Is DRP Broken?

Lovely Bloke

I like to read the DRP from time to time, and in two recent appeals, the CMod or Admin who has taken on the case have commented that the case put forward by the user appealing is, in some way, "too long".

1. Link

A user is disputing all of his cards, believing he has been subject to a concerted campaign against him (I'm not arguing the merits of that by the way), but a CMod comments

The sheer volume of information in your posts makes it virtually impossible to respond to all the points you make, and the dispute process is not designed for that anyway.

What IS it designed for then? Separate thread per card? But what then, if as is the case here, a user is feeling victimised (warranted or not) only after a length of time? Is there a statute of limitations on appeals? If there is, then it's hardly fair to

• have a totting-up process that would be outside of this limit
• refer to previous history when giving decisions

And then, to so blithley dismiss a full post containing reasoning behind why a user is feeling how he is seems somehow unfair - CMods and Admins are all too quick to jump on users who don't follow procedure, but when a user goes into detail, outlining his argument, this is also dismissed. It's a Catch 22 really.

2. Link

Appeal is too long, so was pretty much ignored because it's too long.

which might have had something to do with the wall of text in the first post and the time that promises to steal and never return

this is totally unfair on the user.

If Admins are going to simply ignore "long" appeals, especially AFTER a Cmod has gone to the trouble of doing so, then that leaves the users confused as to what is acceptable or not.

***********************************

The most unfair part of this is the implication that if you don't appeal cards/infractions/bans within some short time-frame, then an appeal at a later date is somehow not as legitimate, even if it is used as supporting evidence to a (perceived) wider issue.

At the same time, CMods and Admins are welcome to use (sometimes) years-old records to damn a user, it's unbalanced, unfair and too loaded toward the site/bosses.

K-9

That's one hell of a project for volunteer CMods and Admins.

Looks a bit like a time sink.

The Moldy Gowl

I'm internet famous!!!


Most of the time when it's that long they are clutching at straws. Sometimes it's mostly down to the poster.

I don't think there is any hidden bullying agenda going on, not with the amount of posters and the ability to reregg. It futile.

Posters do get a reputation when it happens across different forum.

If you are being 'bullied' or victimised, just close your account and start a new one. You're allowed do that.

circular flexing

Surely the easiest solution here is to not pick up cards in the first place?

Darkglasses

How many thousand words would ye say that is? The post itself is 1135, plus the screenshots, plus the 18 threads he wants Beasty to read. I think Beasty is going above and beyond here.

Dades

Some DRs get ignored in the same way many things in life get ignored; that is until time is found to deal with them. Every DR gets dealt with eventually. Some take longer than others because CMods/Admins want to actually give each case the time it requires. It would easy to roll in and support the CMod every time without even trying but I don't think that would go down too well either.

In your first case, I would suggest that multiple cards are not for appealing in DR, and am going to suggest a CMod just deal with accusations of victimisation independently. DR is for cards/bans. If a card is issued wrongly it should be obvious without the need for future cards to expose it.

In your second case, the mod offered to rescind the OPs card before he went to DR, but the OP didn't like the wording in the PM. That again is questionable as to what it's even doing in there.

Lovely Bloke

Dades wrote: »

If a card is issued wrongly it should be obvious without the need for future cards to expose it.

Then we wouldn't need a DRP process at all

Dades wrote: »

Some DRs get ignored in the same way many things in life get ignored; that is until time is found to deal with them.

Fine, but it would be common courtesy for an Admin at least to drop in and say "I've seen this, and it's going to take time to get through", rather than leave it an unreasonable length of time, then pop back and say "yeah, it's too long so it was ignored til now" - that's rude at best.

Nody

Baldy Conscience wrote: »

Then we wouldn't need a DRP process at all

Because people complained that the DRP process (which was done by PM only previously) was not one common approach to it (i.e. one forum could have it done differently than another). In addition there was the cloak & dagger theories about how the CMods would always rule with the mods anyway etc. which is lead to it being done in one way and in public for all forums (at least as far as I recall for the implementation).

