No feedback from the Moderators after reporting inappropriate posts

Deedsie

Hi,

I have reported two posts on the Ray Darcy show thread in the last two days, one about masturbation the other with casual homophobic references. Both posts were removed and rightly so. However it seems neither poster received an infraction or any comment to warn the posters to behave.

Why is there so little infractions handed out on a thread that so many poster break the charter on a regular basis? I'm no big fan of Ray D'Arcy but some of the behaviour on that thread is disgraceful.

Thanks

Overheal

How do you know they weren't actioned?

(Preamble: Mods don't generally need to share actions with the general audience/users - doing so often gives ammunition to their counterparts, especially in debate threads)

Mods can action in lots of ways: infractions directly on the post, you can see. However, if a mod instead adds the infraction to their profile, or bans them, a non-mod has no way of viewing either event; your only way of determining if such a hidden action took place is if the mod makes an announcement on the thread in question - which they can always elect not to do.

Zaph

It's also worth noting that an infraction can be given on a post and then the post removed. As you've noted, the posts have been deleted, but you would have no way of knowing whether or not infractions were given for them.

Deedsie

Overheal wrote: »

How do you know they weren't actioned?

(Preamble: Mods don't generally need to share actions with the general audience/users - doing so often gives ammunition to their counterparts, especially in debate threads)

Mods can action in lots of ways: infractions directly on the post, you can see. However, if a mod instead adds the infraction to their profile, or bans them, a non-mod has no way of viewing either event; your only way of determining if such a hidden action took place is if the mod makes an announcement on the thread in question - which they can always elect not to do.

Zaph wrote: »

It's also worth noting that an infraction can be given on a post and then the post removed. As you've noted, the posts have been deleted, but you would have no way of knowing whether or not infractions were given for them.

I understand that, but even a small acknowledgement that the report was seen and the action taken etc?

Ruu

Some mods might post a note on thread but sometimes it is impossible given the amount of traffic and it is asking a bit much for mods, who are volunteers to start with.

Zaph

Deedsie wrote: »

I understand that, but even a small acknowledgement that the report was seen and the action taken etc?

That's not something we expect mods to do. If some mods want to do it it's entirely their choice, but there's no compulsion for them to do so. All mods are volunteers and we appreciate the time and effort they put into keeping the site running. However adding something to their workload which, let's face it, is merely to satisfy the prurient curiosity of the person who reported the post, achieves little or nothing. What if there was no action taken, as is often the case? At what point would the reporter be satisfied with the action taken? Insisting that mods report what action was taken on every post that is reported would simply become a stick to beat them with before very long and some would spend more time explaining their actions than actually modding.

Nody

Hello Deedsie,

In the thread in question there are 3 post 1 mod warnings (all posted in post 1 as well as in the thread at the time) which even though clearly advertised have resulted in over 15 mod actions. In regards to the Homophobic comments there was a stand alone sticky by Hulla for a month which is now part of the charter thread on the topic as well. Hence there is clearly outlined the expected behavior of people and further on thread warnings is not really needed or expected to make a big difference in posting behavior; esp. on a fast moving thread as Darcy's. Without commenting on individual reports or actions the fact that a post disappears (or ends up edited) should give you a confirmation that it has actually been actioned; any further mod actions against the user is dependent on the user's history and how severe the transgression is and may wary from a PM to the user to a ban from the forum.

padd b1975

Zaph wrote: »

That's not something we expect mods to do. If some mods want to do it it's entirely their choice, but there's no compulsion for them to do so. All mods are volunteers and we appreciate the time and effort they put into keeping the site running. However adding something to their workload which, let's face it, is merely to satisfy the prurient curiosity of the person who reported the post, achieves little or nothing. What if there was no action taken, as is often the case? At what point would the reporter be satisfied with the action taken? Insisting that mods report what action was taken on every post that is reported would simply become a stick to beat them with before very long and some would spend more time explaining their actions than actually modding.

This is untrue, and to be honest, a little unfair towards us users.

I think it's vital that posts that cross the line are visually acted upon as far as practicable.

Why? It creates a benchmark of acceptable standards within a thread and nips any inclination to 'fight fire with fire' or jump on a bandwagon in the bud.
It also gives the Mod presence on a thread which can only be good for behaviour.

MrWalsh

I think that the lack of feedback fosters an environment where people are less inclined to bother reporting posts. Why bother if you never know if anything was done about it?

hullaballoo

MrWalsh wrote: »

I think that the lack of feedback fosters an environment where people are less inclined to bother reporting posts. Why bother if you never know if anything was done about it?

