Mod instructions.

Yourself isit

I managed to pick up two yellows and one red card for "ignoring moderator instructions" in the thread on Manchester.

Now I don't have a problem with in thread moderation.

I do have a problem with everybody being expected to notice a small one line note from a poster on post 1,000 of a fast moving thread.

And a very big problem with what's effectively double jepordy. I didn't continue to post after the first infraction. All of the infections came at once. After my last post.

If you want to have new rules applied during a thread then post in red (wibbs used to go bold) and post a few times.

Or have better technology. Some banner or warning.

Edit:

The red card was revoked. This isn't an attack on the moderators - the thread warning was ok - but the system.

Pelvis Parsley

I said that on another thread. I was basically told it wasn't happening. And that it should be reported.

No hope of a mod receiving any sanction for it though. It's wholesale.

Yourself isit

I didn't mind the yellow but basically I got a red straight after for ignoring Instructions I didn't see.

As it happens what they were trying to do was justified as we were going off topic. But there needs to be a better way to advertise it. (hence feedback, not dispute resolution).

More of a software issue maybe

Tom Mann Centuria

Pelvis Parsley wrote: »

I said that on another thread. I was basically told it wasn't happening. And that it should be reported.

No hope of a mod receiving any sanction for it though. It's wholesale.

A Mod receiving a sanction for what exactly?

Yourself isit

Alright here's my suggestion.

It will mean updating the software. Block the post or reply button for off topic or mod instruction ignoring posters for a period. Say two hours.

Let the buttons work but the user instead of editable screen sees.

Warning. Ignored mod instructions. You can post again in two hours.

Warning: continually ignored instructions. You cannot post in this thread.

That will stop people getting forum bans too.

Pelvis Parsley

Tom Mann Centuria wrote: »

A Mod receiving a sanction for what exactly?

Jumping in on top of another mod, and carding or escalating an action.

Yourself isit

Pelvis Parsley wrote: »

Jumping in on top of another mod, and carding or escalating an action.

I assume it's generally a mistake. Annoying though.

Zaph

Yourself isit wrote: »

Alright here's my suggestion.

It will mean updating the software. Block the post or reply button for off topic or mod instruction ignoring posters for a period. Say two hours.

Let the buttons work but the user instead of editable screen sees.

Warning. Ignored mod instructions. You can post again in two hours.

Warning: continually ignored instructions. You cannot post in this thread.

That will stop people getting forum bans too.

It's an innovative solution, but I'm afraid that the software that Boards runs on isn't that sophisticated and there isn't an option to introduce something like that I'm afraid. It would be great if we did have a facility like that because it would immediately remove someone from a thread without the mods having to monitor them.

Ken.

Mod warning at 19.06.
Thread title and opening post updated at 19.07.

You posted counter that warning at 19.11 and 19.36.

What more would you like me personally to do?.

Sleeper12

Yourself isit wrote:

And a very big problem with what's effectively double jepordy. I didn't continue to post after the first infraction. All of the infections came at once. After my last post.

I've not even looked at that thread but here's my 2 cents worth, I've gotten a smacked bottom from mods myself. In my experience you'll only every get a warning for breaking the forum charter. If this isn't the case you can appeal. I stayed away from that thread but I'd imagine thing's can turn nasty quickly and mods have to take into account that some of the victims family are reading this thread. Some parents up to 3 hours ago didn't know if their kids were missing or dead.

Yourself isit

Barbie! wrote: »

Mod warning at 19.06.
Thread title and opening post updated at 19.07.

You posted counter that warning at 19.11 and 19.36.

What more would you like me personally to do?.

It's not you I'm complaining about. Thus isn't dispute resolution.


I got a yellow at 19:45 and a red at 19:51 (not from you). The last post was 19:36 as you said.

Anyway I'm ok with the yellow ( not the red but I don't want to post in the thread anyway - more heat than light) but am actually trying to give some feedback on how the system could work better. I genuinely didn't see the warning.


Effectively I come back to two private messages. One yellow. One red.

If the software can't be updated there might be some other way. If anybody has ideas....

Edit:

The other mod revoked the red.

