so publicly.

QFT.

Penn

hullaballoo wrote: »

The reason fairness to both sides is important is because increasingly, moderators are being fettered by the site's commercial objectives and it's no longer enough for a moderator to use experience and discretion in order to deal with someone. We are being pulled into more uniform, one-size-fits-all moderating. Given that moderators no longer have any real discretion to deal with problems, we ought to be able to speak up for ourselves when our decisions are questioned and we really ought to be able to do so publicly.

Completely disagree. Mods always have and should have discretion to undertake mod actions based on their experience and judgement of a situation, even if it doesn't fit exactly in with one or more prescribed site rules. Once there is a clear, unbiased rationale behind such a decision, the experience and discretion of the mod is more valuable than the wording of any particular rule. That's why mods are chosen, for their ability to make such judgement calls when necessary.

Obviously, mods can't just ban/infract someone, claim they did so because of their experience of the poster and situation and not have that questioned. But if there's a clear rationale and reasoning behind it and the mod action is commensurate to the situation, then there would rarely be an issue with that.

I do agree that maybe the mod should be allowed the right to reply on-thread in a DRP though. At present, they could definitely request it from the CMod dealing with it, but maybe it should become an official part of the process.

hullaballoo

Penn wrote: »

Completely disagree. Mods always have and should have discretion to undertake mod actions based on their experience and judgement of a situation, even if it doesn't fit exactly in with one or more prescribed site rules. Once there is a clear, unbiased rationale behind such a decision, the experience and discretion of the mod is more valuable than the wording of any particular rule. That's why mods are chosen, for their ability to make such judgement calls when necessary.

The decision that is unbiased and rational can only be to do one of a limited number of things that most be done on a prescribed procedure and the moderator cannot circumvent that on the basis of moderator discretion because the system will overlay that decision with the prescribed procedure.

The only avenue by which the moderator can be vindicated is if they are publicly allowed to air their thought processes and have those reviewed by the higher-ups.

Since that is not happening, moderator discretion has been removed, in my opinion.

Beasty

So far as I am concerned the onus is on the appellant to show their card/ban was unwarranted/unreasonable. Hence they have a higher hurdle to surmount and get the opportunity to put their point across. There's little to be gained by allowing the mod to input if the CMod is going to uphold their action anyway (which happens in a significant majority of cases). Personally I would not overturn a mod's decision without giving them the opportunity to comment, albeit privately on the small number of occasions it has happened. Obviously I cannot speak for all CMods, but my interaction with others in the CMods forum suggests we generally seem to adopt a similar approach.

KomradeBishop

One things to note is that the lions share of the feedback is from mods/past-mods - nothing wrong with feedback from mods, but it could do with counterbalancing, as it seems to be leaning towards a trend of tipping DRP (even more) in favour of upholding mod decisions, when instead more feedback from posters who have been through DRP is needed.

Also, regarding mods right of reply: I always thought this existed, as I had seen this from a mod whose action was contested - but I realize now that it was a CMod (so it's ok for cmods to defend their mod action on DRP, but not mods apparently) - and my feeling on that, was that it was partly aimed at sabotaging/smearing the DRP - but then again, probably better for that to happen in public than behind the scenes (at least it's transparent then).


Also, people are advocating that mods should get to publicly defend themselves on DRP - but: What about posters getting to defend themselves, from what mods say about them in private? (posters don't even know what has been said, or what kind of behind-the-scenes consensus or misrepresentation/smears may be happening)

Very one-sided. Mods need a private place to discuss things, but it's unavoidable that that creates a lack of transparency, and removes a posters ability to defend themselves from what is said in private.

Nodin

hullaballoo wrote: »

........
The reason fairness to both sides is important is because increasingly, moderators are being fettered by the site's commercial objectives and it's no longer enough for a moderator to use experience and discretion in order to deal with someone. We are being pulled into more uniform, one-size-fits-all moderating. Given that moderators no longer have any real discretion to deal with problems, we ought to be able to speak up for ourselves when our decisions are questioned and we really ought to be able to do so publicly.

Would you care to expand on that? I've admittedly no knowledge of moderation on here, but am surprised that there's a need for the commercial objective (which I presume is advertising) to interfere or clash with moderation. Perhaps I'm just not thinking it through properly.

Spear

KomradeBishop wrote: »

One things to note is that the lions share of the feedback is from mods/past-mods - nothing wrong with feedback from mods, but it could do with counterbalancing, as it seems to be leaning towards a trend of tipping DRP (even more) in favour of upholding mod decisions, when instead more feedback from posters who have been through DRP is needed.

I've a separate thread for mod feedback, but they're showing the same very wide spectrums of opinions too. There seems to be a lack of consensus everywhere about how to run DRP. This was a long overdue exercise.

K-9

If Mods did have a right of reply, it would need to be the the point and objective as possible. Tbh it never has been an issue for me except with a couple of more troublesome posters, making more outlandish claims. DRP works quite well for the most part, so that shouldn't be over looked either, sometimes we can focus on the negatives too much.