I think this kind of logic fosters an environment where volunteers who rely on reported posts to benefit everyone on the site just go, fcuk the lot of ya.

MrWalsh

hullaballoo wrote: »

I think this kind of logic fosters an environment where volunteers who rely on reported posts to benefit everyone on the site just go, fcuk the lot of ya.

Yeah, probably it does. Which is why feedback would be good, to stop fostering negative environments.

Its been brought up loads of times as something posters would like to see so being smart about it doesnt foster much positivity either eh?

Overheal

I just watched a 9 yr old tattle on a 7 yr old for something trivial.

This is what highlights to me why it's not always a great idea to publicly flay or otherwise grandstand many moderator actions. Because frankly a lot of children use the website despite that being against the terms and conditions.

Tombi!

You'd be surprised (and I mean on forums and well, places in general) how often people will report others just so they get into trouble.

It's like adding a "dislike/thumbs down/etc" button. It's going to cause a lot more problems.

I mean if you really, really must know, you can check the post you reported and see if a card was given. If you see a yellow or red card then you know that the post was given a warning/infraction.
You could also check the person's quoted posts to see if a mod quoted them to say "stop this/behave/banned/whatever".
Of course that above sounds a bit like obsessive behaviour.
But end of the day... does it really matter?

You don't report something to see what punishment was handed out*, you do it so the place is better off.

*obviously certain things like rereg trolls or spammers are reported with the intent for them to be gone

KomradeBishop

Sometimes also though, you're encouraged to report posts that are not actionable by mods, in order to highlight an overall problematic trend in how a poster behaves, to build a history on them - but it's not possible to know when reporting like this, is actually useful to the mods, or is just being a pain in the hole by generating reports that might seem overly trivial.

In general - not just with reported posts - there is a disconnect/gulf between how mods and posters perceive things, so a little bit more feedback might help with that.

Something as simple as: Adding a card to reported posts (not to anyones profile, just post), that is only visible to the person who reported - which displays whether the report has been dealt with or not, even the ability for the mod to add a comment "cheers", or "no need to report this" like you would see in an infraction card - something simple like that, would give people a much better idea if their reports are useful, unhelpful, awaiting action, etc..

hullaballoo

MrWalsh wrote: »

Its been brought up loads of times as something posters would like to see so being smart about it doesnt foster much positivity either eh?

No, you're right. It doesn't and I apologise for being blunt and flippant. I also shouldn't have posted that way considering this thread revolves around a forum I currently moderate. I had forgotten this thread was about Radio.

Nonetheless, the point as badly made as it was, is a valid one. Moderators are not equipped to provide feedback to every reported post to users for many reasons. These reasons will also vary between moderators but for me, primarily they are as follows:

1. If someone is warned by a moderator, that's no one else's business in the main. I am not in favour of moderation by public censure except where it is absolutely necessary.

2. There may be underlying circumstances that mean that it would be inappropriate to let the world at large know why a particular course of action was taken over another. I'll give two examples just to show what I mean:

a. A moderator is concerned as to the well-being of the person who posted the reported post because they are privy to information about that user that gives rise to this. There may be a concern that any sort of censure could be dangerous for one reason or another and the best approach is to approach the user (or have someone else do it) unbeknown to any other user.

b. A new user pops into a forum, breaches the charter, and the moderator responds with a PM sent only to the new user. Publicly calling the new user out is not going to encourage them to come back.

c. A moderator might deem an individual post inactionable but might make a mental note that it's close to the line and to keep an eye on the user. It is inappropriate for this to be communicated to anyone else aside from co-mods in some circumstances.

The above are just two examples of myriad reasons why it might be inappropriate for anyone other than the moderator and the individual to know anything about the issue.

3. It is infeasible for moderators to administer the task of ensuring every reported post is either dealt with publicly or the reporters are informed as to why it is not being dealt with. This might be something that could be fixed by adding a feature such as that suggested by KomradeBishop, that might indicate whether a report has been seen. I don't think much more information than that is needed.

Personally, if I was to ensure every reported post I get is either actioned, or not actioned and the reporters informed, I would spend hours alone at that and would have no spare time left to actually enjoy the site. And, despite the number of forums I moderate, none are peculiarly busy.

4. Some moderators don't use the reported post function. I use it because RPs come to my email and that's handy but that feature doesn't work for everyone. I never look at the Reported Posts forum unless I want to add a note for another moderator but it's not the type of place you could browse just to see whether anyone has reported a post in your forum. Some moderators do what they do simply by reading every post in the forum they mod.