Yourself isit

Sleeper12 wrote: »

I've not even looked at that thread but here's my 2 cents worth, I've gotten a smacked bottom from mods myself. In my experience you'll only every get a warning for breaking the forum charter. If this isn't the case you can appeal. I stayed away from that thread but I'd imagine thing's can turn nasty quickly and mods have to take into account that some of the victims family are reading this thread. Some parents up to 3 hours ago didn't know if their kids were missing or dead.

It was off topic posting. Nothing nasty. I'm sure the idea of the moderation was correct.

Im not complaining about in thread moderation just that the existing system isn't obvious.

misstearheus

Yourself isit wrote: »

I do have a problem with everybody being expected to notice a small one line note from a poster on post 1,000 of a fast moving thread.

That happened me before ages ago O.P. I didn't see the Warning or must have skipped past it and I was banned from the Thread. I loved that Thread too actually. That was an awful shame. I empathise with you O.P.

Sleeper12

Yourself isit wrote:

It was off topic posting. Nothing nasty. I'm sure the idea of the moderation was correct.

I go off topic all the time. When I'm reminded of this I apologize and move on.

The Manchester thread is such a sensitive topic id imagine mods are on their toes.
You can still appeal it.

KyussBeeshop

Zaph wrote: »

It's an innovative solution, but I'm afraid that the software that Boards runs on isn't that sophisticated and there isn't an option to introduce something like that I'm afraid. It would be great if we did have a facility like that because it would immediately remove someone from a thread without the mods having to monitor them.

It is possible, you can just implement it separate to the main Boards forum code - like I described in a previous thread here.

What the OP suggests, could be implemented using a variation of my first suggestion in that thread.

This (and many things I post in that thread) would help Boards with its overmoderation problem, that is being highlighted a lot lately...


I'd even go so far as to say that it's inexcusable to NOT automate things like this, given how frequent an issue this is, and how incredibly easy it is to do from a coding standpoint - you don't need to do a big revamp of the Boards internals, to be able to do this.

Overheal

To be fair, that's an modestly narrow window, and not to say a user might not have the page already open a while, be refreshing the tab, or jumping back to it straight from the URL bar with autofill from history.

I myself do appreciate the use of carding a series of posts, it's useful recordkeeping that reduces the amount of time spent researching problem/reported users (The CT forum had me addressing many). And Yourselfisit isn't exactly singled out in this thread in question.

That said it took me more time than I want to admit to find the on-thread warning that was made during this time period, which only emboldened the word mod and left everything else about it standard, and a one-liner which was super easy to scroll past. A lot of users in a busy thread will tend to skip over 'light'/small posts (or egregiously large ones)(Wibbs) or be on the look out for mentions of their name, people replying to them.

If I could make a suggestion, the moderator warnings on the thread should have been in full bold, possibly a bump up in font size too given the volume of cards being handed out at the time. It chokes a thread/conversation a little to see multiple on thread warnings but it can be sometimes necessary, I'd assume especially in AH where thread velocity borders on the insane.

Mods don't have to add a warning/explanation to each card given obviously, but a few is better than too few. Even perhaps tagging the bottom of carded posts, eg. "MOD - NO DISCUSSION OF IRA. DO NOT REPLY TO OR QUOTE THIS POST"

Ken.

Overheal, there is multiple instances in feedback where the majority of users say that all bold typing was too shouty. The mod bit in bold and the warning in plain text has been working very well for me in AH with only a few mishaps in the few months I've been using it.

As to my post earlier I'd like to apologise to Yourself isit. I thought s/he was taking a dig at me and it turns out it was something entirely different.

s3rtvdbwfj81ch

Not everyone reads all posts in a thread, especially not a fast moving one, so in a thread like the Manchester one, posting something like "MOD WARNING POST 4567" I'm actually not going to rummage through a thread, clicking forward and back here and there, when the thread has 8794 messages, and all I want to do is skip to the last page and start from there.

To actually expect users to do that is naive in the extreme. In fact, I'm not even clicking into the first post of that thread.

It's an archaic system, not fit for purpose. Carding and banning people for missing a warning post buried 20 minutes previous in a thread getting twenty or so posts a minute is absolutely ridiculous imo.

D0NNELLY

Brendan Red Plasma wrote: »

Not everyone reads all posts in a thread, especially not a fast moving one, so in a thread like the Manchester one, posting something like "MOD WARNING POST 4567" I'm actually not going to rummage through a thread, clicking forward and back here and there, when the thread has 8794 messages, and all I want to do is skip to the last page and start from there.

