Introducing the Current Affairs/IMHO forum

10-09-2020 7:00pm

mike_ie wrote: »

I'm pretty sure you are well aware that's not what I said, but are willfully ignoring it just to nail your predisposed opinion home.

What I was explicitly clear about in my post is that I don't blindly see post, hit big button. If I see a shítty comment from a poster who has a relatively clean record, and seems to have crossed the line, then they may get a verbal warning to get back in line, If I see a shítty comment from a poster who has a months long history of shítty posts, including multiple cards, then yes, they're going to be receiving a ban.

The point being, do I take into account who a poster is? No. Do I take into account that poster's history up until that point? Yes. But I'm pretty sure you knew that the first time around.

That is what i thought. I wanted clarification.

So two posters have history. Poster A calls poster B a dick. Poster B reports it and for some reason (which, as clarified earlier will never be shared ) no action is taken.

Poster B sees that no action has been taken and calls poster A a dick and receives an infraction.

Two weeks later the same thing happens again and the moderator sees that poster A has a clean record so issues a warning but poster B gets a ban.

Can you see how this leads to frustration and accusations of unfair moderating? If someone is consistently being a dick then fair enough, but you have to start from a level playing field and unless people get some form of feedback it is very easy to think that this is not the case.

Tokyo · 10-09-2020 7:10pm

Aegir wrote: »

That is what i thought. I wanted clarification.

So two posters have history. Poster A calls poster B a dick. Poster B reports it and for some reason (which, as clarified earlier will never be shared ) no action is taken.

Poster B sees that no action has been taken and calls poster A a dick and receives an infraction.

Two weeks later the same thing happens again and the moderator sees that poster A has a clean record so issues a warning but poster B gets a ban.

Can you see how this leads to frustration and accusations of unfair moderating? If someone is consistently being a dick then fair enough, but you have to start from a level playing field and unless people get some form of feedback it is very easy to think that this is not the case.

Where in my post above did you infer that no action is taken? What I just described is the level of action taken.

Poster A: gets verbal warning because it's their first offence.
Poster B: gets a card or ban because they have already used up every last bit of tolerance the moderation team has for their particular form of nonsense and have no freight of good will to draw upon.

We *did* start from a level playing field. Some dickish posters manage to run the length of that playing field quicker than others is the point you seem to be missing.

I'd like to also add that

Poster B sees that no action has been taken and calls poster A a dick and receives an infraction.

... is a pretty poor excuse in general, both here, and in the real world. "I saw Person A get away with being a dick so I should be allowed to get away with being a dick too" tends not to be well received in most real world scenarios I'm aware of.

10-09-2020 7:13pm

mike_ie wrote: »

"I saw Person A get away with being a dick so I should be allowed to get away with being a dick too" tends not to be well received in most real world scenarios I'm aware of.

If everything was black and white, I would certainly agree with you. But as I sure you are aware, the world is rarely that simple.

Outlaw Pete · 10-09-2020 7:13pm

mike_ie wrote: »

FWIW, I'm very aware that certain people reporting posts are bending over backwards to be offended. And they are seen and treated as such.

Most mods are very aware of it and most mods take it into account but there are for sure mods who are more influenced by volume of reports and/or what is said in the accompanying blurb than others. Mods who perhaps don't take a quick scan of the last dozen or so posts to see if maybe that user is guilty of posting in a much worse way and perhaps doesn't deserve the civil reply they are complaining about not getting. For example, I have had users advise a whole thread to put me on ignore and then less than an hour later moan cause I didn't address every single point in one of their posts which hand't addressed any of mine.

And this is another thing which moderator's need to be aware of and that is that oftentimes what multiple users say about someone can be a complete load of nonsense. For example, this nonsense about points not being addressed. Lost count how many times I seen this said and I only assume if they are saying it on threads non-stop, then they are saying it when they report posts too. I mean I must have addressed the Epstein / Trump stuff a million times at this stage and some users will still say I always ignore it, which is why I think some things are not always suitable for mod intervention tbh, as unless a mod is active on a thread and reads every post, then they can be hoodwinked into thinking a user is ignoring points that users are making. Sometimes the squeaky wheel gets the oil unfortunately though I guess.

What I *can* say is that if a situation comes to our attention, it's still given proper consideration, irrespective of the number of posts associated with it. It's not just. blind reaction of "reported post = card".

