Mods consistency

counterlock

Apologies in advance if this is the wrong place for this, perhaps the mods could move if necessary?

Can one of the mods explain to me why this post was infracted, when this and this were not? I've no connection to any of the posters or the thread, it just seems a bit heavy handed to hand out a warning and let the others slide - although I appreciate that AH is a difficult place to mod at the best of times.

I've seen more and more posts being deleted and/or being infracted. Just my opinion but if you leave the post there and slap the yellow on it, at least it draws a line for future posters.

I'm not a moderator of AH so I can only speculate. I'd presume the first post which you linked to was given a warning because in it the user corrected another user's grammar. Though all three posts are relatively personal — though I wouldn't call them personally abusive — only the first explicitly broke the forum's charter, in that grammar was corrected.

But, again, that's only speculation based on presumptions. I'm sure a moderator of AH will clarify the issue for you once one has spotted this thread.

Micky Dolenz

From the Charter.

Grammar nazis not welcome

dr.bollocko wrote: »

Not everybody is as perfect as you are. Some people have learning difficulties. Some people are dyslexic. Some people are stupid and finally some people just don't care about their spelling and grammar. It's not your job to police them. If a post is illegible, contains excessive text speak or lacks paragraphs/punctuation etc., you may point it out nicely. Once. If someone has already done so, leave it alone.

If someone is an established user and their spelling/grammar is not great, they have probably had it brought to their attention many times before. There is no need to highlight it again.

Feel free to report any posts that may need moderator attention.

See here also.

Infraction reason: Warning, Breach of Forum Charter

counterlock

Thanks for the info lads

minidazzler

And on the reasons for non-action, if you think something deserves action why not report it? Is there really a need for a feedback thread? Mods can't actually read every single post, especially in AH!

counterlock

minidazzler wrote: »

And on the reasons for non-action, if you think something deserves action why not report it?

Thats exactly what I do. I don't feel any of the posts highlighted deserved an infraction, I was just curious as to why one was infracted and the other two weren't. My question was answered by the mods here.

minidazzler wrote: »

Is there really a need for a feedback thread? Mods can't actually read every single post, especially in AH!

Where would be a better forum for a question - and feedback?

Sar_Bear

minidazzler wrote: »

And on the reasons for non-action, if you think something deserves action why not report it? Is there really a need for a feedback thread? Mods can't actually read every single post, especially in AH!

Bit unfair, as I was given an infraction once, because I hadn't time to read all the posts and missed a warning, but the mod in question wouldn't take that into consideration. So why should it be ok for mods not to read all the posts, when they are supposed to?

Tombi!

Sar_Bear wrote: »

Bit unfair, as I was given an infraction once, because I hadn't time to read all the posts and missed a warning, but the mod in question wouldn't take that into consideration. So why should it be ok for mods not to read all the posts, when they are supposed to?

Well it's not really up to them.
They're not out specifically to "hunt" for posts to infract.
They're still posters. If they happen to throw down a warning then it should say so in the first post or the title.

Sar_Bear

Brutal Deluxe wrote: »

Sar_Bear wrote: »

Bit unfair, as I was given an infraction once, because I hadn't time to read all the posts and missed a warning, but the mod in question wouldn't take that into consideration. So why should it be ok for mods not to read all the posts, when they are supposed to?

Well it's not really up to them.
They're not out specifically to "hunt" for posts to infract.
They're still posters. If they happen to throw down a warning then it should say so in the first post or the title.

It wasn't in the title, it didn't even say "see mod warning post ***" so unles I read every post there way of knowing about it.

I understand they are normal posters, but the point I was making is I was infracted for not reading all the posts, but people are saying it's ok for the mods not to read the posts.

Micky Dolenz

Sar_Bear wrote: »

It wasn't in the title, it didn't even say "see mod warning post ***" so unles I read every post there way of knowing about it.

I understand they are normal posters, but the point I was making is I was infracted for not reading all the posts, but people are saying it's ok for the mods not to read the posts.

Since midnight last night, there was been 2178 (and growing) posts posted in After Hours, there are currently 8 AH mods. In any 24 hour period there may be 5-6 of those mods active at anyone time.


It would be impossible for us to read every post in every thread.

When acting on a reported post we would read the reported post in context and get a feel for the tone of a thread.

As a poster outside the forums I mod I would certainly read a fair share of a thread before I posted in it.

