Query : When is a post inflammatory "enough" not to be "Abuse of the reporting featur

Jack Killian

If someone posts implying "The 26 counties isn't a country" then obviously it's inflammatory.

If someone posts implying "Limerick isn't a city" then it's surely worth a look on the exact same basis ?

I know that whether or not action is taken is up to a mod, but at what stage does the person reporting it get a slap on the wrist for doing so ?

dudara

Hi Jack Killian.

Are you disputing a particular ban, infraction or warning which was applied to you?

If not, I will have to close this thread, as it does not fall with the remit of this forum

Jack Killian

dudara wrote: »

Hi Jack Killian.

Are you disputing a particular ban, infraction or warning which was applied to you?

If not, I will have to close this thread, as it does not fall with the remit of this forum

An infraction. Just curious as to whether there are guidelines as it's not a major issue, but it still feels unfair.

dudara

Are you disputing the infraction you received?

If so, can you confirm that you have first attempted to resolve the matter with the mod who infracted you?

Jack Killian

dudara wrote: »

Are you disputing the infraction you received?

If so, can you confirm that you have first attempted to resolve the matter with the mod who infracted you?

If that is the only avenue then yes, I guess I am disputing it.

I can confirm that, yes, I did query it with them and after a few PMs they said not to contact them again and to bring it here.

They said that in their opinion they didn't see it as inflammatory (I disagree, but fair enough on that) and my issue is that they claimed that I was merely reporting because I disagreed with the poster (which is false) and that it was supposedly an abuse of the Reporting function.

I pointed out to them that if someone said Ireland wasn't a country or that transgenders weren't women in the manner posted that there would certainly be a warning / infraction issued, but that I wouldn't query that aspect; my issue was that they gave me an infraction for simply reporting an equivalent type of post.

dudara

Grand, I'll ask a CMod to step in now, as per the process. Once the CMod starts to review the infraction, they will want to see the PM exchange between you and the mod, so have that handy.

Jack Killian

dudara wrote: »

Grand, I'll ask a CMod to step in now, as per the process. Once the CMod starts to review the infraction, they will want to see the PM exchange between you and the mod, so have that handy.

OK - will do.

Don't want to make a mountain out of a molehill but it did seem unfair and - while I can step back and say ok, it wasn't enough for them to take action against the poster - it was unfair that I got an infraction over the fact that they couldn't see my point as to how I found it insulting.

Toots

Hi Jack, I'll look into this one for you also. Please give me some time to investigate and I'll be back to you if I need any more info, or if I've made a decision.

Jack Killian

Toots wrote: »

Hi Jack, I'll look into this one for you also. Please give me some time to investigate and I'll be back to you if I need any more info, or if I've made a decision.

Thanks Toots.

Toots

Hi Jack,

I've looked into this and from what I've seen, it certainly appears that you are misusing/abusing the report post function. You've been a member of this site since January, and in that time you've reported nearly 150 posts - that's a huge amount, in fact you're one of the most frequent reporters on the entire site. That wouldn't necessarily be a problem, if what you were reporting actually merited being reported, but most of what you report seems....spurious, at best.

For example the one about Limerick wasn't necessary to report. It was a tongue in cheek comment, and didn't breach the Cafe charter. You can't report something just because you don't agree with it, or because you're engaging in a back and forth with a poster and you've got opposing opinions on something. TBH it's the internet, you're going to run into people who post things that you don't agree with, and a bit of a thick skin is needed. Each time a post is reported it has to be looked over by the forum mods, and if you're reporting every little thing you find mildly insulting it takes up a huge amount of their time.

I'm upholding the infraction, and I'd suggest that in future make sure that if you're reporting something it's because the post is actually in breach of the forum or site rules, as opposed to because it contains an opinion contrary to your own.

Jack Killian

Toots wrote: »

Hi Jack,

I've looked into this and from what I've seen, it certainly appears that you are misusing/abusing the report post function. You've been a member of this site since January, and in that time you've reported nearly 150 posts - that's a huge amount, in fact you're one of the most frequent reporters on the entire site. That wouldn't necessarily be a problem, if what you were reporting actually merited being reported, but most of what you report seems....spurious, at best.

For example the one about Limerick wasn't necessary to report. It was a tongue in cheek comment, and didn't breach the Cafe charter. You can't report something just because you don't agree with it, or because you're engaging in a back and forth with a poster and you've got opposing opinions on something. TBH it's the internet, you're going to run into people who post things that you don't agree with, and a bit of a thick skin is needed. Each time a post is reported it has to be looked over by the forum mods, and if you're reporting every little thing you find mildly insulting it takes up a huge amount of their time.

I'm upholding the infraction, and I'd suggest that in future make sure that if you're reporting something it's because the post is actually in breach of the forum or site rules, as opposed to because it contains an opinion contrary to your own.

Hi Toots

I'm going to stand up for myself again and refute that I reported "because I disagreed with it".

I reported it because it was unnecessary, not factual, and would not be condoned in any other scenario.

As I said, I'll accept that it didn't breach the rules and so no action was required by the mods; that's fine.

What I will not accept is the subjective assumption that I reported it for the above reason, as that is 100% false.

And it is very disappointing to read you repeat the false allegation, to be honest.

I'll review my membership of the site as it seems crazy that someone can be accused of this - now twice - without even the remotest acknowledgement that it is simply not the case.