I don't think anyone thinks a reported post = an automatic card but a slurry of users reporting one post is absolutely not treated the same by all mods, especially when those users are established users who perhaps align with that mod when it comes to a political outlook, and especially not if some of those reporting the post are members of admin. More credence is for sure given to those reports by certain mods, it's only natural and was always that way. The only way to mitigate that is for other mods to keep an eye out for it and not be so keen to have each other's backs maybe, if and when a mod appears to be paying too much heed to who's reporting posts rather than what's being reported.

Now you and others might feel that this provides an advantage to a particular side of an argument, and maybe sheer numbers on one side means that certain posts come to our attention quicker, or conversely, certain posts on the other side of the argument slip through the cracks. But this is user driven, not mod driven, and I'm really not sure what we can do better than to they and ensure that any issue that *does* come to our attention - be it though reported posts, or encountered while reading through the forum - irrespective of the side of the argument it falls - is treated as fairly as possible.

You're absolutely right, you (collective you) can't do any better than that, but the point is: it's not being done as users are not being treated as fairly as possible, given that one side of the political spectrum will be hounded if they dare ask questions in a manner a mod thinks amounts to them being uncivil or they haven't addressed all "points" a user has made, even when those points are strawman in nature Whilst users on the opposite side of the political spectrum won't be held to anything close to that standard at all. I have yet to see, for example, a left leaning user chastised and told to respect some opinions that a pro-Trump poster has made, chance would be a fine thing. Lost count how many times I have had a long post quoted and replied to with one dismissive line. Not a hope if I reported such a reply would a mod come to my rescue, and nor would I want them to, as I can deal with that crap myself, I don't need mods baby sitting me and that's what I think that kind of moderation is, baby sitting. If a user ignores your points, or fails to address them, point it out to them, maybe they addressed it already and will link you to it, and if they don't, don't reply to them any more.

Another accusation which is thrown around by certain mods is this "soapboxing" business and yes I accept it can be something which needs to be addressed from time to time. I remember one AH user from years back who used to start multiple political threads a week on one single issue and would shoehorn the topic into a thread about corn flakes if he could, but whenever I've seen this said of someone posting in CA (including myself) it has not being remotely appropriate and again is absolutely something which tends to be aimed at only non-liberal users. There are plenty of users, for example, who never shut up about Trump being a racist and a sex offender and how the GOP are the party of white supremacy and right wing this and neo-Nazi that, but never are they told to pipe down and quit soapboxing (and nor should they be for that matter, let them have at it as far as I'm concerned) but when a non-liberal user dares to speak negatively about the left, to the same regularity, oh be the horror. Even when it's very much on-topic, backs go up and quick fast, and then the soapboxing accusations invariably come out, and as far as I'm concerned it's just lazy nonsense and reveals that there is an agenda behind the accusation rather than any genuine belief that the comments aren't suitable for the thread or appropriate to be included in the specific reply. No, they're just not wanted as they are not appreciated / agreed with.

EmmetSpiceland wrote: »

You see a load of morons whining because they feel they are being “targeted” by a mod. If you get on the wrong side of a mod then you’d better keep your nose clean. If you get done for a certain way of posting, you don’t do it again.

Nice dig there at those you don't agree with by labeling them morons.

Actually, this is something I'd like to finish (this long winded reply) on: I really hope Admin aren't so naive to think all the positive, agreeable and sympathetic comments they get in here in FB are being made on the level all the time. It's far from a coincidence, I'd suggest, that certain users only seem to post in here disagreeing with negative feedback when it's being given by users who they're currently knocking heads with elsewhere on the site, more often than not in the very threads which the issues being raised have arisen on.

uptherebels · 10-09-2020 7:15pm

Aegir wrote: »

That is what i thought. I wanted clarification.

So two posters have history. Poster A calls poster B a dick. Poster B reports it and for some reason (which, as clarified earlier will never be shared ) no action is taken.

Poster B sees that no action has been taken and calls poster A a dick and receives an infraction.

Two weeks later the same thing happens again and the moderator sees that poster A has a clean record so issues a warning but poster B gets a ban.

Can you see how this leads to frustration and accusations of unfair moderating? If someone is consistently being a dick then fair enough, but you have to start from a level playing field and unless people get some form of feedback it is very easy to think that this is not the case.

What level playing field do you want in the example above? If B doesn't have a clean record, that is on them.

