How appellants are treated in DR

Beasty

....... wrote: »

Its funny, because another poster has made the point on this thread that the DRP is used for mods here to wield their power and try to belittle people.

Just to correct this point, mods get no opportunity to "use" the DRP (certainly in their modding capacity)

Tokyo

....... wrote: »

Its funny, because another poster has made the point on this thread that the DRP is used for mods here to wield their power and try to belittle people.

Mods don't have any more input into a DRP than the appellant has - in fact, a mod needs to be specifically invited by an admin to post before they can participate in a DRP. The general process is that a CMod takes a DRP, asks the forum mods about the events leading up to the infraction, whether they engaged with the poster, etc, and then the CMod forms their own opinion on the situation based on all the facts at hand.

The idea of mods holding court over regular posters in DRP is fallacy.

Tokyo

KyussB wrote: »

In fairness, Boards has a widely held public perception, of mods being 'overly fond of their control panel' - as it was put.

It seems a bit silly getting offended by it and debating over it - it's a reputation the site has well earned - making an argument over it and restricting someone from the thread over it, creates a perception of proving the posters point tbh - a perception which would easily be avoided by *shock* less use of mod powers...

If someone's not being overly constructive on the thread, there's no need to try to pick at something to skewer them on a technicality - it looks less bad to just let the strand of the conversation end naturally, or just tell them to knock it off without thread banning.

In one strand of discussion, a poster taking offence with that dismissed by admins/cmods, in another strand of discussion, an admin taking offence with a poster threadban in place...perhaps thicker skins would help...

In broad strokes, I agree with what you say - in a pool of people as large as the boards members list, there's always going to be a small percentage of posters that are incapable of engaging in a constructive manner, and you are correct, for the most part it's easier (and smarter) to let them talk themselves out. Because at the end of the day, hopefully there's more signal than noise in the thread as a whole, and that will win out.

That being said, there are posters that use feedback as a means to get a boot in, because it's one of the few places where you can take a jab at the office, admin or mods and wrap it up as "feedback". And we let that fly, to a degree - it's good to air frustrations at times. But when someone posts along the lines of:

Over the years it has become clear that the "payment" is their little control panel and the free reign to belittle people in the drp.this is not my opinion,its a fact

....That's not even a feigned attempt at giving feedback, that's just being a dick, plain and simple, and I make no apologies for saying that.

Engage with us with a modicum of civility, and I (we) will happily hear you out, even if we don't always agree with what you are saying. But if someone can't follow that basic tenet, then I see no issue with removing the tool of feedback from that poster until they learn to communicate civilly.

It's a pretty basic requirement, not much removed from the real world. Walk into your local bank and go to.customer service, shouting "you're all a bunch of money-grabbing c********nts!!!!!!!", and see how far you get in terms of a response.

FreudianSlippers

Kenzie Uneven Lettuce wrote: »

So here's a contradiction. Historic cards have "ongoing relevence" in bans as a result of a "totting up" process.

So what you are saying here is that Admin etc may reference them, but the appellant may not refer to them, nor appeal them, if Admin etc deem that to be "unreasonable".

That is pretty stacked against users, if you'd be honest about it for once.

+1

What's the point of the "points/expiry" on cards if they never actually expire and there's no clear indication of what the "points" mean?

LuckyLloyd

The points system is an automated feature that triggers a site ban if you accumulate so many active ones, no? “9 pointed”, I believe the term used to be. It’s legacy functionality from the old forum platform.

.......

mike_ie wrote: »

Engage with us with a modicum of civility...

This should apply to mods as well as users.

Chips Lovell

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

What's the point of the "points/expiry" on cards if they never actually expire and there's no clear indication of what the "points" mean?

Each infraction comes with a point. If you rack up nine points within a certain period of time (I can't remember how long), you get an automatic temporary siteban. The points expire after a certain time period.

So while points expires, the infraction itself remains on a poster's record.

Timberrrrrrrr

Chips Lovell wrote: »

Each infraction comes with a point. If you rack up nine points within a certain period of time (I can't remember how long), you get an automatic temporary siteban. The points expire after a certain time period.

So while points expires, the infraction itself remains on a poster's record.

Which is then used down the line to beat posters around the head. How many times do we see then words "over the last X years you have accumulated "?

Chips Lovell

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

Which is then used down the line to beat posters around the head. How many times do we see then words "over the last X years you have accumulated "?

I don't think taking a poster's prior record into account counts as "beating them over the head". At least not in my opinion.

I believe its reasonable that serial troublemakers should get heavier sanctions compared to first timers or posters with a relatively clean track record.

McMurphy

Chips Lovell wrote: »

Each infraction comes with a point. If you rack up nine points within a certain period of time (I can't remember how long), you get an automatic temporary siteban. The points expire after a certain time period.

