Reporting posts: what's the point if the system is not transparent?

Dravokivich

pickarooney wrote: »

Question: If a mod thanks your reported post, does your number of thanks increase?

It should do. You just won't be able to see it.

Quazzie

I really dont underatand why the reporting of posts isnt the same as the reporting of sigs. That system was effective and transparent.

Zaph

Because whatever about a sig being reported and the reporter being able to see the thread, reported posts very often require discussion between mods/CMods/admins that the reporter should not be party to.

Malice

Otis Driftwood wrote: »

I think though that when a post is reported in a forum,the cmods get email notification too however Im open to correction on this.

Just to confirm this, yes, CMods do get reported post notifications for all forums in their category.

Iwannahurl

Thanks for all the responses.

This thread moved faster than I expected, so I probably won't be able to respond to all the key points.

A few thoughts.

Firstly, I wouldn't expect a personalised response to a Reported Post. This is about transparency, not about my personal expectations. It's also about efficient systems, which are things I like, and not about any particular post or forum that might be bugging me.

My impression is that engaging in PMs about reported posts creates the kind of extra work and hassle that Mods understandably would like to avoid. So why propose that as the solution to members wondering what happened regarding the posts they reported?

In any case, I have found PMs unsatisfactory in this context. The process doesn't ensure that what I would regard as proper responses are forthcoming from Mods or CMods. Furthermore, PMs are not transparent either. Nobody else knows what post has been reported, by whom, for what reason, or what the Mods/CMods response was. Additionally, PMs cannot be discussed in-thread, AFAIK.

It's a bit like in camera court cases, where the media are not admitted and no written judgments are issued! The outcome is that no precedents are created and nobody knows what the Mods think, unless of course the Mods choose to comment in-thread. But here I am interested as much in the reasons for NO action being taken.

I'd like to see something along these lines. For the sake of argument, let's say the forum is Region > West Virginia. Any topic of interest might be discussed, but when it comes to Law & Order opinion tends to polarise. Let's call the two camps the Hatfields and the McCoys. One of the Hatfields posts a comment which tars the McCoys as "Nazis". A McCoy reports the post to the new transparent system, and the Mod's response, through some technical wizardry, is logged in a way that can be openly accessed by all members.

Post Reported: McCoys are Nazis[URL][/url]
Reported by: Calvin McCoy, Jeff McCoy, Sam McCoy, Randolph McCoy.
Mod: Dom
Action taken: None.
Reason: Dom agrees that the McCoys are Nazis, and their record shows it.

I have no idea whether such a system would be technically possible, but in terms of what I would regard as an open, accountable, systematic and precedent-setting approach, I imagine it would be better than sending a Report Post message into the ether, followed by exchanges of PMs that nobody else can see and which may not lead anywhere useful.

Boards.ie: Danny

Iwannahurl wrote: »

I have no idea whether such a system would be technically possible

Leaving aside non-technical considerations (which I won't be drawn into) everything is possible. It's just a matter of time to develop and money for that time, of course. That being said, I'll flat out tell you with almost 100% certainty this won't be implemented at any stage under vBulletin. While we are moving away from that the move is still a fair bit down the road.

Steve

Mostly, when I get a reported post, I will read the thread in the RP forum and if there is a stock response such as "got it" or "sorted" from a co-mod then I breathe & just move on as I know I can trust them to have dealt with it - otherwise I dive in and start to assess the complaint and post my own replt there. Some mods, however, don't reply when they've sorted the issue and this is probably as annoying to me as is the point of this thread as it makes me needlessly read thru may posts just to discover they've already dealt with it.

There surely is merit in a future system that at least lets both the reporter and co-mods know that the report has been ticketed and is being looked at?

Difficult one to implement though as three still needs to be room for mods to collectively think and chat about what needs to be done in the borderline or new cases.

Quazzie

Zaph wrote: »

Because whatever about a sig being reported and the reporter being able to see the thread, reported posts very often require discussion between mods/CMods/admins that the reporter should not be party to.

My answer to this would be to implement the best of both worlds. When I report a post, two things happen.
1. A post is made in a new (or existing if the post was previously reported) thread that is private in the report post forum on here. This is as it is currently, and is only viewable by mods of Boards and not by anyone else.
2. A second thread is started, similar to the report sig function where a mod can come and just acknowledge that the report has been noted. There would be no need to mention what action was taken unless the mod felt comfortable with doing that. Merely a "I've reviewed the post and taken the neccessary measures". This lets the person who reportet the post know that the mods have looked into it, and not simply ignored it.

I don't think anyone here is implying that reported posts are ignored, but sometimes it does feel like that, and it puts people off reporting posts in future. I know this is probably something that will never happen but for me that would be the perfect solution.