Kidchameleon · 10-09-2020 7:16pm

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

And this is another thing which moderator's need to be aware of and that is that oftentimes what multiple users say about someone can be a complete load of nonsense. For example one user the day posted that I was banned from every Trump thread on Boards (I'd been only banned from one, at the time) and another more general example would be this nonsense about points not being addressed actually. Lost count how many times I seen this said and I only assume if they are saying it on a thread non-stop, then they are saying it when they report posts too. I mean I must have addressed the Epstein / Trump stuff a million times at this stage and some users will still say I always ignore it, which is why I think some things are not always suitable for mod intervention tbh

This happens all the time. Make you have to walk on egg shells when posting.

10-09-2020 7:19pm

uptherebels wrote: »

What level playing field do you want in the example above? If B doesn't have a clean record, that is on them.

If A and B aren’t treated consistently to start with ( for whatever reason) then from that point onwards there is no level playing field.

uptherebels · 10-09-2020 7:22pm

Aegir wrote: »

If A and B aren’t treated consistently to start with ( for whatever reason) then from that point onwards there is no level playing field.

What consistency do you want? A has a clean record and is given a warning, b has been given warnings or cards meaning they don't have a clean record and is given a ban. What are you looking to happen instead?

10-09-2020 7:26pm

uptherebels wrote: »

What consistency do you want? A has a clean record and is given a warning, b has been given warnings or cards meaning they don't have a clean record and is given a ban. What are you looking to happen instead?

Did you read my post?

If both have a clean record to start with but are not treated consistently them from that point onwards the playing field is not level.

Consistency in moderating is key and I’m not convinced it is there.

10-09-2020 7:30pm

Baggly wrote: »

There is no overlap in terms of the mod teams for CA/IMHO and Politics though.

CA/IMHO
Baggly, Beasty, dudara, hullaballoo, Ken., Kimbot, mike_ie, Mr E, Sephiroth_dude, Skylinehead, Ten of Swords

Politics
ancapailldorcha, Chips Lovell, johnnyskeleton, Quin_Dub, Seth Brundle

So unless ive mistaken your point, i think the point is moot.

You missed the c-mods, but my point is that grudges follow across forums. The personalities on CA and Politics are more or less the same.

Up set a mod in CA and there is the potential for them to penalise you on politics and vice versa.

uptherebels · 10-09-2020 7:32pm

Aegir wrote: »

Did you read my post?

If both have a clean record to start with but are not treated consistently them from that point onwards the playing field is not level.

Consistency in moderating is key and I’m not convinced it is there.

Both posters are responsible for their own posts.
Did you ignore the number of points that were laid out that go into a moderator decision?
Now you find me an example of where two posters who were exactly equal within that criteria and were treated differently for posting the same comment to each other?

Buford T. Justice XIX · 10-09-2020 7:39pm

EmmetSpiceland wrote: »

You don’t get on the wrong side of the mods by having a “different opinion” to them.

Aegir wrote: »

Yes, you do.

EmmetSpiceland wrote: »

You get on the wrong side of them by breaking the rule or wasting their time.

I think it's important to add in some of the deleted post right after the section you posted, Aegir, as it clarifies the mod involvement in deciding what posts to action.

I would have very different opinions to some other posters on Boards that I regularly interact with, both in support and in opposition to their opinions. Some I would be friendly with, some not so much.

But the overriding factor in deciding if an action is required and what that action will be is the breaking of a rule. I honestly haven't seen any post from a mod, Cmod or Admin that decided to sanction any poster because they disagreed with their opinion nor indeed encouraged a mod to do so.

I've seen many cases, though, of posters being given a second, third, fourth and, indeed, a fifth chance to reform their posting style.

And note very clearly, I said posting style and not posting opinion.

Some posters cannot separate the issues that the site has with their posting style with their own inference that it's their opinion that's being sanctioned. The only opinions that I've seen being sanctioned were ones that wouldn't be welcome on any except the very far, extreme sides of opinion. And, thankfully, those were extremely rare.

Outlaw Pete · 10-09-2020 8:02pm

Buford T. Justice XIX wrote: »

I honestly haven't seen any post from a mod, Cmod or Admin that decided to sanction any poster because they disagreed with their opinion ....

They're not just going to say that's why they did it, Buford.

It's a blindspot mods have on Boards and have always had, that they can't seem to see how certain mods are very inconsistent in who and what they moderate and that inconsistency somehow always coincidentally seems to align with their political outlook. Users tend to see it more clearly as we see the posts those mods thank and then read their posts and how they will step over users on their side of the aisle behaving in the very same way they go on to action another user for who, surprise surprise, is not on their side of the aisle.