Personally, I prefer to read every post but that's not always possible if I'm afk for a day or two. That way, I find the reported posts feature useful.

5. As someone else pointed out above, some people already abuse the reported post feature and I think that if this gets a reaction that's mandated by a change in the system, that encourages further abuse.

Again, all of the above are just a few from the top of my head as to why moderator reactions to reported posts are less valuable to the good of the site than users knowing what punishment others face, whether that's quite innocently so that they know they ought to be reporting that sort of post or the more sinister reason of looking to get someone they don't like in trouble.

As I said, these are my own reason. I suspect moderators in very very busy forums would focus more on the fact that giving feedback to users who report posts is simply such a time drain that it would be an impossible task to administer.

Buona Fortuna

I'm genna tag this on to this otherwise spent thread. If its worth doing someone will no doubt salute it.

The thread OP is about reporters of posts knowing that they are not firing blanks as it were. I wonder if the opposite is worthwhile. As posters we merrily sail along posting various forms of rubbish and wisdom, until a pm arrives saying that you have been warned, infracted or banned :eek:

I wonder if a user's posts are being reported that they should recive some notification, or some tab in their CP "see reported posts".

I'm not suggesting that the reporters are identified. Just if you post something believing you are the next Mock the Week star, and 4 people report it maybe its pause for thought even if no mod action ensues.

Spear

Being reported doesn't mean validly reported. Anyone could use such a mechanism as a way to intimidate someone when they post. It's for similar reasons there's also no No Thanks button. A lack of feedback may be less than satisfying, but it's better than having a chilling effect on users and their willingness to post.

Buona Fortuna

Spear wrote: »

Being reported doesn't mean validly reported. Anyone could use such a mechanism as a way to intimidate someone when they post. It's for similar reasons there's also no No Thanks button. A lack of feedback may be less than satisfying, but it's better than having a chilling effect on users and their willingness to post.

Spear that's a valid point. I think you are right.

Dan_Solo

hullaballoo wrote: »

I think this kind of logic fosters an environment where volunteers who rely on reported posts to benefit everyone on the site just go, fcuk the lot of ya.

I don't know what mods see to click on when they are given their option on what actions to take against posts, but is it significantly more difficult to add a visible red or yellow card to a post than to enact the punishment? This is without getting into adding a mod decision in text within the post.
And when a single threads has a mix of secret and visible moderation actions for seemingly similarly bad posts (due to moderator discretion) it doesn't do anything at all to raise the standards as nobody knows what the standards are.

Sunflower 27

I agree that if a poster is given a warning or whatever, it SHOULD be made public. Having it visible for some and not others fosters an environment of mistrust and favouritism.

I got a warning in a thread for quoting a mod and suggesting a sticky should be placed on it to say what is and what not acceptable to post about (as posters were arguing amongst themselves about this). Result to me: Warning issued and put on the post.


A day later someone else quoted a mod, saying the exact same thing: perhaps we should have a sticky?

The result: that poster got no warning that I was aware of as it was not publicly displayed.

I think it is fairly clear what precedence this sets.

If it is a site-wide action to give a warning if you quote a mod, then that is fair enough (I get that it stops mods being publicly scrutinised and sure, we can't have that) but at least do it the right way. There should be none of this 'I do it but other mods don't' carry on. And it is carry on.

It is not hard for a mod to click for a warning to be displayed. In fact it is curious that it isn't mandatory.

(Puts on cynical hat). Maybe it suits a mod to place a warning on someone that is posting an unpopular opinion that posters can all thank them for.

I also agree with the point that showing publicly a warning keeps people in check. There would be far less warnings given if we all knew what they were given out for - every time they were given out.

I really don't care about the warning, I broke a rule (I was actually not aware of it so it was not intentional) but I fully accept I deserved a warning, but fair is fair here. It's either all or nothing, anything less than that is sloppy and lazy.

MrWalsh

Im a bit confused (nothing new there really!)..

Are we saying that there are yellow cards and red cards and warnings and infractions but that not all of the above are visible to other users in all cases?

Can there be a warning without a yellow or red card?

Can there be an infraction without a yellow or red card?

Why are some posts deleted but others carded?

Sunflower 27

MrWalsh wrote: »

Im a bit confused (nothing new there really!)..

Are we saying that there are yellow cards and red cards and warnings and infractions but that not all of the above are visible to other users in all cases?

Can there be a warning without a yellow or red card?

Can there be an infraction without a yellow or red card?

Why are some posts deleted but others carded?