LoLth

Sar_Bear wrote: »

Bit unfair, as I was given an infraction once, because I hadn't time to read all the posts and missed a warning, but the mod in question wouldn't take that into consideration.

whats a bit unfair is that you didnt receive the infraction (not a warning or a ban, definitely an infraction?) on this account so there is absolutely no way to verify your claim that you received an infraction for not seeing an un-signposted mod warning. For all we know you could have posted, quoting the mod warning which was posted as an edit to post #1 in giant red letters. Please do not post annecdotes of what you consider bad modding unless you have some way to back up your claim, its not fair to the mods and its not fair to the admins/cmods and other users who may have their perception of mod actions tainted.

Also, you are talking about reading all the posts...in a thread or even just all the posts in the page of a thread leading up to your post. Mods are talking about reading all posts in all threads in a forum. That might be possible in most forums but AH has a very high churn rate of posts so its not possible there.

the groutch

what I don't get is why mods are so obsessed with little things like grammar corrections, or banning phrases like "yore ma" "cool story bro" etc. when there are other things ten times worse that are okay.

humanji

Wasn't it the users who demanded "Yore ma" and "cool story bro" etc were banned, as well as grammar nazis?

Tombi!

the groutch wrote: »

what I don't get is why mods are so obsessed with little things like grammar corrections, or banning phrases like "yore ma" "cool story bro" etc. when there are other things ten times worse that are okay.

Because they're annoying and I reckon humanji was right. There's a difference between having to see several posts of "yore ma" in a thread. It's like spam.
Things that are "worse" are up to people ot decide. If you get annoyed or offended or whatever, report it.

LoLth

from an AH point of view, the threads are like discussions in a pub. How much fun would a discussion be if one participant kept correcting the grammar of the others? Would the other participants think to themselves "what a dick" ? Additionally, so what if someone spells a word wrong or forgets a comma? It doesnt invalidate his or her point which, a lot of the time, is the entire purpose of the grammar correction "I know how to spell onomatopoeia correctly therefore my point is more valid than yours".

The "yore ma" "cool story bro" and other memes were banned because users were either using them to rack up meaningless postcounts or as a method of sarcasm - which is pretty pathetic, if you're going to be sarcastic at least make an effort! I dont know if it was a user request or a mod decsions but just like text speak the memes were banned because they made the threads more difficult for actual posters to follow.

As Brutal Deluxe says, if you find something offensive or disruptive, report it. If it gets reported enough by enough users then the mods will consider adding it to the list of "things that make users annoyed" and it will be dealt with in future.

I was going to create another thread for this, but since "yore ma" and "cool story bro" are mentioned here, is there any chance we can pop "<thinly veiled "unoriginal remark" post/thread> to that list of infractionable offenses? It's just getting irritating in After Hours right now.

Will I Amnt

The post in question was mine and before I made the comment I checked the charter as I did think there were changes made about grammar nazis. I very seldom post in AH.

Unfortunately I only checked the last few posts in the charter as I thought recent changes would be there. Didn't see anything so thought it was fair game.
My fault I suppose but it's not always easy to trawl through the whole charter when all you want to do is reply to someone talking rubbish.

LoLth

cambo2008 wrote: »

The post in question was mine and before I made the comment I checked the charter as I did think there were changes made about grammar nazis. I very seldom post in AH.

Unfortunately I only checked the last few posts in the charter as I thought recent changes would be there. Didn't see anything so thought it was fair game.
My fault I suppose but it's not always easy to trawl through the whole charter

fair enough, mistakes happen . based on this feedback maybe the mods will take a look at the charter and see if it needs to be presented any differently to stop it from happening again (and maybe you'll read cahrters more carefully, especially if you suspect what you are about to type contravenes one! )

when all you want to do is reply to someone talking rubbish.

but no-one reading your post would have any idea what you found rubbish about the post you were criticising and as I already said, just because they made a grammatical error it doesnt invalidate their point but by you reducing your objection to their point to "you used this word wrong" you've only managed to make your own objection look weak and petty. Its a bit like someone coming out of a nuclear bunker after 50 years, looking at the field of ashes and glowing glass all around them and then mocking the enemy because as they hit the button they pronounced the word "nucular"... You would have been better served to quote the bit you thought was rubbish, stated why you thought it was rubbish and then posted evidence to support your statement. Then give the poster the opportunity to respond.

Will I Amnt

I get you, the idea was to be petty.
I'm familiar with how petty the poster I was replying to can be from another forum.
In my opinion he was looking for a reaction and more fool me for reacting.

I'm not disputing the infraction at all as I had an idea that it might be against the charter, just wasn't 100% sure.