Whenever these cases get to the DRF or HD and you try and make a case for yourself, mods/admin have six ways from Sunday to shut you down and prevent you from highlighting how moderators are moderating you for things they don't moderate other users for: "We're here to discuss your posting, not other users" and "If you have an issue with certain posts not being actioned, report them". These two replies alone are enough to prevent users making an appeal on the basis that they are being held to a standard of posting which others are not and/or that certain moderators are largely moderating with a bias.

10-09-2020 11:40pm

Buford T. Justice XIX wrote: »

I think it's important to add in some of the deleted post right after the section you posted, Aegir, as it clarifies the mod involvement in deciding what posts to action.

I would have very different opinions to some other posters on Boards that I regularly interact with, both in support and in opposition to their opinions. Some I would be friendly with, some not so much.

But the overriding factor in deciding if an action is required and what that action will be is the breaking of a rule. I honestly haven't seen any post from a mod, Cmod or Admin that decided to sanction any poster because they disagreed with their opinion nor indeed encouraged a mod to do so.

I've seen many cases, though, of posters being given a second, third, fourth and, indeed, a fifth chance to reform their posting style.

And note very clearly, I said posting style and not posting opinion.

Some posters cannot separate the issues that the site has with their posting style with their own inference that it's their opinion that's being sanctioned. The only opinions that I've seen being sanctioned were ones that wouldn't be welcome on any except the very far, extreme sides of opinion. And, thankfully, those were extremely rare.

So what denotes a posting style that is worthy of sanction?

Is there a nice way to call someone a troll that doesn’t get sanctioned and a bad way that does? If so, please explain it as I seem to get it wrong and other posters have it sussed.

Baggly · 10-09-2020 11:55pm

Aegir wrote: »

You missed the c-mods, but my point is that grudges follow across forums. The personalities on CA and Politics are more or less the same.

Up set a mod in CA and there is the potential for them to penalise you on politics and vice versa.

Cmods generally don't do the day to day modding stuff, unless its something time sensitive like defamation or inappropriate pics or spammers or something (special urgent situations). That's not their role. They cover a lot of fora, so it just wouldn't be practical (Im obv not a cmod so this is just my take on it).

They handle things are DRP level and might query whats happening on a forum in general, but i have never ever been ordered to do something as a mod. Its just not how it works. Cmods are an oversight role, in my view.

With this in mind - no - there isn't potential for you to be penalised in CA as part of a grudge or vendetta. There isn't overlap in the mod team and the cmod team does not instruct us to 'ban XYZ because he was a dick to me once' or whatever.

Different mods have different opinions and thinking its all one big club where a 'sunshine, lollipops and kittens forum' mod might ask another mod in a different forum to 'get someone' is not in line with the reality of the situation.

For one thing, it would be a stupid thing to do because for all that sunshine, lollipops and kittens forum mod could know the other mod could know 'someone' and would report the mod for a serious breach in their role.

For another thing, all of our decisions have to stand up to muster. They all have to be explained because they may need to be (publicly). That's the point of DRP (well one of them). If a mod goes off the rails with a vendetta, they get called on it. To be honest, i cant remember it happening like that since i've been modding. i don't know if it ever happened like that.

Tokyo · 11-09-2020 5:42am

Aegir wrote: »

You missed the c-mods, but my point is that grudges follow across forums...

Aegir wrote: »

Up set a mod in CA and there is the potential for them to penalise you on politics and vice versa.

Aegir wrote: »

there is a huge overlap between Politics, CA and other threads. There is always bound to be overspill of grudges from one to the other.

The penny is beginning to drop on the underlying motivation behind these posts, and there seems to be a more personal underlying grievance here than 'the mods' are biased towards 'the posters'.

FWIW, I imagine the CMods issue a collective groan everytime I post an upcoming DRP in the CMods forum, and it's in all likelihood a 'who drew the short straw' decision than a CMod rubbing their hands together with glee at yet another opportunity to stick it to a poster they dislike, which seems to be the picture you're attempting to paint here.

You seem to be hung up on this 'CMod with a grudge' scenario, so, if you have an issue with a card or ban that was placed on your account, then bring it to DRP and get a second opinion. If you're not happy with a CMod decision in DRP then escalate it to admin level. If there's merit to your allegation then it will soon come to the surface. However, not bringing it to DRP but raising it here under the guise of feedback is a tad disingenuous because it shows that you feel your argument may not hold up to scrutiny in DRP.

Aegir wrote: »

Is there a nice way to call someone a troll that doesn’t get sanctioned and a bad way that does? If so, please explain it as I seem to get it wrong and other posters have it sussed.