Mod replies would still have C-Mod and admin oversight, so for me it would really for clarification of the more outlandish claims, 1 reply to avoid a tit for tat debate. Tbh it would be more a mod putting their side for the public record, for viewers to see, not getting into a debate, considering that will have happened in pm exchanges anyway.

As for private mod discussions, need the wisdom of Solomon on that one!

Black Swan

In retrospect, members, mods, Cmods, Admins, and community managers have discussed and debated the purpose, guidelines, and content of the Dispute Resolution forum for years. Generally speaking, it has worked more often as not, consequently it has undergone very little change as a result.

During the past several years I've modded 18 forums. I've issued several cards and bans, especially in Politics, but only had a tiny number appealed, and only a couple overturned. I've never demanded that a Cmod allow me to reply as mod in a dispute, even if a member got a bit mean spirited, because I trusted that the Cmod would fairly review both sides of the appeal before posting their reply. Thus far it's worked.

I've Cmodded Region, Sports, and now Science, Health & Environment. I've been involved in the resolution of many disputes, and have both supported or overturned mod actions. In doing this, I find the most important step in the DR flow charted process to be the 1st one, where both parties to the dispute (member and mod) exchange PMs in an attempt to resolve the issue. Sometimes I've been asked to join the exchange, and sometimes the issue has been resolved in this 1st step. If so, most of this has occurred between member and mod behind-the-scenes.

In general transparency has been an important value to this dispute resolution process, but as a balancing factor it should be noted that it's sometimes easier to resolve a dispute between member and mod during a private exchange of PMs, where confidentiality and respect for the feelings of each party to this appeal are considered. I've read many a heated PM exchange in past years, where things got very personal before they were worked out, and often one or both parties will exchange apologies and leave in mutual respect. If this early heated exchange started 1st in the DRP between one or both parties, the public aspect of this exchange might make it more difficult for one or both parties to swallow their public pride.

Consequently, if anything is to change as a result of this DR discussion, may I strongly suggest that we come up with better ways to inform and encourage all parties to a dispute to focus on the 1st step in the DR flow chart? I continue to see members opening DRPs without attempting to complete step 1: exchange of PMs with mods. I would also like to encourage mods to go the extra mile in an attempt to resolve the dispute in step 1, and not just point the unhappy member to Cmods without a good faith effort. Yes, PM exchanges can sometimes be painful. Been there, done that. And if you both want to share your misery, please ask your Cmod to join in the 1st step exchange way, way before a DRP thread has been opened, if feasible.

Those are my 2 euros...

Spear

A bit more specific set of questions for now:

Should warnings in the form of yellow cards be appealable through DRP?
If so, do they justify admin attention?
Is there any point in having the yellow cards, if an on-thread warning does the same task without a permanent record?

KERSPLAT!

Spear wrote: »

A bit more specific set of questions for now:

Should warnings in the form of yellow cards be appealable through DRP?
If so, do they justify admin attention?
Is there any point in having the yellow cards, if an on-thread warning does the same task without a permanent record?

For me it's:

Yes, yellows should be appealable

Yes, they justify admin attention

In AH we try to use thread warnings to get posters back on track. If they keep up after that we issue yellow and then increment after that. It works as it so I don't see the point in changing it

For me, the system is grand the way it is.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Cookie_Monster

whats happened to DRP in the last couple of days, all the thread are gone into an archive with nothing active any more.

Into The Blue

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

whats happened to DRP in the last couple of days, all the thread are gone into an archive with nothing active any more.

No active disputes to resolve..

Beasty

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Yes - I've seen it numerous times (and it's happened to me)

I've dealt with over 150 appeals - now I'm not going to try and trawl through them all, but to put a bit of perspective on the process from my own experience I've had a look at all those I've been involved in during 2015.

Ignoring those threads that were not disputing a card or ban I've dealt with 25 appeals during 2015

Of those, 3 (12%) were overturned/lifted by the relevant mod without me having to take any decision
4 (16%) were overturned/lifted by me
In 1 case I increased the penalty, and in another I imposed additional conditions on the appellant
I upheld 14 mod decisions (56%)
In 2 cases the appellant was sitebanned before the appeal was concluded

Hence in total I upheld or increased penalties in 16 cases (64%), and of those 4 (16%) asked for an Admin to review my decision. In all 4 cases during 2015 the Admins upheld my decision

CabanSail

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

whats happened to DRP in the last couple of days, all the thread are gone into an archive with nothing active any more.

It is a bit quiet. I have started a few rumors and that should heat things up soon


My views are that any actions which form a record should have an option of appeal, however the Admin review should only be available for Bans. Cards should stop at CMod level.

Buona Fortuna

CabanSail wrote: »

My views are that any actions which form a record should have an option of appeal, however the Admin review should only be available for Bans. Cards should stop at CMod level.

That's OK upto a point. The only problem I see is that there is a bit of "blurring" of the line between CMods and Mods. Some CMods still Mod.

Beasty

Buona Fortuna wrote: »

That's OK upto a point. The only problem I see is that there is a bit of "blurring" of the line between CMods and Mods. Some CMods still Mod.

Can't speak for all categories, but we ensure no-one in Sports deals with appeals from forums they actively mod