Moderator consistency and transparency

Captain Obvious

I just want to raise this issue as I've seen it come up a few times. It's about consistency in moderation, particularly in busy threads. I've seen it in Legal Discussion, After Hours and Politics Cafe but I'm sure it's an issue elsewhere.

The most frequent situation I see this arise in is when a poster reports a post they think is breaking the rules, see no action being taken, post similar content and receive a moderator action. Now, I'm fully aware that there are different factors at play when deciding a moderator action so I'm not going to attack moderation here. But I think this needs to be looked at from a posters point of view.

The rules are intentionally a bit vague so as to leave room for interpretation (Don't be a dick). This is fine. But if you expect posters to act within these rules there needs to be some sort of consistency in the way it's interpreted. If posters see one person being reprimanded for content another poster gets away with, how are they supposed to know if that kind of content is allowed? It can leave you feeling like you are walking on egg shells. Maybe it's preferred that posters err on the side of caution but I think it stifles debate on the busier threads and forums.

As I said, this isn't an attack on mods. I know reported posts are discussed and often there is a unanimous decision on actions. But posters don't see this discussion. They don't see the logic that goes into a decision to sanction or not to sanction. They don't see the PMs sent to posters with warnings about the posts. So from a posters point of view the decisions appear erratic.

This is an issue I don't really have an answer for. Maybe there is a better way for posters to see the decisions being made. Maybe a mod note on reported posts to say something like "Reported post found not to be in breach" or "Poster spoken to privately." Maybe a more rigid and consistent escalation procedure can be put in place for the main forums. I don't know. Personally I simply don't post anymore in one forum because of their completely erratic interpretation of a single rule and it's a forum I had enjoyed being a regular poster in. And I do not think I would be alone in this kind of decision.

Where I really have an issue is when these things come to DRP. There seems to be a complete refusal to consider this issue. It appears to be a more technical approach. Did this poster technically breach the rules? This isn't an attack on CMods or Admins either. Most of them are quite fair. And I imagine the time commitment to review threads for context can be immense at times. It just seems to be the way the DRP works. I just think it's a little unfair from a posters point of view.

As this is flaired for a suggestion I will make some.

• Consider feedback on thread for reported posts where no action is taken.
• Alternatively, a PM to the reporting person with feedback.
• Consider a more harmonised approach to moderating and escalation on the busiest forums.
• Be more considerate of context and previous actions/non-actions in a thread during DRP. To avoid excessive time demands put the onus on the poster to do the leg work and retrieve relevant posts to argue their case.

Beasty

Apologies but I'm posting from mobile making it difficult to link

There's a long running thread in AH highlighting as well as attempting to address many of the issues you raise. If you do a search of "slow death of forums" the thread should show up. I've linked a few of my own posts in the OP of that thread where I try to summarise where we have got to on various issues

osarusan

Captain Obvious wrote: »

The rules are intentionally a bit vague so as to leave room for interpretation (Don't be a dick). This is fine. But if you expect posters to act within these rules there needs to be some sort of consistency in the way it's interpreted. If posters see one person being reprimanded for content another poster gets away with, how are they supposed to know if that kind of content is allowed? It can leave you feeling like you are walking on egg shells. Maybe it's preferred that posters err on the side of caution but I think it stifles debate on the busier threads and forums.

I agree with this bit in particular - if you see posters doing something, apparently without any consequence, it's fairly reasonable to think it's within the rules. Then if a poster does the same thing, and get a warning or whatever, they'll be confused about it.

It's especially frustrating to see threads in Dispute Resolution where the poster is trying to make that case (that what they have been warned/carded for is actually fairly common), only to be told that the DR thread is only for discussing their posts, not the posts of anybody else.

As for the rest of the post, the idea of feedback for reported posts has been raised many times before, but apparently the sheer scale of reporting means that it would be a huge, impossible, time-sink for mods to have to respond to each person who reported a post. I could easily imagine that would be the case too.