And this discussion ends with your loaded question above. There has been a page and a half of mods and posters taking time out to engage with your questions in good faith, trying to provide insight into how certain mod conclusions are gotten to. You choose not to take it on board or believe it, that's fine. But what you don't get to continue doing is make circular accusations towards individuals, or dress up your issues with a particular CMod under the guise of seeking feedback.

11-09-2020 8:23am

mike_ie wrote: »

The penny is beginning to drop on the underlying motivation behind these posts, and there seems to be a more personal underlying grievance here than 'the mods' are biased towards 'the posters'.

FWIW, I imagine the CMods issue a collective groan everytime I post an upcoming DRP in the CMods forum, and it's in all likelihood a 'who drew the short straw' decision than a CMod rubbing their hands together with glee at yet another opportunity to stick it to a poster they dislike, which seems to be the picture you're attempting to paint here.

You seem to be hung up on this 'CMod with a grudge' scenario, so, if you have an issue with a card or ban that was placed on your account, then bring it to DRP and get a second opinion. If you're not happy with a CMod decision in DRP then escalate it to admin level. If there's merit to your allegation then it will soon come to the surface. However, not bringing it to DRP but raising it here under the guise of feedback is a tad disingenuous because it shows that you feel your argument may not hold up to scrutiny in DRP.

And this discussion ends with your loaded question above. There has been a page and a half of mods and posters taking time out to engage with your questions in good faith, trying to provide insight into how certain mod conclusions are gotten to. You choose not to take it on board or believe it, that's fine. But what you don't get to continue doing is make circular accusations towards individuals, or dress up your issues with a particular CMod under the guise of seeking feedback.

and the wagons get circled and the discussion closed down.

Tokyo · 11-09-2020 8:46am

Aegir wrote: »

and the wagons get circled and the discussion closed down.

You may feel that way. I respectfully disagree.

Your line of posting is very obviously agenda driven, so rather than talking around in circles, I've given you a very direct list of courses of action you can take.

If you do feel that you are unfairly targeted by a CMod who is using their position to carry some sort of pent up grudge between forums, which seems to be your not so thinly veiled allegation here, then please bring the mod actions incurred due to this CMod to DRP for a second (or third opinion). If your claim holds water, then we'll see. If you don't take it to DRP however but continue to raise it here, then we can infer from that a rather different story.

As for the rest:

Is there a nice way to call someone a troll that doesn’t get sanctioned and a bad way that does? If so, please explain it as I seem to get it wrong and other posters have it sussed.

...is not discussion.

11-09-2020 9:26am

mike_ie wrote: »

You may feel that way. I respectfully disagree.

Your line of posting is very obviously agenda driven, so rather than talking around in circles, I've given you a very direct list of courses of action you can take.

If you do feel that you are unfairly targeted by a CMod who is using their position to carry some sort of pent up grudge between forums, which seems to be you not so thinly veiled allegation here, then please bring the mod actions incurred due to this CMod to DRP for a second (or third opinion). If your claim holds water, then we'll see. If you don't take it to DRP however but continue to raise it here, then we can infer from that a rather different story.

As for the rest:

...is not discussion.

I'm not too worried about the former. You, I and it appears the other mods know my thoughts on this and we disagree. that is something I have to accept.

it is the latter i am concerned with and it is a genuine question. Personal abuse and blatent trolling happens all the time. Accusations of trolling are s frequent and some seem to be sanctioned, others not. I am trying to understand how, if the mods will do nothing about, trolls can be called out without falling fowl of the rules.

Buford T. Justice XIX · 11-09-2020 11:02am

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

They're not just going to say that's why they did it, Buford.

Of course not, Pete.

It's a blindspot mods have on Boards and have always had, that they can't seem to see how certain mods are very inconsistent in who and what they moderate and that inconsistency somehow always coincidentally seems to align with their political outlook. Users tend to see it more clearly as we see the posts those mods thank and then read their posts and how they will step over users on their side of the aisle behaving in the very same way they go on to action another user for who, surprise surprise, is not on their side of the aisle.

We all have our biases, Pete. Even yourself has biases.

But, at the end of the day, all mods have to be able to stand over the infractions they issue and the higher up a mod gets on Boards, the more important it is for them to be able to stand over an infraction they issue. The first bit of advise I was given after accepting the invitation to mod was to be sure the post being reported warranted a sanction and that the sanction was warranted and proportional. That applies to all mods and any mod abusing their privilege will be exposed pretty quickly and told to either up their game or be removed. And there has been cases in the recent past where this has happened.