The second part to it is the fact if a card is issued incorrectly it should be obvious on it's own (i.e. if there's a mod conspiracy going on it should be obvious from the first card rather then waiting for 15 to accumulate and then appeal them all and claim mod conspiracy as the cause). This also has the secondary benefit of allowing CMods/Admins to step in in case there's lack of clarity in a charter/mod actions before it gets too far out of hand.

Chips Lovell

I don't think it's that unreasonable to expect someone to concisely state their case. You squeeze modding in around work and real life and there will always be a point where you have to call a halt and tell someone the time you're going to give to an issue is limited.

In some cases, the "wall of text" is used by posters who can't see the wood from the trees and get too wrapped up in disputes. It's Boards, not the High Court.

In others, it's a debating tactic, designed to grind your interlocutor down by throwing enough material at them that they'll lose the time or patience to deal with it. You can then declare victory because your opponent hasn't responded in detail to every point in your 3,000 word post.

Micky Dolenz

In my experience, you need at least an hour to look into DR's,often longer depending on the complexity of it. They can be hard enough without being expected to read a short novel on the topic.

Beasty

OK, now the "appellant" has been site-banned, I'll comment here

I looked at that appeal on Saturday, and realised the OP had an issue where he was claiming that the effect of his 3 yellows in the Soccer forum was counting against him elsewhere on the site

Equally it was clear the poster had included a lot of stuff in his appeal that I considered irrelevant to that appeal.

I therefore posted to say I agreed to look at all three cards. However to try and deal with everything in one go would probably confuse the issue

So over the weekend I was looking at his record. I was looking at the countless reported posts of the OP, many of which originated from a number of different posters in the soccer forum. I was also looking at stuff that had been said about him in the Soccer mods forum. The context of his yellows was clearly important and it was also clear that a pattern was emerging. I could see a similar pattern in a couple of other Sports forums

Then I spotted something that I wanted some Admin Feedback on. So I asked them to check some stuff out

I was going to try and deal with the appeal tonight, depending on the outcome of the Admin deliberation. I reckon I've spent 2-3 hours, possibly more, on that appeal already. I would add that I am typically averaging one dispute thread a week. No many of them take so much time, but I make sure I fully research them before reaching any decisions. Are those signs of a broken process? I don't think so, but equally others can draw their own conclusions

The Hill Billy

You can get some of your life back, Beasty. His siteban has been upped to Permanent.

The Moldy Gowl

Trouble maker in stirring the conspiracy pot shocker

Insect Overlord

Awfully reminiscent of SOTS, to be honest. Nobody wants that again.

Bobeagleburger

An File wrote: »

Awfully reminiscent of SOTS, to be honest. Nobody wants that again.

Thought the same tbh

The Moldy Gowl

Who is sots?

El Weirdo

Gowlasauras Rex wrote: »

Who is sots?

Spiritoftheseventies.

Your life is probably richer for not knowing, though.

Tombi!

Might as well ask even if it's a tad off topic: when did you start using the public DRP (ie the way it is now)?

Beasty

Brutal Deluxe wrote: »

Might as well ask even if it's a tad off topic: when did you start using the public DRP (ie the way it is now)?

The current DRP forum with it's formal process started in September 2010 (check the earliest posts in the forum). Before that any disputes were dealt with in the Help Desk, I think at Adfmin level typically

nesf

Beasty wrote: »

The current DRP forum with it's formal process started in September 2010 (check the earliest posts in the forum). Before that any disputes were dealt with in the Help Desk, I think at Adfmin level typically

No. It was by PM with Mod/CMod for forum stuff usually, sometimes people went straight to an Admin I think. It was a bit messy but worked well enough. Helpdesk was for site wide issues. At least as far as I can remember. There was a day far enough back you could dispute bans on Feedback. You might get heckled out of it before a mod found your thread though. :P

nesf

Baldy, this came up before about 7 years ago I think. We had a user that kept getting banned and kept writing 500-1000 word posts endlessly arguing with CMods and Admins in DRP over very obvious and fair bans and infractions (literally, we said don't do X, you did X, that's why you're banned). In the end we had to just draw a line and say, we'll look at the ban and see if it's fair or not, make a call and after that we won't respond to any post you make.

