Dispute Resolution Forum

Scofflaw

I have to say that I think the new Dispute Resolution Forum is something of a backwards step for proper dispute resolution. It's more "transparent", certainly, but the open nature of the forum means that disputes are more likely to be disputes than resolutions.

If a user has a problem with a moderator action, they can PM me as CMod. I would usually proceed by asking the mod in question for their input without showing them what the user actually said, because:

1. the way users phrase their complaint is often insulting to the mod

2. users often drag in a load of unrelated gripes

3. users may overstate their case very strongly, and may well state it very badly

4. users frequently demand 'justice' or 'punishment' in a very aggrieved way

5. the user nearly always states their case to show the mod in the worst possible light

So I now have the mod's side of the story, without them being insulted by the user (apart from those mods who object to having their authority questioned at all), and without them going on the defensive against the various other gripes and comments being made.

The rest is basically shuttle diplomacy, looking for a resolution that suits both parties, arguing either the user's case to the mod, or the mod's case to the user, without either party being able to offend, or be offended by, the other.

Part of the job of the CMod is to cool down the dispute, and allowing the sort of interaction the new Forum allows does not, as far as I can see, achieve that aim. Instead, the users states (overstates) their grievance, in a public way that usually insults and demeans the mod in question, leaving the mod little choice but to respond in kind - and so the ball keeps rolling.

cordially,
Scofflaw

SirPeter

I'd have thought you'd have been pleased to have less to do.

In my book, if two people want to keep shouting away at each other, then why not just let them. They will eventually run out of steam. So long as it's not in a thread and interrupting anyone else, it won't affect anyone else, so whats the problem?

Scofflaw

SirPeter wrote: »

I'd have thought you'd have been pleased to have less to do.

In my book, if two people want to keep shouting away at each other, then why not just let them. They will eventually run out of steam. So long as it's not in a thread and interrupting anyone else, it won't affect anyone else, so whats the problem?

It doesn't resolve anything. Two people who have a dispute and run out of steam shouting at each other about it haven't resolved it in any sense - all they've done is entrenched their positions. In the case of CMod resolution, that means the user is left with a feeling of injustice, and the mod is essentially able to do what they like at the cost of a bit of shouting.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Cabaal

Scofflaw wrote: »

looking for a resolution that suits both parties, a

Given I have true life experience with dispute resolution I can tell you that it is rare to get a resolution that suits both partys, there will always be a loser of some sort

The Recliner

Scofflaw wrote: »

It doesn't resolve anything. Two people who have a dispute and run out of steam shouting at each other about it haven't resolved it in any sense - all they've done is entrenched their positions. In the case of CMod resolution, that means the user is left with a feeling of injustice, and the mod is essentially able to do what they like at the cost of a bit of shouting.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Is it not part of the procedure that Mods stay out of it unless asked to give an account, that way the CMods deal with it and only get the Mods involved if they need too, you can still PM the Mod for their account and use that to reach a decision, posting the PM if necessary

If that isn't clear in the procedure then it should be made so and any mod who breaks the rule should be sanctioned

Scofflaw

Cabaal wrote: »

Given I have true life experience with dispute resolution I can tell you that it is rare to get a resolution that suits both partys, there will always be a loser of some sort

Luckily, we're dealing with fairly simple possible outcomes - infraction/no infraction, ban/reduced/removed ban. One could consider oneself a loser because a CMod has disagreed about the imposition of a ban, or has upheld the attachment of a red icon to a post, but that would be pretty sad.

It's not the UN, after all...nobody dies.

cordially,
Scofflaw

bonkey

Scofflaw wrote: »

Instead, the users states (overstates) their grievance, in a public way that usually insults and demeans the mod in question, leaving the mod little choice but to respond in kind - and so the ball keeps rolling.

This is a valid point, and one which I think reveals an area which will need "tweaking" over time.

I would point out that the Dirty Big Banner (DBB) at the top of the Dispute Resolution area warns people that insulting the mods will result in further action. To an extent, there is an onus on the CMods and Admins to make it clear in each and every thread, as soon as this appears (or even appears to be appearing) that its not acceptable and that people need to read and follow the instructions in the DBB.