So while points expires, the infraction itself remains on a poster's record.

Which was the original point in hand I believe.

And it's not just points on a current profile, I know for sure that your accounts going back 13 years can be brought up in an attempt to sway a cat mods decision in DRP.

If there's no system really in place to deal with sanctions issued past a certain period of time, then so too should past transgressions on the site. Why can cards/bans and any record of them not be nuked after a certain period of time?

It's madness that your posts history can be nuked at will via GDRP, but not your "record".

And for the record, I largely agree with the DRP process, it's not perfect by any means, but it's sure as hell better than none, and I'm not sure of any other site that offers such a process.

I'm just pointing out that time lines being drawn should be applied equally or not at all.

Chips Lovell

If you didn't take previous accounts into account (to pardon the pun), then people could just open a new one any time they got a card and start afresh. It would modding forums a lot more difficult if serial troublemakers could avoid escalating sanctions by just reregistering.

.......

Johnny Dogs wrote: »

And it's not just points on a current profile, I know for sure that your accounts going back 13 years can be brought up in an attempt to sway a cat mods decision in DRP.

Thats cant be done anymore because it would mean that personal data was being kept after accounts were closed. GDPR has stopped this.

Chips Lovell

....... wrote: »

Thats cant be done anymore because it would mean that personal data was being kept after accounts were closed.

What personal data?

.......

Chips Lovell wrote: »

What personal data?

When you register you provide an email address. And no doubt your IP address is recorded as part of posts you make.

If boards.ie is able to link a new account with an old account, they must have some method of linking them?

So if your old account is identifiable BY your new account, then some personal data must have been retained.

Unless there is some other way of knowing who owned what old accounts?

Chips Lovell

....... wrote: »

When you register you provide an email address. And no doubt your IP address is recorded as part of posts you make.

I don't know if IP addresses count as personal data, but it's kind of beside the point because mods don't have access to either.

To borrow a phrase from a rural Garda I once came across, when it comes to figuring out who's a re-reg, most of the time "it doesn't take much solving".

McMurphy

Chips Lovell wrote: »

If you didn't take previous accounts into account (to pardon the pun), then people could just open a new one any time they got a card and start afresh. It would modding forums a lot more difficult if serial troublemakers could avoid escalating sanctions by just reregistering.

Of course I'm not expecting previous accounts aren't taken into consideration- period, I'm saying that maybe they should be considered irrelevant after a certain time frame.

My account is close to 2 years old, yet I seen first hand how my old accounts were being brought up to be used against me a few weeks ago. Surely there's enough/not enough transgressions racked up in that period to base a decision on without resorting to that nonsense.

....... wrote: »

Thats cant be done anymore because it would mean that personal data was being kept after accounts were closed. GDPR has stopped this.

I don't know the ins and outs of it tbh, but it happens still.

.......

Chips Lovell wrote: »

I don't know if IP addresses count as personal data, but it's kind of beside the point because mods don't have access to either.

To borrow a phrase from a rural Garda I once came across, when it comes to figuring out who's a re-reg, most of the time "it doesn't take much solving".

An IP address on its own is not. But if a combination of IP and email address could identify an individual - then it is personal data.

Oh sure - and no doubt some pattern matching on the content of posts is enough.

Chips Lovell

Johnny Dogs wrote: »

Of course I'm not expecting previous accounts aren't taken into consideration- period, I'm saying that maybe they should be considered irrelevant after a certain time frame.

I think the answer to that is, it depends. For example, if poster X picks up a yellow and a red card three years ago and they break the rules again today, there's no way I'm going to say to them "well you've already got a yellow and a red, so I'm giving you a one day ban".

However, if poster Y has been picking up half a dozen mod actions a year, every year without fail, I'm not going to say "we'll I'll just ignore any of the ones older than a year because that's ancient history". To me it's relevant that a poster has been unable to modify their behaviour for four or five years as opposed to one year, or what ever the cutoff date is.

McMurphy

Chips Lovell wrote: »

I think the answer to that is, it depends. For example, if poster X picks up a yellow and a red card three years ago and they break the rules again today, there's no way I'm going to say to them "well you've already got a yellow and a red, so I'm giving you a one day ban".

However, if poster Y has been picking up half a dozen mod actions a year, every year without fail, I'm not going to say "we'll I'll just ignore any of the ones older than a year because that's ancient history". To me it's relevant that a poster has been unable to modify their behaviour for four or five years as opposed to one year, or what ever the cutoff date is.

I'm not trying to have a go at you, or be difficult, I'm really not, but I have had a case where I was carded by you, and during the pm process I even had cards that were overturned still being taken into consideration as to the reasoning for issuing the sanction at the time.

The card system and the points expiry/overturned thing needs overhauled big time.