Something I got from a mod two days ago:

... you can't see every moderator action on thread - for all you know the user could have been bannrd, could have been given a profile infraction, etc - none of those are visible on thread, so for all you (and I, as I haven't looked into it) know it has been actioned.

Pawwed Rig

Dan_Solo wrote: »

And when a single threads has a mix of secret and visible moderation actions for seemingly similarly bad posts (due to moderator discretion) it doesn't do anything at all to raise the standards as nobody knows what the standards are.

I don't agree. The vast majority of posters seem very clear as to what the standards are. It is only a very small percentage of posts that require any action.

Nody

MrWalsh wrote: »

Im a bit confused (nothing new there really!)..

Are we saying that there are yellow cards and red cards and warnings and infractions but that not all of the above are visible to other users in all cases?

Yes; I can give you a yellow card and delete your post for example (lets take Game of Thrones as an example; you posted in the non book reader about the book for the first time, that's a yellow card and I'd delete your post). I as a Mod in my forum how ever can check any user who's posted in said forums to see their history of mod actions which would not be publically available (it's only of interest when it comes to handing out an infraction; hence I could not check it in this forum for example as I'm not a Mod of this forum).

Can there be a warning without a yellow or red card?

Yes; this can be on thread (Poster XXX tone down your aggressive tone or more general of "It's getting a bit to personal people; tone it down") or via PM ("Tone it down about the pink color not being pink or I'll have to infract you").

Can there be an infraction without a yellow or red card?

No (well technically yes by profile infractions by they would work as a yellow card in reality).

Why are some posts deleted but others carded?

A post can be carded and/or deleted; there's no necessary correlation between the two actions as such. Personally I tend to delete offending posts because, well they are offending but if it's a single word / sentence in a longer post that adds value I'll edit it out instead.

Dan_Solo

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

I don't agree. The vast majority of posters seem very clear as to what the standards are. It is only a very small percentage of posts that require any action.

The number of posts requiring moderation has no connection at all to the point. Why are some moderation actions secret and others not for what appear to be exactly the same moderation issue? If we are all clear what the standards are, as you claim, why do mod warnings (secret and visible) exist at all?
The only case I can see is for abusive PMs where the card isn't for anything in a thread. This isn't what's happening though.

MrWalsh

Nody - thanks for the detailed response.

Nody wrote: »

Yes; I can give you a yellow card and delete your post for example (lets take Game of Thrones as an example; you posted in the non book reader about the book for the first time, that's a yellow card and I'd delete your post).

What is the deciding factor between the entire post being deleted (such that it appears I never posted at all in the thread) or the content of the post being deleted (such that it is clear I posted something unacceptable in the thread) and why are there two different ways of doing this? Is there a set formula?

Nody wrote: »

Yes; this can be on thread (Poster XXX tone down your aggressive tone or more general of "It's getting a bit to personal people; tone it down") or via PM ("Tone it down about the pink color not being pink or I'll have to infract you").

I think the above should be standardised, not some by PM and some in public. Either all one way or the other.

Nody wrote: »

A post can be carded and/or deleted; there's no necessary correlation between the two actions as such. Personally I tend to delete offending posts because, well they are offending but if it's a single word / sentence in a longer post that adds value I'll edit it out instead.

Again, if a post is carded I think that it should stay visible even if the content is deleted OR that all carded posts should be deleted.

Nody

Dan_Solo wrote: »

The number of posts requiring moderation has no connection at all to the point. Why are some moderation actions secret and others not for what appear to be exactly the same moderation issue? If we are all clear what the standards are, as you claim, why do mod warnings (secret and visible) exist at all?
The only case I can see is for abusive PMs where the card isn't for anything in a thread. This isn't what's happening though.

I'm not sure if you're trying to achieve here honestly.

Let's say a poster posts this:

"All mods are **** who should be shot in the head"

Why would this be left up and not deleted and a card/ban be handed out? And if all that's left is an empty post how would you know what the card/ban was for and learn from it?

You took the case of arguing with a mod on thread; that's a sitewide rule as a big no no for ages and if people have not picked it up yet from all the charters etc. yet then nothing is going to change that fact. Half the time I get people complaining "It's not my fault I broke the charter because I did not read it" so why would you think on thread warnings (which assumes you read the post before actioning of it AND the thread does not run away pages upon pages from said warning) would somehow be an improvement?

Multiple times in DRP the argument is "The warning was on another page in the thread" / "I did not see the warning" so why would this now suddenly become a great help in setting the tone when 99% of the posters can grasp the tone with out needing such on thread warnings to guide them?