To actually expect users to do that is naive in the extreme. In fact, I'm not even clicking into the first post of that thread.

It's an archaic system, not fit for purpose. Carding and banning people for missing a warning post buried 20 minutes previous in a thread getting twenty or so posts a minute is absolutely ridiculous imo.

That was brought up in feedback as touch users had no way of finding the post.

So now they edit the title to say mod warning in the op. You've to click on that message to post, so much better way of communicating a warning.

OldGoat

The alternative to the 'soft touch' in-thread warnings is a return to instant cards and bans. Is that more preferable? The more we chip away at the leeway given to the mods to do their jobs or the intentional grey areas of the rules then the more draconian the site will become.

KyussBeeshop

That's kind of disingenuous OldGoat, it's not an all-or-nothing thing - the entire thread here is premised on automating the mod actions, with temporary thread bans, exactly so that full cards/bans aren't necessary in these situations.


One of the most egregious things about mods carding posters for on-thread-warnings, is that those cardings automatically assume bad intent from the poster as well (that the warning was deliberately ignored), and also is insulting to the poster in implying that they are stupid enough to see an on-thread warning, and then deliberately ignore it - even though it would very predictably bring on the wrath of a mod.

To add final insult to injury, mods often tell the poster they have "no excuse" for not seeing the mod warning - even though the argument that they deliberately ignored the warning is completely lacking any credibility, as someone would have to be a complete imbecile/idiot to deliberately ignore such a warning, and land themselves in trouble - and because a warning not being visible enough IS an excellent excuse (and is the only common-sense assumption to make tbh - that the warning was missed - when someone breaches a warning...).

If mods didn't assume bad intent from a poster, or weren't just being excessively strict about the rules - just for the sake of it - then such cardings would be overturned, instead of going into 'computer mod says no' mode (which is typically what happens in DRP).

Many (probably most) mods would be willing to overturn a card in this situation, but there are more than a few who just wouldn't, and can drive posters away from the site - and that's not even including (probably the majority...) of posters, who just couldn't be arsed with trying to go through the bother of overturning such a carding (justifiably so, as interactions with mods like this, are often a very tedious/aggravating experience - often even when the mods mean well).

So overall, even if it is not intended this way, it just looks like (through negligence primarily) mods setting up a petty trap for posters to fall into - and even though I know that mods need tools like this to try and keep threads steady, I can completely understand stuff like this driving people away from the site in a pointless way.


So yes, given that this whole class of problems can be solved completely, through some of the automation steps described by the OP and in my previous thread, then there is no excuse for not implementing such features (e.g. temporary thread bans - which doesn't have to mean digging into Boards internals to implement) - because not doing that just gives the message that the site owners don't care if some (perfectly avoidable) mod actions, unjustifiably piss off some posters, and drives them away from the site.

There are a lot of problems with how mod action is implemented, that cause undesirable/avoidable friction between mods/posters, which can be solved through similar types of automation - this should be one of the primary areas that site developers focus on.

Yourself isit

OldGoat wrote: »

The alternative to the 'soft touch' in-thread warnings is a return to instant cards and bans. Is that more preferable? The more we chip away at the leeway given to the mods to do their jobs or the intentional grey areas of the rules then the more draconian the site will become.

Well it seemed to me that is what happened. I got two cards that I couldn't respond to. The warning was there right enough.

The problem isn't the in thread warning but the system of notifying people about it. Looking back on it there was a highly irrelevant off topic sub thread that got heated (me too) and threatened to derail the discussion. That moderation was never the problem, it was worth stomping on it - just the system of notifications.

A mod post often works in slow threads.

Those threads generate 10 posts a minute.

Overheal

Barbie! wrote: »

Overheal, there is multiple instances in feedback where the majority of users say that all bold typing was too shouty. The mod bit in bold and the warning in plain text has been working very well for me in AH with only a few mishaps in the few months I've been using it.

As to my post earlier I'd like to apologise to Yourself isit. I thought s/he was taking a dig at me and it turns out it was something entirely different.

Maybe as an exception rather than a rule, for particularly cacophonous threads.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Ken.

Good idea Permabear. For a fast thread that would be ideal. I'll take it to the other AH mods.