Tokyo

osarusan wrote: »

the idea of feedback for reported posts has been raised many times before, but apparently the sheer scale of reporting means that it would be a huge, impossible, time-sink for mods to have to respond to each person who reported a post. I could easily imagine that would be the case too.

Number of reported posts in the last 7 days: 709. Since the beginning of this year: 11,940.

I think it would be a very unfair expectation that mods be required to give some sort of feedback on every post reported. However, often there is internal discussion between forum mods on reported posts, if there is any uncertainty involved, but I don't believe that the person reporting the post should be a part of that process.

Captain Obvious

mike_ie wrote: »

Number of reported posts in the last 7 days: 709. Since the beginning of this year: 11,940.

Are those individual post reports or do they include multiple reports on the same post? And you would have to reduce that number by the number of yellow and red cards and forum and thread bans to get an idea of how many posts would come under the suggestion.

mike_ie wrote: »

I think it would be a very unfair expectation that mods be required to give some sort of feedback on every post reported. However, often there is internal discussion between forum mods on reported posts, if there is any uncertainty involved, but I don't believe that the person reporting the post should be a part of that process.

I don't either. I'm merely suggesting that they be informed of the decision in some way.

Beasty

Captain Obvious wrote: »

Are those individual post reports or do they include multiple reports on the same post? And you would have to reduce that number by the number of yellow and red cards and forum and thread bans to get an idea of how many posts would come under the suggestion.

It includes multiple reports, but each post reported generates a separate thread in our "Reported Post" forum - just did a quick check - just short of 9,000 different posts reported

We do have somewhere we can tot up red and yellow cards, but not forum bans. In terms of thread bans they are mainly seen in AH, as that tends to host the "busy" long-running contentious threads

Since the beginning of the year there have been over 500 reports in AH on the topic of the 8th Amendment alone. With highly contentious topics like that it can be difficult to keep up with everything that's going on in terms of mod actions

I've already mentioned though that there has been a long running thread in AH where the topic of providing feedback on reported posts was raised. I just think its impractical to report back in any sensible way. For a start different mods may review something, and a decision would need to be taken over who will respond and when. In some cases there is no real point in getting back - re-reg trolls for example will simply be nuked at Admin level, and local mods may not even see the reports until some time after the nuking.

More importantly we do not discuss action taken against users with anyone but the user themself - sometimes it may involve a quiet word, sometimes a card (which may or may not be visible as many actioned posts are deleted by the mod or Admin). Forum bans are not visible except to mods and Admins

Samuel T. Cogley

Legal Discussion is frequently misunderstood and Nuac especially gives a very wide latitude. LD needs a large latitude itself to function. It's not about legal advice but about legal discussion.

Tokyo

Captain Obvious wrote: »

Consider feedback on thread for reported posts where no action is taken.

Alternatively, a PM to the reporting person with feedback.

How do you see that working? Not being smart, am genuinely curious here, as there may be something I haven't considered.

My own personal thoughts on this is that it's an unrealistic expectation that mods should have to account for every mod action (or inaction) publicly, which is effectively what is being asked here. At some stage, posters need to have faith in the fact that the mod team apply the rules as fairly as possible, and there is oversight in terms of a CMod and admin team if issues arise.

Logistically, it would also be a huge overhead - to give a sense of perspective, in After Hours, since the beginning of the year alone, 2,791 posts were reported. Even taking into account the fact that some of these reports are duplicates (most aren't), the sheer volume of responses required is untenable.

Feedback is built in to every reported post IMO - if a poster reports a post and it's actioned, the action is usually visible in-thread. If it's not actioned, then the poster can take it that the mod team didn't see an issue with the post in question.

Captain Obvious wrote: »

Consider a more harmonised approach to moderating and escalation on the busiest forums.

I have no issue with this. And it's something that is quite often discussed both in the general mods forum, and individual forum mods forums.

Captain Obvious wrote: »

Be more considerate of context and previous actions/non-actions in a thread during DRP. To avoid excessive time demands put the onus on the poster to do the leg work and retrieve relevant posts to argue their case.