In 99.999% of cases this is never an issue but sometimes people are just intentionally or unintentionally wasting everyone's time over and over again.

Calhoun

Lol he finally got perms banned, I knew it was only a matter of time. Been around long enough to spot people who won't make it long term due to there caustic posting style.

This user felt victimised in quite few areas of the site but was the cause in many cases of his own problems.

My point is this is a extreme case, should not be confused with the norm in the drp process.

Pat Mustard

Maybe there should be a rule in the Dispute Resolution forum that only one card or ban can be disputed per thread and that if there are multiple disputes, there should be corresponding threads for each dispute. Perhaps such a rule would reduce scope for abuse of the DRP system by the type of filibustering which has been previously discussed. Also, separate threads for each dispute would allow for division of labour by cmods.

Therefore, if four disputes arise, four cmods could deal with a single dispute each, leading to quicker overall resolution of the disputes than one cmod having to tackle four disputes in a single thread.

nesf

The Mustard wrote: »

Maybe there should be a rule in the Dispute Resolution forum that only one card or ban can be disputed per thread and that if there are multiple disputes, there should be corresponding threads for each dispute. Perhaps such a rule would reduce scope for abuse of the DRP system by the type of filibustering which has been previously discussed. Also, separate threads for each dispute would allow for division of labour by cmods.

Therefore, if four disputes arise, four cmods could deal with a single dispute each, leading to quicker overall resolution of the disputes than one cmod having to tackle four disputes in a single thread.

Sometimes you can't split the complaints as they're all from the same thread/argument or for the same rule breach across multiple threads. They effect each other so you don't treat them separately.

Pat Mustard

nesf wrote: »

Sometimes you can't split the complaints as they're all from the same thread/argument or for the same rule breach across multiple threads. They effect each other so you don't treat them separately.

Fair point. If a rule change was introduced, perhaps there could be an exception for disputes arising out of a singular incident, insofar as linked disputes could be dealt with in one thread. I would imagine that such a scenario would be uncommon, though.

Beasty

To be fair it's quite rare when posters ask for more than one card to be considered within a single appeal. Not sure but the appeal linked in the OP here is possibly the first time it's happened with me in well over 100 disputes I have dealt with. In that case the poster was asking because the 3 cards all contributed to a Soccer Forum ban and 2 of them were for posts made within a few minutes in a single thread. As I've already indicated there were a number of other factors to consider with that particular appeal and the amount of time taken up was very much the exception.

padd b1975

nesf wrote: »

No. It was by PM with Mod/CMod for forum stuff usually, sometimes people went straight to an Admin I think. It was a bit messy but worked well enough. Helpdesk was for site wide issues. At least as far as I can remember. There was a day far enough back you could dispute bans on Feedback. You might get heckled out of it before a mod found your thread though. :P

Serious consideration should be given to bringing back this system...

It would create a bit of excitement if nothing else:cool:

nesf

padd b1975 wrote: »

Serious consideration should be given to bringing back this system...

It would create a bit of excitement if nothing else:cool:

If by excitement you mean every toy you can think of being thrown out of every pram, then yes. Yes it would.

Pawwed Rig

Dispute Resolution through Afterhours!
I would pay a subscription for that :pac:

Overheal

to be honest OP I think you're cherry picking things out of context; in both DRP threads you mentioned yes, you can see admins saying things that you've quoted here out of context about not being thrilled about the volume of content in the disputes. However, in both cases in spite of that fact, both Dades and Beasty respectively still processed and reviewed each dispute within reason for the amount of time they have as volunteers to devote to a single issue.