Forum charters and consistency

Jequ0n

2 areas that I think would improve things for both posters and mods: Updating the forum charters and applying consistency when issuing warning points.

Outdated and vague charters: can you please update the charters to reflect what expectations are, and what types of posts are deemed unacceptable. “Don’t be a dick” is simply not sufficient as a guidance and I am getting quite tired of receiving warning points for the most ludicrous reasons which have nothing to do with the charter. The latest one I received for having responded to an off topic post in the CA forum while other posts on the same “off topic” remained on thread as usual.

Inconsistency in applying warnings, and unwillingness to take context into consideration: I recently went through the appeal process and got the warning reversed after an admin reviewed it. The whole process was drawn out and frankly ridiculous, because it could have been resolved easily if mod or cmod had shown willingness to look at the provided evidence instead of the isolated actioned post. We keep hearing that mods are over capacity in some fora, so surely it would be beneficial to mods as well to resolve straight forward issues.

I know that these issues were raised in the past, and I don’t see how any feedback was taken on board despite great promises. Both of the examples mentioned above are recent so feel free to look into them if it helps to visualise the issues. I believe cases like the above cause genuine frustration and a lack of respect for the mods, so hopefully this is valuable feedback that will be taken on board.

TherapyBoy

The “Don’t be a dick” thing is perfect for a discussion site like Boards & is unlikely to be going anywhere.

You could remove it & replace it with 30 specific nailed-down normal-type rules to cover what it covers & it still wouldn’t work as well. It’s simple, & concise. Leave it be.

Jequ0n

It’s not about removing the “don’t be a dick” guidance but it’s not good enough. The whole forum is modded inconsistently and the vagueness of the charter gives the mods the chance to apply warning points at their leisure. Replying to an off topic post simply shouldn’t warrant warning points, particularly if genuine poor behaviour is being ignored.

TherapyBoy

It is a bit of a cover all type of thing but it’s simple & it works.

The way you win when someone posts off-topic isn’t to reply to them. Don’t reply, report their post as “off topic”, let the Moderators deal with it & continue happily on your way.

This is how you win.

Jequ0n

The application of this “rule” is absolutely arbitrary and inconsistently applied but this clearly suits the moderators. But fine, keep it as is and wonder why people get frustrated.

EmmetSpiceland

I guess a big problem with that “rule” is that, it would appear, a lot of dicks don’t realise they are being dicks and think what they say, how they say it and how they conduct themselves is perfectly fine and reasonable.

This would be explain the numerous threads in the “Dispute Resolution” forum where posters with terrible attitudes, seething anger and rotten posting histories act like victims of some, site wide, moderator and admin conspiracy against them.

Then you have the frequent threads popping in “Feedback” having a go at the mods, and admins, again. These same users are given chance after chance but are still not happy because they can’t say what they want to say in a civilised way. It’s, really, not that hard to post within the rules, even when you have some, truly, odious opinions.

Jequ0n

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122332628#Comment_122332628

It would be fine if the rules were applied consistently but they aren’t. Sure you know that too but are benefitting from it.

EmmetSpiceland

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122332664#Comment_122332664

If they were applied consistently these, truly awful, posters wouldn’t be given so many chances.

Aside from given lessons in online conduct and general “behaviour” I’m not there’s much else the mods, or admins, could do.

I, myself, have been warned, more than, a few times. It’s not hard to look at what the warning is for and think ‘yeah, I was being a bit of a dick there’. I’ve found the mods open to discussion I’ve felt aggrieved and compromise was met. Haven’t had the prison bars, though, that’s never a good look on a poster.

The idea that the mods, and admins, are out to get posters with a certain outlook is, simply, risible. The site is loaded with people with all sorts of “views”, it’s just that a certain cohort can’t seem to express there’s without breaching the rules of the forum/site.

Honestly, if these “types” could learn how to get their point across without breaking the rules there wouldn’t be half as much time wasted in “Dispute Resolution” or “Feedback”.

Jequ0n

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122332741#Comment_122332741

A lot of words but you agree that the rules are not applied consistently. Thanks

EmmetSpiceland

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122332770#Comment_122332770

They are, somewhat, open to “interpretation”. For example, a user with a, somewhat, clean record will be given more slack. Same goes for good users who add to the site.

Terrible users, posting terrible opinions, terribly, attacking posters, ignoring mod instructions and breaching site rules will always be “judged” harshly, after they’ve been given chance after chance, after chance, of course.

Then the whinging starts.

Jequ0n

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122332828#Comment_122332828

I’m talking about cases where one or two posters get infracted while others doing the same thing on the same thread/ page are allowed to do so. In the cited example it was having responded to an off topic post, while plenty of subsequent posts on the thread were allowed to respond to the same off topic post. It’s absolutely ridiculous and should not be treated differently.

EmmetSpiceland

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122332866#Comment_122332866

Not all warnings are visible. I can’t speak for the mods, or admins, but if I had to guess I’d say the user getting the warning was, probably, being a dick in the way they were “engaging”.

There is a chance that the mods are working off reported posts and that’s where some users, engaging in similar “actions” are getting away unscathed but, again, that’s just guessing.

Really, though, it’s not that hard to not get warnings/infractions, you just have to stay within the rules, attack the post not the poster, follow mod instructions and, generally, don’t be a dick.

Jequ0n

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122332974#Comment_122332974

If your posts get deleted and others remain on thread it’s difficult not to wonder about the rationale. And in the given example nobody was being accused of being a dick. It was for responding to an off topic post (as per warning), while other posts on the same remained. Yes it’s probably a response to reported posts which makes it even more pathetic because what use is a mod that doesn’t check the context.

Anyway, doesn’t matter.

Quantum Erasure

On the inconstancy in applying warnings, there were two threads recently in dispute resolution, in one a mod said

A warning given on one post is often related to that post and preceding ones. We don't generally give all the preceding ones a warning as that could result in the poster earning enough points for a full ban.

While in another a poster, after receiving three warnings, put forward the argument

I've no issue with one pointed warning, the additional two suggested I was ignoring the first one, all the warnings were applied within a few minutes of each other a day after the posts they warned were posted.

And that point wasn't even acknowledged by c-mod / admin