I fully expect that we'll have a major ****storm the first time that a genuine grievance gets thrown out because the user couldn't keep a civil tongue, but I still would say that we have to hold that line. If we don't, then we should drop the relevant content from the DBB and accept that we're actually not going to do anything about Angry Poster Syndrome.

Without giving any secrets away, I'd also point out that in the Mod forum, the mods have already been told that they should disengage, and should only post in the DR threads when requested to do so. This may need to be more then just a request.

If asking/telling/enforcing the desired behaviour from both sides doesn't work, then we need to look at other options....because at the end of the day, your underlying concern is perfectly valid. Creating a "Dispute Thunderdome" is not the goal, and benefits no-one.

AckwelFoley

The number one reason (which is actually two)this forum exists is for the open and transparent discussion of a dispute and to give mechanism for such. Its a port of call, it gives users the comfort in knowing that they can discuss issues of where they feel they may be the victim of poor judgement by a moderator.

Prior to this forum the only mechanism was to pm the mod and the cmod and then the admin and as this was direct to source and behind closed doors, its akin to asking a person that got roughed up by a garda to send him an email and then send one to his sergent - now its a case where you send it to the Garda Ombudsman.

If it makes you feel you have more work to do, and perhapsthis is the case that is unfortunate - however i strongly feel that this is for the greater good of the communityand that it is worth it, for both sides.

People will exadurate their claims, the DRF wont change that, but members do have a chance to voice their opinion and be made feel that now they are listened to.

The DRF is only a platform, its not the solution to every problem, if i want black and you want white and a dispute ensues, maybe black is correct, maybe white is or perhaps a shade of grey is what will transpire.

Its a rare occasion people leave a dispute feeling like they won, that is the nature of it, however it is essential that the platform is there for these to be heard

Scofflaw

bonkey wrote: »

This is a valid point, and one which I think reveals an area which will need "tweaking" over time.

I would point out that the Dirty Big Banner (DBB) at the top of the Dispute Resolution area warns people that insulting the mods will result in further action. To an extent, there is an onus on the CMods and Admins to make it clear in each and every thread, as soon as this appears (or even appears to be appearing) that its not acceptable and that people need to read and follow the instructions in the DBB.

I fully expect that we'll have a major ****storm the first time that a genuine grievance gets thrown out because the user couldn't keep a civil tongue, but I still would say that we have to hold that line. If we don't, then we should drop the relevant content from the DBB and accept that we're actually not going to do anything about Angry Poster Syndrome.

Without giving any secrets away, I'd also point out that in the Mod forum, the mods have already been told that they should disengage, and should only post in the DR threads when requested to do so. This may need to be more then just a request.

If asking/telling/enforcing the desired behaviour from both sides doesn't work, then we need to look at other options....because at the end of the day, your underlying concern is perfectly valid. Creating a "Dispute Thunderdome" is not the goal, and benefits no-one.

Hmm...mods not to respond until the CMod has at least responded, or, better, until the CMod invites the participation of the mod?

It's a pretty standard mediation situation, after all - we shouldn't be reinventing the wheel by trial and error!

cordially,
Scofflaw

Scofflaw

snyper wrote: »

The number one reason (which is actually two)this forum exists is for the open and transparent discussion of a dispute and to give mechanism for such. Its a port of call, it gives users the comfort in knowing that they can discuss issues of where they feel they may be the victim of poor judgement by a moderator.

Prior to this forum the only mechanism was to pm the mod and the cmod and then the admin and as this was direct to source and behind closed doors, its akin to asking a person that got roughed up by a garda to send him an email and then send one to his sergent - now its a case where you send it to the Garda Ombudsman.

If it makes you feel you have more work to do, and perhapsthis is the case that is unfortunate - however i strongly feel that this is for the greater good of the communityand that it is worth it, for both sides.

I hadn't even thought about the impact on my "workload", but on the whole it's neither likely to increase nor decrease it.

snyper wrote: »

People will exadurate their claims, the DRF wont change that, but members do have a chance to voice their opinion and be made feel that now they are listened to.

The DRF is only a platform, its not the solution to every problem, if i want black and you want white and a dispute ensues, maybe black is correct, maybe white is or perhaps a shade of grey is what will transpire.

Its a rare occasion people leave a dispute feeling like they won, that is the nature of it, however it is essential that the platform is there for these to be heard

For those who wish it, certainly - however, there is already the Help Desk for those who feel their concerns are not being addressed, or who are dissatisfied with the CMod's response.