The approach taken in DRP is that the CMod is an advocate for the poster rather than for the banning mod- in other words, innocent until proven guilty. Context and previous form is most certainly taken into account before a decision by the CMod is reached. Any other approach would be unfair to all involved.

s3rtvdbwfj81ch

mike_ie wrote: »

If it's not actioned, then the poster can take it that the mod team didn't see an issue with the post in question.

No, this is not correct, at all.

And if it is, then the DRP Process needs to change to allow posters to "defend" themselves with examples of the same behaviour going un-actioned by the same team of mods, and the answer can't be "mind your own business".

I should ask the question here, are you speaking as an admin or a user? If as an admin, then you need to make sure that this claim is verifiable and true in a large majority of cases, because otherwise it's a nonsense claim to make when case after case in the DRP is a disgruntled user disputing a card or ban and showing other people basically "getting away" with the same thing they've been actioned for.

Ken.

mike_ie wrote: »

The approach taken in DRP is that the CMod is an advocate for the poster rather than for the banning mod- in other words, innocent until proven guilty. Context and previous form is most certainly taken into account before a decision by the CMod is reached. Any other approach would be unfair to all involved.

I can vouch for this. My last few DRP's were overturned at the Cmod stage. In our mod forum they ask us to review our decision and they advocate for the banned/carded person. Unless we can convince them 110% they will overturn or reduce the action.

It is a great system and keeps us on our toes. We won't take an action willy nilly when we know we'll get hammered by the cmods.


As I type this I can see that some might see it as a dig at the cmods but believe me its not. Lein,PR and KERSPLAT in the past are great people who have the best interests of the site and all users at heart.

gozunda

mike_ie wrote: »

...

The approach taken in DRP is that the CMod is an advocate for the poster rather than for the banning mod- in other words, innocent until proven guilty. Context and previous form is most certainly taken into account before a decision by the CMod is reached. Any other approach would be unfair to all involved.

Does the same process apply for Admins in the prison forum?

With regard to consistency in moderation I have found that there are huge variations in application right across boards. Some mods prefer to use pm's to issue warnings - others do so in-thread - some other appear to take no notable action for obvious breaches despite reports being made. Some appear to allow all hell break loose and only then take selective action

Is there a common hymn sheet (so to speak) that mods are supposed to consult and adhere to on such matters? I saw one poster informing an Admin that he (the Admin) had failed to consult the recently updated Mod guide book! My first thoughts on that was I'm not aware of any such resource. Is this 'book generally available for reviewing by posters and how come acposter was aware of the contents of same?

In the main I find moderations are ok however their are some obvious inconsistencies.

Example of some inconsistencies I have came across.

For example - some moderators calling out a shared issue in a discussion and only naming and shaming one party involved

For example - some moderators not dealing with posters who openly accuse others of derailing etc.

There are lots more examples which I have came across in threads which would suggest less than consistent moderation across boards.

I agree with the OP - it can feel a lot like walking on eggshells on occasion where inconsistency of moderation is apparent.

Tokyo

gozunda wrote: »

Does the same process apply for Admins in the prison forum?

In what sense? There's usually a big difference between DRP and prison in that by the time a poster finds themselves in prison, they have already proven themselves to be in breach of the forum's rules or Boards ToU, often multiple times. For obvious tools such as rereg's and trolls, we have tools at our disposal that allow us to definitively link these types of posters to their previous behaviour, and we do exercise them before coming to a conclusion, often including getting a second opinion from another admin.

For posters that don't distinctly fall into the above category, we give them a second chance more often than not - those who didn't bother reading the ToU (shills are a good example), or posters who have made poor choices rather than being malicious get a response along the lines of "we know you did <insert silly behaviour here> - if you promise not to do it again, we'll lift the ban."

With regard to consistency in moderation I have found that there are huge variations in application right across boards. Some mods prefer to use pm's to issue warnings - others do so in-thread - some other appear to take no notable action for obvious breaches despite reports being made. Some appear to allow all hell break loose and only then take selective action.