In all cases, mods are told to discuss, with other mods and/or Cmods, any doubts they may have over whether a sanction is warranted and what that sanction should be. And even then, even with experience and feedback from other mods, we can still get it wrong, though much less often than you are trying to infer.

We do hold ourselves and other mods to very high standards and expect those standards to be reached consistently. We have, on a number of occasions, had discussions among ourselves on what went wrong in a particular situation, how it probably should have been handled and what we have to do when a similar situation occurs again to guide it back onto safer ground or to just stop it early because it's reached a point where nothing positive is likely to flow from that thread in that situation. It's by no means a pleasant situation to find your actions being harshly judged by your peers but we all have to face that situation at some point and suck it up and move on.

Now, if a poster thinks their infraction was unjust, they have the option to appeal that infraction to Cmods.

Whenever these cases get to the DRF or HD and you try and make a case for yourself, mods/admin have six ways from Sunday to shut you down and prevent you from highlighting how moderators are moderating you for things they don't moderate other users for: "We're here to discuss your posting, not other users" and "If you have an issue with certain posts not being actioned, report them". These two replies alone are enough to prevent users making an appeal on the basis that they are being held to a standard of posting which others are not and/or that certain moderators are largely moderating with a bias.

Tbh, Pete, I doubt anything I'm going to say to you will change your mind but I'll try to explain some of the reasonings behind those rules, as I see them.

We're here to discuss your posting, not other users
I would have thought it was self explanatory. If I have to look at others alleged infractions in the context of the DRP posters appeal then I would also have to take any alleged non infracted posts of others into account as well and deal with those accordingly. That knife cuts both ways, Pete, and I wonder what your reaction would be to being infracted as a result of someone elses DRP appeal. I can't imagine you would be overly pleased. Other posts are certainly looked at for context and to get an idea of the flow of conversation in the thread.

Is there a case for applying sanctions well after the thread has moved on? Possibly, but that's above my grade and expertise to determine. Certainly a situation that you can bring to Feedback, if you wish, but you may not find the end result to your liking.

f you have an issue with certain posts not being actioned, report them
From following this forum for the last couple of years, I am constantly surprised at posters complaining that certain posts haven't been dealt with while they pat themselves on the back about not being a snitch. Mods would follow a few threads they have an interest in or ones that they would expect trouble in but unless we massively increase mod numbers, we aren't going to be able to read every post made in a day in every thread. in the last 24 hours, AH has 176 posts, CA has 286 and C19 has 203. No fupping way am I going to give up work and family to read that number of posts every day.

Report the posts or forget about them, I won't entertain any of that nonsense.

blanch152 · 11-09-2020 11:55am

mike_ie wrote: »

I appreciate the considered response.

FWIW, I'm very aware that certain people reporting posts are bending over backwards to be offended. And they are seen and treated as such.

I guess the best answer I can give you is this.

Do we see every potential personal dig, dickish comment, flagrant breach of the rules in every single thread? No, of course not. As you said, it's an extremely busy forum, and it would simply be impossible for any mod to read through every single post. (the same can be said for any other busy forum by the way)

Do reported posts bring potential issues to our attention quicker? Yes, of course. It's the equivalent of firing a flare inviting us to take a look.

What I *can* say is that if a situation comes to our attention, it's still given proper consideration, irrespective of the number of reported posts associated with it. It's not just a blind reaction of "reported post = card".

Now you and others might feel that this provides an advantage to a particular side of an argument, and maybe sheer numbers on one side means that certain posts come to our attention quicker, or conversely, certain posts on the other side of the argument slip through the cracks. But this is user driven, not mod driven, and I'm really not sure what we can do better than to try and ensure that any issue that *does* come to our attention - be it though reported posts, or encountered while reading through the forum - irrespective of the side of the argument it falls - is treated as fairly as possible.

I fully accept that this is user driven rather than mod driven.

I also accept that there is little the mods can do about it because the sheer number of posts makes it impossible.

However, there is one unintended consequence that needs monitoring. Sheer numbers on one side of the argument taking offence at something posted by the other side, or bending over backwards to be offended, combined with a propensity to report posts can limit discussion and result in the squeezing out of a particular viewpoint and the creation of an echo chamber. That would be a retrograde step.

Buford T. Justice XIX · 11-09-2020 12:47pm

Aegir wrote: »

So what denotes a posting style that is worthy of sanction?

Is there a nice way to call someone a troll that doesn’t get sanctioned and a bad way that does? If so, please explain it as I seem to get it wrong and other posters have it sussed.