Just my 2c

Orion

Quazzie wrote: »

I don't think anyone here is implying that reported posts are ignored, but sometimes it does feel like that, and it puts people off reporting posts in future. I know this is probably something that will never happen but for me that would be the perfect solution.

Just my 2c

Sometimes they will look ignored.
Sometimes a post is reported that needs no action. So it is ignored.
Sometimes a post is reported that purely results in a PM to the poster and that's the end of it - nothing on thread as it's been dealt with off thread.
Sometimes there's a visible warning or infraction.

Reporting posts is appreciated. But consider it like an anonymous* call to the Revenue. You may never hear the result but what needs to be dealt with generally will be. And imo reporting a post doesn't entitle you to hearing the result. If I give a warning to someone - from a reported post or just one I spotted - that's between me and the poster - it's nobody else's business (bar the other mods of the forum).

*That anonymity is double sided too. If a public thread was started it would show who the reporter was - you can imagine the $hite that would ensue from that.

Quazzie

Orion wrote: »

Sometimes they will look ignored.
Sometimes a post is reported that needs no action. So it is ignored.
Sometimes a post is reported that purely results in a PM to the poster and that's the end of it - nothing on thread as it's been dealt with off thread.
Sometimes there's a visible warning or infraction.

Reporting posts is appreciated. But consider it like an anonymous* call to the Revenue. You may never hear the result but what needs to be dealt with generally will be. And imo reporting a post doesn't entitle you to hearing the result. If I give a warning to someone - from a reported post or just one I spotted - that's between me and the poster - it's nobody else's business (bar the other mods of the forum).

*That anonymity is double sided too. If a public thread was started it would show who the reporter was - you can imagine the $hite that would ensue from that.

I'm not sure if you get how the report sig function works. It creates a thread only viewable by admins and the reporter. No one else can see it. When you stated that some reports are ignored because no actions is needed, well thats not entirely true. They weren't ignored, they were consider and it was judged that no action was needed. It's the acknowledgement of the report, no matter what the action is what is being sought. If you read my post again nowhere did I demand action, or demand to know what if any, just that the report was read and considered. After that it's all down to the mods, and I wouldn't have it any other way.

Orion

Quazzie wrote: »

just that the report was read and considered. After that it's all down to the mods, and I wouldn't have it any other way.

I didn't know that about the reported sigs thing. But now that I do it doesn't change my opinion.

My point was - and I probably didn't articulate it well - that by reporting a post you've done your duty. Then, like you said, it is down to the mods. If the mods decide to do nothing or to take action I don't see why the reporter should care anymore.

I report posts occasionally in forums I don't mod. I don't do looking in the Reported Posts forum to see if they've been read, or if I've been thanked, or if there's a discussion about it. Once I've reported it I'm done - over to the mods.

As a mod; when a post is reported I, or one of my co-mods, will deal with it as necessary. But I don't feel obliged to acknowledge that to the reporter just as I wouldn't go looking for it when I report.

Iwannahurl

Orion wrote: »

If the mods decide to do nothing or to take action I don't see why the reporter should care anymore.

So is the Report Post function just a casual, ephemeral sort of thing?

If no action is taken can the reporter conclude that the content of the reported post is acceptable?

And can the reporter, not caring any more, contentedly refer to other members as, say, "Nazis" from now on, knowing that no visible action will be taken?

P. Breathnach

Iwannahurl wrote: »

... If no action is taken can the reporter conclude that the content of the reported post is acceptable?
...

That point deserves attention. The threshold of acceptable behavior seems to vary from one forum to another. If I report a post because I think it is a personal attack, and no action is taken, then I infer something about the threshold in that forum. I might modify my own behaviour accordingly.

Penn

Steve wrote: »

Mostly, when I get a reported post, I will read the thread in the RP forum and if there is a stock response such as "got it" or "sorted" from a co-mod then I breathe & just move on as I know I can trust them to have dealt with it - otherwise I dive in and start to assess the complaint and post my own replt there. Some mods, however, don't reply when they've sorted the issue and this is probably as annoying to me as is the point of this thread as it makes me needlessly read thru may posts just to discover they've already dealt with it.

There surely is merit in a future system that at least lets both the reporter and co-mods know that the report has been ticketed and is being looked at?

Difficult one to implement though as three still needs to be room for mods to collectively think and chat about what needs to be done in the borderline or new cases.

I just tend to thank the reported post to show the co-mods I saw it and have dealt with it, unless I feel the need to post something on the thread to discuss it

Iwannahurl

Orion wrote: »

Sometimes they will look ignored.
Sometimes a post is reported that needs no action. So it is ignored.
Sometimes a post is reported that purely results in a PM to the poster and that's the end of it - nothing on thread as it's been dealt with off thread.
Sometimes there's a visible warning or infraction.