Stheno

Barbie! wrote: »

Good idea Permabear. For a fast thread that would be ideal. I'll take it to the other AH mods.

Same here for the PC mods, would cut out having to pm people whose posts cross over with a mod posting a warning and the IP could be updated when the thread was reopened.

Tom Mann Centuria

Constant closing and opening threads will kill them stone dead imo.

Stheno

Tom Mann Centuria wrote: »

Constant closing and opening threads will kill them stone dead imo.

It's for twenty minutes, gives people a chance to see the warning

Tom Mann Centuria

Stheno wrote: »

It's for twenty minutes, gives people a chance to see the warning

Or go off and do something else, or browse another site and not come back to the thread. Not saying it's a bad thing for them, but it's a bad thing for a discussion site. People's attention span isn't, erm, what was I saying?

Stheno

Tom Mann Centuria wrote: »

Or go off and do something else, or browse another site and not come back to the thread. Not saying it's a bad thing for them, but it's a bad thing for a discussion site.

Well for the PC it wouldn't happen terribly often.

In ah it would be more frequent

lucernarian

I've received a ban in somewhat similar circumstances which was subsequently removed on appeal.

I feel sorry for the OP here as:

1) it's not really nice to go kick up a fuss even if there's clearly a mistake that's occurred and it's just one moderator that wasn't helpful out of the large majority of great folks who run the place

2) more could be done to prevent this from happening, even at an individual forum level with more definitive charters and fewer individual rulings for each different thread.

3) bias as this happened to me in a way

blackwhite

Tom Mann Centuria wrote: »

Constant closing and opening threads will kill them stone dead imo.

TBH - if a thread is descending down the road of needing a mod warning, then something that disrupts that flow is no harm.

In the medium term I'd say it probably lends itself to the thread surviving longer tbh.

Boards.ie: Mark

I like the idea of giving everyone a temporary breather to take in the mod note. Means that everyone has a chance to take note of it (and avoids subsequent infractions / arguments escalating over a post that missed the note) and posters can take a moment to compose themselves and their thoughts. Hopefully something like that would mean fewer threads being closed for longer at a later date as problems get nipped in the bud sooner.

looksee

Happened to me too, I am still cross about it

Murrisk

Brendan Red Plasma wrote: »

Not everyone reads all posts in a thread, especially not a fast moving one, so in a thread like the Manchester one, posting something like "MOD WARNING POST 4567" I'm actually not going to rummage through a thread, clicking forward and back here and there, when the thread has 8794 messages, and all I want to do is skip to the last page and start from there.

There's usually a link to the relevant post in the OP, no? No rummaging required!

Tom Mann Centuria

Still think it's an idea which isn't going to improve anything, will result in just as much, or in fact more work for mods on thread. And those posters that probably aren't that invested in the thread, and less likely to bother waiting the 20 minutes to go back, are also the ones less likely to be causing trouble in the first place.

We'll see though, maybe it'll work.

OldGoat

Boards.ie: Mark wrote: »

I like the idea of giving everyone a temporary breather to take in the mod note. Means that everyone has a chance to take note of it (and avoids subsequent infractions / arguments escalating over a post that missed the note) and posters can take a moment to compose themselves and their thoughts. Hopefully something like that would mean fewer threads being closed for longer at a later date as problems get nipped in the bud sooner.

It would be a right pain in the arse for the 90% of users who are trying to have a discussion. Mod the reported post (if they warrant it) rather than the entire thread.

Beasty

One of the issues is when you've typed a long reply and click to submit, and then lose the entire post due to the thread having been locked

Obviously some threads already get locked for review and sometimes to allow posters to cool down a bit, but I'm not sure it should be used as a matter of routine (we'll probably end up with numerous Feedback threads complaining about mods temporarily locking threads)

looksee

If someone comments after a mod warning how about a 15 minutes or so window when they will just get a 'see mod warning' note - unless they specifically reference the warning showing that they have in fact seen it. This at least allows for people who were half way through posting when the warning was given.

Overheal

most web browsers and situations will save the post when you go back though.

And at the end of the day you're still potentially talking about frustrating a user who could very well have been posting "Well you're a dick **** you and here are all the reasons why I am mad at you," if the thread is at a point it needs locking.