I feel that the current resolution procedure is better for the user, better for the mod, and better for boards overall. Nobody needs to see the resolution of another user's complaint, and the ability of the mods involved to comment on the dispute resolution procedure and to see the user's comments about them are counter-productive in my view.

There's a reason diplomatic negotiations take place behind closed doors - it reduces posturing, because nobody feels they have to maintain face in front of the public. Transparency is not achieved merely by moving the discussion to a public forum - all that's achieved is to make the dispute resolution procedure subject to the same hardening of opinions and entrenchment of positions that dogs other public threads. The user still has no idea beyond the word of the CMod why they make a particular decision, and it's always been acceptable - to me, at least - for someone to quote any CMod communications from me if they decide to take it to Help Desk.

I suspect it's not really necessary, in the long run, for me to argue my case - if these issues are not addressed, the forum will make my case for me. Indeed, I'd say it's already doing so.

cordially,
Scofflaw

bonkey

Scofflaw wrote: »

Hmm...mods not to respond until the CMod has at least responded, or, better, until the CMod invites the participation of the mod?

I'm not sure how to interpret this. Are you rhetorically repeating what I said is in place to suggest its flawed....or suggesting that we implement what we've already put in place?

There is a thread in the Moderators forum, telling moderators not to post in dispute resolution threads until invited to do so. There is a comment in that thread saying that if they can't abide by this request, we will have to take steps to enforce it.

It's a pretty standard mediation situation, after all - we shouldn't be reinventing the wheel by trial and error!

With respect, I'm not aware of any "wheel" in an environment such as ours that we're reinventing.

Show me the wheel that has already been invented for dealing with complaints rapidly, in the absence of full-time resources, in an environment comparable to boards.ie and I'll happily admit I'm wrong.

The main complaints we had were a lack of transparency and a lack of efficiency. Either we had to disregard those complaints, or we had to offer something with at least the same amount of transparency as previously (if not more), and which worked more efficiently.

There's a reason diplomatic negotiations take place behind closed doors

Just as there's a reason that court-cases take place in public.

The Dispute Resolution is neither diplomatic negotiations, nor is it a court-case, but rather somewhere in between, so both analagies are flawed.

Sparks

Scofflaw wrote: »

I have to say that I think the new Dispute Resolution Forum is something of a backwards step for proper dispute resolution. It's more "transparent", certainly, but the open nature of the forum means that disputes are more likely to be disputes than resolutions.

I think there's a faulty assumption within your otherwise correct logic Scofflaw, and that's that a user who presents their complaint in the abusive manner you've outlined is not interested in a good-faith attempt to reach a resolution in the first place.

In my experience (and I accept its limited nature) when a user's first contact is abusive, that user is looking to have a mod publicly humiliated to salve a wounded ego. That's not a dispute; that's a character flaw. And I've rarely seen an outcome to such complaints that didn't end in the same way, with an ego left unsalved because any solution that is less that completely dictated by that user will not suffice for them.

Wibbs

Sparks wrote: »

I think there's a faulty assumption within your otherwise correct logic Scofflaw, and that's that a user who presents their complaint in the abusive manner you've outlined is not interested in a good-faith attempt to reach a resolution in the first place.

Oh yea, that a mod action is "they're out to get me/it's them and us, you know" types. That can go both ways though. That a mod assumes a user complaint is "they're out to get me/it's them and us, you know" too and digs their heels in. I think the greater cmod input can serve to reduce that on both sides when it occurs.

I think better than admin input in general too. The admin label may bring with it for some the big boss coming in and they're more known as people. Cmods are less well known to the average user. Hell I'd say there's a fair few mods who couldnt list the cmods in their category, so there may be a more independent vibe to them.

It also depends on what one terms abusive. Anyone being properly abusive tends to get censured around here pretty quickly based on the don't be a dick rule. In Scofflaws examples, a lot of those can simply be someone reacting with the initial WTF? Coming back at them with similar just ramps it up. Let both parties let off steam(civilly) if they need to and then cool down. I've had that in PM exchanges over some of my mod actions and have seen it go from WTF, to Oh right yea, get ya, or We'll agree to disagree. On both sides.