Reporting posts is appreciated. But consider it like an anonymous* call to the Revenue. You may never hear the result but what needs to be dealt with generally will be. And imo reporting a post doesn't entitle you to hearing the result. If I give a warning to someone - from a reported post or just one I spotted - that's between me and the poster - it's nobody else's business (bar the other mods of the forum).

*That anonymity is double sided too. If a public thread was started it would show who the reporter was - you can imagine the $hite that would ensue from that.

What and how do Boards members, individually and collectively, learn from Reported Posts that are just ignored or handled in secret? By way of analogy, how would a game (or the sport) of soccer proceed if any alleged fouls were dealt with unseen and off the pitch in private discussions between a group of refs?

I disagree regarding "anonymity". Firstly, there would be no more and no less anonymity than there is on Boards generally. Secondly, any member ought to be accountable as much for their Reports as for their posts.

What matters, IMO, is consistency, transparency and accountability. I don't care who sees my posts or Reports, or condemns them, because one way or another I am prepared to stand or fall on what I say.

If anything, there is more potential for an opaque Report Post system to be unreliable, unjust and discriminatory. Conversely, Reported Posts that remain in place without qualification only serve, in the eyes of the reporter, to reinforce the belief that there might be discrimination going on.

Orion

Iwannahurl wrote: »

So is the Report Post function just a casual, ephemeral sort of thing?

No. It's a valuable tool. Mods can't read every thread/post. Assistance in reporting posts that may be problematic is very much appreciated.

Iwannahurl wrote: »

If no action is taken can the reporter conclude that the content of the reported post is acceptable?

Not necessarily. A poster may have been a dick and was reported - then the mods may well deal with it off thread via pm. I would usually operate on thread for transparency but not everyone does. E.g. if I banned someone for being a dick I would post on thread saying so. But if I was dealing with someone via pm I might not.

Iwannahurl wrote: »

And can the reporter, not caring any more, contentedly refer to other members as, say, "Nazis" from now on, knowing that no visible action will be taken?

I think you'd find the action would be swift and very visible if someone did this

Orion

Iwannahurl wrote: »

What and how do Boards members, individually and collectively, learn from Reported Posts that are just ignored?

Don't get hung up on the word 'ignored'. They're not and I'm sorry I used the word. Sometimes there is no visible action which may result in the appearance of it being ignored. That's not the same thing.

As others have said if you report a post and nothing happens - and you feel strongly that something should be done (e.g. personal attacks etc) - pm the mods. In my case I would certainly reply and would have no problem explaining the perceived lack of action if that was the case. Or it is possible that the report was missed and the pm would be a notification to act.

If you get no reply from the mods then pm the cmods.

But bear in mind that just because a post is reported doesn't mean that it's in breach of forum rules.

P. Breathnach

Iwannahurl wrote: »

And can the reporter, not caring any more, contentedly refer to other members as, say, "Nazis" from now on, knowing that no visible action will be taken?

Orion wrote: »

I think you'd find the action would be swift and very visible if someone did this

I think Iwannahurl might have picked the wrong illustration to make the point; most people would agree that "Nazi" is an unacceptable word. The real issue is nuancing: it might not be such a clear case if words like "Fascist" or "bully" were used.

Further, the impact of a word can vary depending on how it is used. A mod might disallow a sentence like "You are a Nazi/Fascist/bully" but tolerate "You are behaving like a Nazi/Fascist/bully".

And then we have the artful poster who might say "I don't want to call you a Nazi/Fascist/bully, but ..."

Cases are not always cut-and-dried, and it seems to me inevitable that the thresholds vary from one forum to another. In effect, the mods control the tone of their forums. It is helpful when mods post to clarify what is unacceptable in a particular forum; this usually happens in the context of dealing with reported posts.

Orion

P. Breathnach wrote: »

It is helpful when mods post to clarify what is unacceptable in a particular forum; this usually happens in the context of dealing with reported posts.

Isn't that what the charter is for? Also mods don't necessarily wait for a post to be reported. If we see a breach of the rules it's dealt with. Not every actionable post is reported - even if it should be.

P. Breathnach

Orion wrote: »

Isn't that what the charter is for?

Tone is tricky; you can't spell it out in the charter.

Also mods don't necessarily wait for a post to be reported. If we see a breach of the rules it's dealt with.

I did say "usually"! We frequently see mods explain that no action was taken on a particular post because nobody had reported it, and they don't read every thread in the forums they moderate. Anyway, let's not treat this as contested ground.

Not every actionable post is reported - even if it should be.

That's the way life works. Things are never going to be perfect. The Feedback Forum will always have a function.

Insect Overlord

Iwannahurl wrote: »

What and how do Boards members, individually and collectively, learn from Reported Posts that are just ignored or handled in secret?

You're not supposed to learn anything. Anyone who uses the function is doing so to give the mods a heads-up that a post may require attention. It's an alert system, a helping hand. It's not a learning tool.