.......

Johnny Dogs wrote: »

I'm not trying to have a go at you, or be difficult, I'm really not, but I have had a case where I was carded, and during the pm process I even had cards that were overturned still being taken into consideration as to the reasoning for issuing the sanction at the time.

The card system and the points expiry/overturned thing needs overhauled big time.

+1

It makes no sense to say "you are receiving this card for breaking this rule" and then when you appeal to be told, "well actually you got the card because you broke the rule AND you had previous transgressions".

So you are actually getting punished for previous transgressions, not for whatever rule you broke.

But you were already punished for the previous transgressions at the time of the previous transgressions - so you get punished, then the same transgression is used as a stick to beat you later.

Chips Lovell

Johnny Dogs wrote: »

I'm not trying to have a go at you, or be difficult, I'm really not, but I have had a case where I was carded by you, and during the pm process I even had cards that were overturned still being taken into consideration as to the reasoning for issuing the sanction at the time.

I think you may be getting the wrong end of the stick. I believe you're referring to the one day ban you received in November 2018? If that's the case, the PM to you read:

Since you've had three yellows and three reds in just over a year, this time it's a ban

You replied saying two of the yellows had been reversed.

Between July 2017 and November 2018, you got three yellows and three reds AND two yellows that were reversed. The reversed cards weren't factored into your one day ban.

McMurphy

Chips Lovell wrote: »

I think you may be getting the wrong end of the stick. I believe you're referring to the one day ban you received in November 2018? If that's the case, the PM to you read:



You replied saying two of the yellows had been reversed.

Between July 2017 and November 2018, you got three yellows and three reds AND two yellows that were reversed. The reversed cards weren't factored into your one day ban.

Just to refresh your memory, you initially said that the ban was issued because, and I quote (on the 28th of November 2018)

Since you've had three yellows and three reds in just over a year, this time it's a ban

And I responded with.

One year ago to the day was the 28/11,

One yellow - reversed.

A further yellow issued by yourself also reversed (cos trigger happy moderation)


Since that, 2 x reds.... both issued by **cough cough** = you.

Looks like you're including cards that have been reversed, and a yellow going back to July 17.

How long are mod actions held against an account (reversed or not) anyway?

Chips Lovell

Yes, you seemed to read my PM as "exactly one year", whereas it read "just over a year".

McMurphy

Chips Lovell wrote: »

Yes, you seemed to read my PM as "exactly one year", whereas it read "just over a year".

The middle of July 17 to 2 days away from December 2018 the following year is a big chunk off being "just over a year".

To surmise, it was total of two red cards in the space of a year.

Let's leave it at that though.

Chips Lovell

....... wrote: »

It makes no sense to say "you are receiving this card for breaking this rule" and then when you appeal to be told, "well actually you got the card because you broke the rule AND you had previous transgressions".

I can't speak for every instance, but it's generally more the case "you are receiving this sanction for breaking this rule and the severity of the sanction is because you broke this rule AND you had previous transgressions"

.......

Chips Lovell wrote: »

I can't speak for every instance, but it's generally more the case "you are receiving this sanction for breaking this rule and the severity of the sanction is because you broke this rule AND you had previous transgressions"

Well actually I was referring to the DRP where cards are quite often upheld because of previous transgressions and NOT because of the trangression itself.

But tbh, either way is unfair IMO.

Not all cards are warranted. But if you dont dispute every card you get - you risk being beaten with them later.

So posters SHOULD dispute EVERY card - because if they dont, they risk being beaten with them later.

I let a card slide before just because it wasnt a big deal, but I felt like the mod was in the wrong - but you know, people have bad days. Another mod even private messaged me and said to dispute it because it would be overturned. I never got round to it. However, next trangsression I was beaten with the previous card.

The whole system is flawed - IMO.

Franz Von Peppercorn

....... wrote: »

+1

It makes no sense to say "you are receiving this card for breaking this rule" and then when you appeal to be told, "well actually you got the card because you broke the rule AND you had previous transgressions".

So you are actually getting punished for previous transgressions, not for whatever rule you broke.

But you were already punished for the previous transgressions at the time of the previous transgressions - so you get punished, then the same transgression is used as a stick to beat you later.

They should disappear for mods as well as the rest of us after a while.

Chips Lovell

....... wrote: »

Well actually I was referring to the DRP where cards are quite often upheld because of previous transgressions and NOT because of the trangression itself.

I don't recall seeing a case in DRP where it was found someone didn't break the rules but the sanction was still upheld because of their previous record.

.......

Chips Lovell wrote: »

I don't recall seeing a case in DRP where it was found someone didn't break the rules but the sanction was still upheld because of their previous record.

I have.

Beasty

....... wrote: »

I have.

Please provide a link

Thanks