To be fair it can be more understandable a mod may feel that a user complaint is "they're out to get me/it's them and us, you know" as they have more contact with aggrieved users than the other way around. Shít flows up and all that(particularly in some forums). That should also mean we're more practiced with it though as it is part of the role we sign up for. We're also aware of a bigger support system with co mods, cmods and admins. The user does too, or should feel they do, but that may need explaining from time to time.

Scofflaw

bonkey wrote: »

I'm not sure how to interpret this. Are you rhetorically repeating what I said is in place to suggest its flawed....or suggesting that we implement what we've already put in place?

There is a thread in the Moderators forum, telling moderators not to post in dispute resolution threads until invited to do so. There is a comment in that thread saying that if they can't abide by this request, we will have to take steps to enforce it.

I appreciate that that's been requested...it's just not what I see happening in the forum. Maybe it will happen with time.

bonkey wrote: »

With respect, I'm not aware of any "wheel" in an environment such as ours that we're reinventing.

Show me the wheel that has already been invented for dealing with complaints rapidly, in the absence of full-time resources, in an environment comparable to boards.ie and I'll happily admit I'm wrong.

Heh - good point. It's more like battlefield medicine, and I'm kvetching about reinventing "proper surgical procedures"....

bonkey wrote: »

The main complaints we had were a lack of transparency and a lack of efficiency. Either we had to disregard those complaints, or we had to offer something with at least the same amount of transparency as previously (if not more), and which worked more efficiently.

Just as there's a reason that court-cases take place in public.

The Dispute Resolution is neither diplomatic negotiations, nor is it a court-case, but rather somewhere in between, so both analagies are flawed.

Mediation is a very close analogy, and that's not public either. I do think the public nature of the forum tends to make people stand on their positions, and I do think that's an issue - a major issue - in dispute resolution.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Scofflaw

Sparks wrote: »

I think there's a faulty assumption within your otherwise correct logic Scofflaw, and that's that a user who presents their complaint in the abusive manner you've outlined is not interested in a good-faith attempt to reach a resolution in the first place.

In my experience (and I accept its limited nature) when a user's first contact is abusive, that user is looking to have a mod publicly humiliated to salve a wounded ego. That's not a dispute; that's a character flaw. And I've rarely seen an outcome to such complaints that didn't end in the same way, with an ego left unsalved because any solution that is less that completely dictated by that user will not suffice for them.

Sometimes it's a character flaw, but more often, I'd say, it's the immediate response to the impact of a mod action felt to be unfair and deliberately malicious. Most people's ego bruises are settled when they realise that the action wasn't unfair, or if the CMod agrees that the action was unfair and reverses it.

My own experience is that it's usually going to take a bit more work in a case where a user is sufficiently upset to be abusive, but that initial abusiveness isn't a guarantee that the user will be satisfied with nothing less than the mod's humiliation.

Obviously, I'm just setting my limited experience against yours there (although my recent experience does include demonspawn), so the usual handful of salt for anecdotal evidence applies!

cordially,
Scofflaw

SirPeter

I don't know why you think it matters whether two people vent their frustrations on each other, if thats one of the outcomes. So long as no one else is affected then why should it concern anyone else, except that one might wnat to prevent then doing so. Personally, i don't see the harm if thats what they want to do, if it is affecting no one else.

If you really want to interfere, then why not put a delay on posts to the forum, say 24 or 48 hours, and also give the poster the option to reconsider posting up until the post is going to get posted. In my experience, much of this sort of thing is unedifying and said in the heat of the moment. most folks, when given 24 hours or 48 hours to cool off, do cool off and the heat is taken out of the situation.

Wibbs

SirPeter wrote: »

In my experience, much of this sort of thing is unedifying and said in the heat of the moment. most folks, when given 24 hours or 48 hours to cool off, do cool off and the heat is taken out of the situation.

I'd agree with this. Too often someone venting is seen as some consistent "fight the powah", when its not.

Steve

I'm for honesty and accountability and have supported this approach from day one.

If it means more work for mods and cmods to account for their actions then fk'n \o/, I'll be the first one in admitting if I made a mess of something and conversely fighting my corner when I know I've rightly silenced a troll.

Scofflaw, with due respect, I can understand that the mechanics of a politics forum can make this difficult and hard to adjudicate on but such is the bed you chose and therefore must lie on.