Iwannahurl wrote: »

What matters, IMO, is consistency, transparency and accountability.

Haven't seen those three words together in a while! The ACT social group was a catalyst for big changes two years ago. I can't remember if the report system was ever an issue in those discussions though.

I feel we have accountability here, from users questioning things in Help Desk, threads in the Dispute Resolution forum, the Admin > CMod > Mod heirarchy, and the occasional meeting of minds in Feedback.

Iwannahurl wrote: »

If anything, there is more potential for an opaque Report Post system to be unreliable, unjust and discriminatory.

Pure speculation. You're free to be concerned about how things work, of course. But suggesting it's unjust and discriminatory, just because you can't see the inner workings of it for yourself, is very harsh.

Iwannahurl wrote: »

Conversely, Reported Posts that remain in place without qualification only serve, in the eyes of the reporter, to reinforce the belief that there might be discrimination going on.

Then that reporter should send a quick, polite PM to the relevant mods, instead of just assuming the worst.

Iwannahurl

Insect Overlord wrote: »

You're not supposed to learn anything. Anyone who uses the function is doing so to give the mods a heads-up that a post may require attention. It's an alert system, a helping hand. It's not a learning tool.

Pure speculation. You're free to be concerned about how things work, of course. But suggesting it's unjust and discriminatory, just because you can't see the inner workings of it for yourself, is very harsh.

Then that reporter should send a quick, polite PM to the relevant mods, instead of just assuming the worst.

1. Those who do not learn the lessons of (their Browser) history are condemned to repeat it.

2. I didn't suggest the system was unjust and discriminatory, just that opaque refereeing methods are more prone to such, and, crucially, to engendering such perceptions. For some reason the in camera hearing of divorce cases springs to mind!

3. Hmmm, I'm afraid that on occasion I've assumed the worst after getting a reply from a Mod/CMod to a PM.

randylonghorn

P. Breathnach wrote: »

I ask this because I sometimes check if a mod has been online after I have reported a post, and if he or she has, and no action has been taken, I infer that the mod has deemed that no action is needed.

That's a dubious inference tbh.

- I may have been online and dealing with another reported post, in that or another forum, or just taking 5 minutes to check a thread that I was interested in, and taking my mod hat off for that 5 minutes ... something I don't get a chance to do very often these days.

- I may have logged in but been called away by real life before I had a chance to get to or deal with that post.

- I may want to think about my response. While it may surprise some, when a case is not absolutely clear-cut I often take some time to think about it, and will come back to it.

- I may want to check my head with a fellow mod, or indeed check something with an admin.

- and ofc I may indeed have deemed that the post required no action, but to assume that simply on the basis that I have been online in the meantime is a dangerous assumption.

P. Breathnach

randylonghorn wrote: »

That's a dubious inference tbh.

- I may have been online and dealing with another reported post, in that or another forum, or just taking 5 minutes to check a thread that I was interested in, and taking my mod hat off for that 5 minutes ... something I don't get a chance to do very often these days.

- I may have logged in but been called away by real life before I had a chance to get to or deal with that post.

- I may want to think about my response. While it may surprise some, when a case is not absolutely clear-cut I often take some time to think about it, and will come back to it.

- I may want to check my head with a fellow mod, or indeed check something with an admin.

- and ofc I may indeed have deemed that the post required no action, but to assume that simply on the basis that I have been online in the meantime is a dangerous assumption.

Mods usually do not respond directly to a person reporting a post. If find that the mod has not been online, then I infer that the report is still awaiting consideration. If, days after I have made a report, I can see that the mod has been quite active online, then my inference that the mod does not intend to take action on the report is very much the best bet. The use of phrases like "dubious inference" and "dangerous assumption" (particularly the latter) is excessively dramatic. What's the danger?

randylonghorn

P. Breathnach wrote: »

If, days after I have made a report, I can see that the mod has been quite active online, then my inference that the mod does not intend to take action on the report is very much the best bet.

Yes, if, days after you have made the report, you can see that the mod has been quite active online, that's probably a fairly reasonable inference.

That's quite different though from saying:

P. Breathnach wrote: »

I sometimes check if a mod has been online after I have reported a post, and if he or she has, and no action has been taken, I infer that the mod has deemed that no action is needed.

P. Breathnach wrote: »

The use of phrases like "dubious inference" and "dangerous assumption" (particularly the latter) is excessively dramatic. What's the danger?

The danger of being wrong!!

I think you're reading far more "drama" into my wording than I ever intended tbh!

Sad Professor

I would also add to randylonghorn's list above that the mod might be on their mobile and not be able to take any action at that moment. The touch site has no mod tools. The mobile site does, but they are very limited. Anytime I have to do any modding on my mobile I have to use the full site, which is very awkward to use on a phone.