With a broad spectrum of forums will inevitably come differences in moderation, and this is something that we are working on. Personally (and this is just my own modding style), if I have to issue a mod warning, I tend to do so in thread, so that all benefit from it. Things like this we can possibly standardise, but again, due to the broad spectrum of forums here and the diversity of their content, there will never be a one-size-fits-all approach in every aspect of moderating.

Is there a common hymn sheet (so to speak) that mods are supposed to consult and adhere to on such matters? I saw one poster informing an Admin that he (the Admin) had failed to consult the recently updated Mod guide book! My first thoughts on that was I'm not aware of any such resource. Is this 'book generally available for reviewing by posters and how come acposter was aware of the contents of same?

There has always been some form of guidance for moderators, particularly new mods, in the form of multiple threads in the mod forum - I remember being PM'd the links to these when I was first made mod. They provide information in the general sense such as how to deal with reported posts, how to contact CMods and admin over specific issues, and where to contact them (we have different threads for different issues), and also where to post if you have a question.


The proposed mod handbook is simply an amalgamation of that information into one resource. It's not a step by step guide to how to moderate, nor should it be. As we've always stated, because of the multitude of forums across boards, each with their own distinct styles, there is no one-stop-shop to moderating. From the user's perspective, Boards Terms of Use gives the overarching rules of the entire site, and Forum Charters give more specific rules relevant to that particlar forum.

Outlaw Pete

mike_ie wrote: »

The approach taken in DRP is that the CMod is an advocate for the poster rather than for the banning mod- in other words, innocent until proven guilty. Context and previous form is most certainly taken into account before a decision by the CMod is reached. Any other approach would be unfair to all involved.

Well, if all steps of the process are important for 'fairness' (as you suggest with the above) then why did admin step in on my recent moderation dispute thread (before a Cmod had reviewed the action or even interacted with me) and lock it?

All steps of the dispute process are there for a reason, at the end of the day. Each one a layer of protection from mistreatment and when a member of admin skips part of the process they are thereby removing a layer of protection for the user and as you say, that's unfair to all involved.

gozunda

mike_ie wrote:

With a broad spectrum of forums will inevitably come differences in moderation, and this is something that we are working on

That's a good idea imo - because at times it is apparent that moderation is less than consistent in certain forums...

Mike_ie wrote:

Feedback is built in to every reported post IMO - if a poster reports a post and it's actioned, the action is usually visible in-thread. If it's not actioned, then the poster can take it that the mod team didn't see an issue with the post in question

Is there a function to verify / review such decisions or does boards.ie implicably allow all mods carte blanche in making same?

Mike_ie wrote:

From the user's perspective, Boards Terms of Use gives the overarching rules of the entire site, and Forum Charters give more specific rules relevant to that particlar forum.

And what happens when mods don't observe the application of these rules and conditions in their respective forums - what then?

Boards.ie: Mark

It's always worth starting with a PM to the Mod. If unhappy with the decision or response, you can then go to the CMods or Help Desk where both CMods and Admins will see the issue.

Steve

mike_ie wrote: »

The approach taken in DRP is that the CMod is an advocate for the poster rather than for the banning mod- in other words, innocent until proven guilty.

Have to disagree with this Mike, I never take any side in a DRP, I look at what was posted, look at the forum rules, and site rules, and make a call on whether there was a valid reason for a mod action. If there is ambiguity, then I look into intent and posting history.
I don't think it's fair to say that the cmods enter into into any dispute with a predisposition that favours either side of the dispute.

Captain Obvious

It most certainly isn't in favour of the poster in my own experience anyway. And I think a more prolific poster is more likely to get a "last chance" when it comes to DRP whereas a good poster is more likely to be told to take it as a warning. Of course, that's just my own perception from my experiences, other experiences may differ.

As to the mod handbook, my suggestion was more like joint modding for the busiest forums with a joint charter.

And I think you are overestimating the work that would be required to give feedback on a report where no visible actionl is done.