There's many ways to post a response to another post to get a point across. Attacking the other poster wouldn't be one that would be encouraged, though the tone of the responded to post would have to be taken into account when deciding if a sanction is merited.

If you believe someone to be a troll, report their post and the reason you're reporting the post. A report with just a question mark or 'Really?' aren't likely to encourage anybody to give more than a cursory glance at the reported post and poster.

Calling them a troll on thread is going to be viewed as backseat moderation at best and is likely to merit a sanction for doing it as it takes the discussion off the topic being discussed. You've been on Boards long enough to see many instances of that happening.

Stay civil and attack the post rather than the poster and you're likely to never come to a moderators attention.

It really is that simple.

uptherebels · 11-09-2020 12:54pm

blanch152 wrote: »

I fully accept that this is user driven rather than mod driven.

I also accept that there is little the mods can do about it because the sheer number of posts makes it impossible.

However, there is one unintended consequence that needs monitoring. Sheer numbers on one side of the argument taking offence at something posted by the other side, or bending over backwards to be offended, combined with a propensity to report posts can limit discussion and result in the squeezing out of a particular viewpoint and the creation of an echo chamber. That would be a retrograde step.

I have got to say, that I'm still waiting to see this echo chamber here on boards that certain sections bang on about or the squeezing out of a view point. Even during the abortion referendum we had a situation where the minority side were given massive leeway with their posts specifically so that wouldn't happen.
How does the reporting of a post limit discussion?

Tokyo · 11-09-2020 1:19pm

blanch152 wrote: »

I fully accept that this is user driven rather than mod driven.

I also accept that there is little the mods can do about it because the sheer number of posts makes it impossible.

However, there is one unintended consequence that needs monitoring. Sheer numbers on one side of the argument taking offence at something posted by the other side, or bending over backwards to be offended, combined with a propensity to report posts can limit discussion and result in the squeezing out of a particular viewpoint and the creation of an echo chamber. That would be a retrograde step.

The majority of reported posts are well intentioned. However, I'm not an idiot and I am well aware that there are:

posters who are reporting posts in bad faith.
posters who are trying to drop someone else in the shít.
posters who goad someone into a response and then report them.
posters who report perfectly reasonable posts they disagree with, but are unwilling to argue the point in the thread.
posters who seem perennially disgruntled with every other post except their own.
posters who will report the same post repeatedly because "I can't belieeeeeve you haven't actioned this person."
posters who try to browbeat us to death with reported posts.
posters who are seemingly unhappy with every mod decision ever made.

...and so on.

But the argument then comes full circle to the point I was making yesterday. Whatever the reason a post has been reported, do people really think we're not savvy enough to filter out genuine reported posts from the above, and judge them on their merits? Yes? Or no?

FWIW, I think the reported posts forum would be a disappointment to you and others here, in terms of your expectations of the same posts being reported in droves, with the hope of forcing the mod team down a particular path. I filtered the CA/IMHO posts for the past few days and I can count on one hand the number of posts that were reported by more than one person. I can also tell you hand on heart that I respond with 'not actionable' to enough spurious reported posts that I often copy it to my clipboard when going through batches of reported posts, to save me typing it multiple times.

Tokyo · 11-09-2020 1:28pm

Aegir wrote: »

I am trying to understand how, if the mods will do nothing about, trolls can be called out without falling fowl of the rules.

Simple. You report their posts for trolling, and let the mods take care of it. Every reported post is read and considered, but just because you think someone is trolling, doesn't necessarily mean that we will agree.

11-09-2020 5:34pm

im sure im guilty of several of the 'report post' sins mike lists out there

and ive argued in the past that it would be very useful to be able to see the response to reported posts ('not actioned' or otherwise)

i disagree that a mod decision/interaction with a poster if infracting them (however mildly) shouldn't be public- the behaviour that led to the action was, after all, public enough and warranted the response

and im consistently on the 'wrong' (eg, 'right') side of what many seem to claim the mods bias is

and with all that said, im *still* really confused as to what people's major problem is with the modding, its like the art of pretend confusion because you dont like the answers

obviously, mods should squash anyone i disagree with. but if i can report a post or respond in kind without unfair infraction myself, hey look i can go about my day whistling.

and in several thousand posts ive really only ever felt unfairly modded maybe a handful of times, and tbh if i looked back now id very likely feel differently about even some of those.

moderating the behaviour of adults who will not behave is an impossible task, i reckon its at a pretty good standard around here*