Scofflaw

Steve wrote: »

I'm for honesty and accountability and have supported this approach from day one.

If it means more work for mods and cmods to account for their actions then fk'n \o/, I'll be the first one in admitting if I made a mess of something and conversely fighting my corner when I know I've rightly silenced a troll.

Scofflaw, with due respect, I can understand that the mechanics of a politics forum can make this difficult and hard to adjudicate on but such is the bed you chose and therefore must lie on.

I wasn't particularly thinking of Politics, since I often don't CMod Politics issues. Nor do I have any particular issues with making completely public my part in any exchange that relates to CModding or my moderation - it's simply that I think that the presence of an audience will encourage posturing and defensiveness, and I'm not sure exactly what we've gained that's worth that.

What exactly are we supposed to have gained? "Transparency" and "accountability" are good words, but I'm not sure where they're applicable here (although I'm open as ever to persuasion!). Simply doing something in public doesn't of itself make something either transparent or accountable, and there seems to be an assumption being made here that that is indeed the case.

I appreciate I'm griping about something that's barely a week old, but I do think the issues I've raised are inherent in the process. If a poster prefers to have the matter discussed publicly, that's fine by me - it will suit some people. An in camera mechanism may be preferred by others, and as long as I can cater for them, I've no objection to using the new forum where that is the user's choice - not, please note, the moderator's.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Richard Dower

I'd like to lodge a request/complaint about an infraction i received, as i pointed out i posted a spoiler in a spoiler tagged thread, numerous times i have done this on numerous threads, as have many others in the tv forum...but yet i get an infraction, i feel very strongly this is wrong:



You have received a warning at boards.ie
Dear Richard Dower,

You have received a warning at boards.ie. This is an automatically generated message.

Reason:

---

Breach of Forum Charter

For your latest Smallville post.

Spoiler tags added, link masked, infraction given.
Some people don't want to know plot points months in advance, Richard.
At least give them the choice.

---

Warnings are just a gentle reminder to you of the forum's rules, which you will see listed in the Forum's Charter. If you're confused about this warning or why you received it, please PM the forum Moderator(s) and ask. Remember that our Mods are volunteers and are not always online, so they may not be able to answer you straight away.

Original Post:
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=68204170
Quote:
Well, looks as if it's now confirmed Spoiler: Clark/Tom Welling will suit up by seasons end:

http://tinyurl.com/35ybuey
All the best,
boards.ie
__________________
Dave.

Scofflaw

Richard Dower wrote: »

I'd like to lodge a request/complaint about an infraction i received, as i pointed out i posted a spoiler in a spoiler tagged thread, numerous times i have done this on numerous threads, as have many others in the tv forum...but yet i get an infraction, i feel very strongly this is wrong:

Hi, Richard - you want the Dispute Resolution Forum itself. This thread is just me griping feedback about it.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Wibbs

Scofflaw wrote: »

I've no objection to using the new forum where that is the user's choice - not, please note, the moderator's.

+1

Scofflaw wrote: »

This thread is just me griping feedback about it.

Rank amateur.

Obviously,
Wibbs.

AckwelFoley

Scofflaw wrote: »

IWhat exactly are we supposed to have gained? "Transparency" and "accountability" are good words, but I'm not sure where they're applicable here (although I'm open as ever to persuasion!). Simply doing something in public doesn't of itself make something either transparent or accountable, and there seems to be an assumption being made here that that is indeed the case.

Yea, if there is going to be cloak and daggers, an open forum wont change that, but in that case, someone will have to be talking out of both sides of their mouth for that to happen. It wount change some peoples belief that there are mods etc out to get them, but the DRP will give the belief that this is a more transparent process. If people are going to posture and and make exaggerated claims, facts are the best rebuttle.

My issue with this to be honest is not that you claim it wont work, more that its a step backward - i think its unfair to say that its a step back, i think the intent is clear, perhaps its not perfect, and will require review, but i think fundamentally its a more positive mechanism. We could debate the same points and get nowhere as i think its simply a matter of personal opinion, i personally feel that the facility should be there for people to openly solve a resolution, i do also however think the option should be there for an "in camera" means if the member chooses.

Either way, neither will have any affect on me, if i were to find myself in the situation as a member, i pm the mod and walk away from it at that point.

Nevyn

I do get the point Scofflaw is making it is that if the catmod is the go between and the poster and mod don't see each other's pms then there may be less of a loss of face when either side compromises or capitulates.

Scofflaw

Thaedydal wrote: »

I do get the point Scofflaw is making it is that if the catmod is the go between and the poster and mod don't see each other's pms then there may be less of a loss of face when either side compromises or capitulates.

Putting it far more succinctly than I did...I fear my tendency towards orotund verbosity may have obnubilated my constructively intended perspective...

bombastically,
Scofflaw

Nevyn

I don't see where it says that all issues must be posted about in the DPR forum,
if there is something which is better of being dealt with via pm then the poster can still just pm the cat mods, but if they want a more public option there is the forum.

There are times when the better part of valor is discretion and people may only feel comfortable coming forward if they can discuss the matter in a non public way, esp if it regards bullying and stalking.

Scofflaw

Thaedydal wrote: »

I don't see where it says that all issues must be posted about in the DPR forum,
if there is something which is better of being dealt with via pm then the poster can still just pm the cat mods, but if they want a more public option there is the forum.

There are times when the better part of valor is discretion and people may only feel comfortable coming forward if they can discuss the matter in a non public way, esp if it regards bullying and stalking.

Sure - I wonder is that clear enough? It's not particularly clear to me - or from the diagram in the DR forum - and I notice a dearth of CMod issues coming in compared to previously. I can't help but wonder if people are loath to complain via a public forum, and unaware that they can still proceed by PM.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Nevyn

Scofflaw wrote: »

Sure - I wonder is that clear enough? It's not particularly clear to me - or from the diagram in the DR forum - and I notice a dearth of CMod issues coming in compared to previously. I can't help but wonder if people are loath to complain via a public forum, and unaware that they can still proceed by PM.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Then maybe it should be amended to point out that sensitive matters can be still handled by pm?

I do think that pointing out that matters can be raised and complaints made can be handled quietly via esp around stalking/bullying/interpersonal ect should be done.

Or are you just worried that complaints about me have dropped dramatically as the DRP forum is public and people are worried I will know and curse them with boils?

Wibbs

Thaedydal wrote: »

Then maybe it should be amended to point out that sensitive matters can be still handled by pm?

+1 Or even non sensitive matters. A PM confab should be the first port of call in any issue IMHO. Only when that doesnt work should it go to the DRP. It shouldnt be the first port of call basically. TBH my take would be unless the user or mod is getting abusive off the bat, or digging their heels in for no good reason, then the DRP should be the last. We all make mistakes of judgement, user and mod, so a bit of a step back and sleep on it should be the order of the day.

I know I've changed my opinion that way. Sometimes I've been overly bossy and sometimes I've not been firm enough for the sake of the community. For me anyway the former happened more than the latter. Mea culpa on both scores. Its just my personal take, but unless a user is being an obvious dick, then a standard reply of "take it to helpdesk/DRP" is somewhat of a failure of me as a mod. It suggests intransigence on my part because of a title and a lazy answer.

Scofflaw

Thaedydal wrote: »

Then maybe it should be amended to point out that sensitive matters can be still handled by pm?

I do think that pointing out that matters can be raised and complaints made can be handled quietly via esp around stalking/bullying/interpersonal ect should be done.

Or are you just worried that complaints about me have dropped dramatically as the DRP forum is public and people are worried I will know and curse them with boils?

I was wondering, I admit...and before you go the boils route, I have to warn you that my mother is a very competent witch, and not all white either.

Seriously, though, yes, I think that the private word route suits quite a lot of posters - possibly even the majority, and particularly the more reasonable, who it seems to me often prefer not to have to be seen to openly challenge the mod of a forum they intend to go on posting in.

I feel that I have put in a fair bit of work in making it obvious that I can be approached as CMod in confidence, and if I'm going to uphold the judgement anyway, the process can often be completed without the mod ever being aware that the poster has complained about them. That sounds very opaque, and it is - the opacity is a cloak of discretion for the user, the same user who is intended to be the beneficiary of the transparency of the open DR forum.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Nevyn

I think there will always be posters who prefer to have a word in the ear of a cat mod on the qt the same way there will be those who want to have the matter dealt with in a more public manner.