* nb cmon tho lads, clamp down on the shinnerbots or the site is dead

KyussB · 12-09-2020 6:06am

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

And this is another thing which moderator's need to be aware of and that is that oftentimes what multiple users say about someone can be a complete load of nonsense. For example, this nonsense about points not being addressed. Lost count how many times I seen this said and I only assume if they are saying it on threads non-stop, then they are saying it when they report posts too. I mean I must have addressed the Epstein / Trump stuff a million times at this stage and some users will still say I always ignore it, which is why I think some things are not always suitable for mod intervention tbh, as unless a mod is active on a thread and reads every post, then they can be hoodwinked into thinking a user is ignoring points that users are making. Sometimes the squeaky wheel gets the oil unfortunately though I guess.

This bolded bit, of ignoring what a user is saying to address a point, and making a rhetorical attack claiming they have not addressed the point, is an example of bad faith posting - one which a poster can make more and more clear is in bad faith, by addressing the point very clearly and succintly, and then repeatedly requesting what has not been addressed.

When Bad Faith posting like that is identified and made unmistakably clear, that should get posters quickly banned off of a forum - because that type of rhetorical tactic is the most poisonous to debate on Boards. A closely related one, is accusing a poster of certain behaviour, and refusing to back that up with citations - yet repeating the rhetorical smear endlessly.

That's the style of mod focus on Bad Faith posting, which I've advocated in the past. The mod transition away from strict/pedantic enforcement of by-the-letter rules, towards more relaxed/flexible modding, has been a big success and has much improved things - the next step, which would be a focus on eliminating obvious and repeated Bad Faith posting (once it's very clearly identified - and with flexibility for posters to cop on), that can massively increase the quality of debate/discussion, and the general atmosphere on the forum.

Annasopra · 12-09-2020 7:14am

Aegir wrote: »

If A and B aren’t treated consistently to start with ( for whatever reason) then from that point onwards there is no level playing field.

Why should their posting history be completely ignored and every post looked at without any context at all?

If A has no record after a year and B has 20 moderator actions agsinst them after a year why would you ignore that?

12-09-2020 7:30am

Because they're meant to be expired.

My 50 moderator actions over the last decade mean I'm at a disadvantage compared to blatant trolls with clean accounts, as shown by my recent permanent ban from the Covid thread because I told one to "Fúck off" and deleted the post myself within minutes. Any newish account wouldn't even get a raised eyebrow for that, and people wonder why there are so many re-regs.

Either remove the entire idea of expired or actual expire them. I deleted that post instantly because I had learnt my lesson from previous infractions but I still got an outrageous punishment because of them. They're clearly not a warning or learning system if they're solely used by moderators to build a case against you to ban you. The fact my account is still poisoned by infractions I got in my early 20s is bizarre.

Tokyo · 12-09-2020 8:12am

Deleted User wrote: »

Because they're meant to be expired.

That active/expired system is used by the site for automated processes such as spam control - for example, any account that racks up 9 points or infractions in a short period of time is automatically banned by the site software. An account that racked up the same number of points across a few weeks on the other hand, doesn't get automatically banned.

That doesn't correlate with 'pattern of behavior' though - if it did, then by your logic, as long as a poster was only a dick on a weekly basis, they have a clean slate on the site. Which is obviously not reflective of the real world.

Deleted User wrote: »

My 50 moderator actions over the last decade mean I'm at a disadvantage compared to blatant trolls with clean accounts, as shown by my recent permanent ban from the Covid thread because I told one to "Fúck off" and deleted the post myself within minutes. Any newish account wouldn't even get a raised eyebrow for that, and people wonder why there are so many re-regs.

You are still grinding that axe. The issue in question was discussed in the Help Desk and answered by a third party and considered resolved. You don't get to drag up hyperbolic variations of it at every turn and omit certain key points (such as a previous threadban from the same thread) to suit your argument. The bolded part however (emphasis mine) is ridiculous.

Deleted User wrote: »

They're clearly not a warning or learning system if they're solely used by moderators to build a case against you to ban you. The fact my account is still poisoned by infractions I got in my early 20s is bizarre.

<editing for clarity>
By your own admission, you have 50 mod actions against your account in your time here. Almost half of them are across the last two years alone, so we're not talking 'the annals of years long since past' stuff here. And your argument is that mods are using mod actions solely to build a case to persecute and ban you because you got a threadban?! Do you not see how you have completely undermined your own argument here?

Introducing the Current Affairs/IMHO forum

Comments