MrWalsh wrote: »

What is the deciding factor between the entire post being deleted (such that it appears I never posted at all in the thread) or the content of the post being deleted (such that it is clear I posted something unacceptable in the thread) and why are there two different ways of doing this? Is there a set formula?

Mod discretion. Obviously a one liner "Mod sux" is pretty much guaranteed to be deleted while a well thought out post with 5 paragraphs is more unlikely to be fully deleted but in the end it's always mod discretion as each forum has their own standards of posting.

I think the above should be standardised, not some by PM and some in public. Either all one way or the other.

Once again mod discretion; certain forums do better with PMs and others with public warnings.

Again, if a post is carded I think that it should stay visible even if the content is deleted OR that all carded posts should be deleted.

What point is there to show a yellow card without any text (for example)? You don't know what the post said unless you read it so how do you know what the yellow card relates to?

hullaballoo

MrWalsh wrote: »

Im a bit confused (nothing new there really!)..

Are we saying that there are yellow cards and red cards and warnings and infractions but that not all of the above are visible to other users in all cases?

Can there be a warning without a yellow or red card?

Can there be an infraction without a yellow or red card?

Why are some posts deleted but others carded?

I don't know what other mods do but there is something called a profile infraction that can be applied. I've never applied one as a moderator and I'm not entirely sure it's something that's open to anyone who isn't an admin or some other manner of overlord. I've only ever applied an infraction (i.e., red/yellow card) for a post as a moderator.

There are also PM warnings, which might be used where a post is close to the line but not worthy of a yellow. Or, on the other hand, it might be more appropriate to PM a member instead of giving a red/yellow card if they are new to the site or forum.

In terms of deleting posts, different moderators probably have different approaches but I would delete a post if it is particularly offensive or potentially troublesome for the site or completely off topic. If a post is simply trolling or disruptive, it will probably be deleted. However, in my view, it is preferable where possible to leave posts visible with a note as to any moderator action taken in relation to it, so that people can gauge what type of post breaches the charter etc. It is simply not always possible to leave certain posts visible and by deleting a post to which a warning or infraction has been applied necessarily removes from public view any record of such an action having taken place.

The role of a moderator very much janitorial and if there's a mess, it has to be dealt with on that basis. We are not in a position to manage every situation that we encounter on some sort of regimented, pre-mandated basis because of the nature of the site. As such, we have to use our own discretion at times in order to deal with certain messes. It's not possible for a janitor to use a mop to clean up every mess that s/he comes across in the same way as it's not possible for a moderator to use one tool to deal with every situation that arises on boards.

In my own personal opinion, the card system does not help moderators in general. There are some exceptions like the Soccer forum where moderation is so strict that the moderators there have very little discretion. The red and yellow card system gives rise to situations such as this where moderator actions are seemingly publicly viewable but they're not really. The whole system means that users are inevitably confused by it. The only benefit is for higher-ups who can use it as a measure of the overall behaviour of a member and whether that merits some sort of site-wide action. On the other hand, the infraction system unnecessarily fetters moderator discretion to apply sanctions that are appropriate for the level of the rule breach.

That said, it seems that there is a broad preference in favour of transparency over efficacy so I can see why the card system is preferred to the old system where moderator actions were potentially totally invisible if any given moderator felt that suited them better. (Personally, if I was ever to be sanctioned by a moderator, I'd prefer it to be a quiet word in my ear than a public flogging but that seems to be a minority view.)

Dan_Solo

Nody wrote: »

I'm not sure if you're trying to achieve here honestly.

Let's say a poster posts this:

"All mods are **** who should be shot in the head"

Why would this be left up and not deleted and a card/ban be handed out? And if all that's left is an empty post how would you know what the card/ban was for and learn from it?

I think your example is being deliberately obtuse. You know full well that posts of that nature aren't up for debate. They're abuse in anybody's book. I never questioned deleting posts in any case, so perhaps you have me confused with somebody else?

Nody wrote: »

You took the case of arguing with a mod on thread; that's a sitewide rule as a big no no for ages and if people have not picked it up yet from all the charters etc. yet then nothing is going to change that fact. Half the time I get people complaining "It's not my fault I broke the charter because I did not read it" so why would you think on thread warnings (which assumes you read the post before actioning of it AND the thread does not run away pages upon pages from said warning) would somehow be an improvement?

This is also disingenuous. Sunflower 27 (not me as you are incorrectly stating) isn't contesting the warning about discussing moderation at all. He was very specific about this.
The question he asked was why what you are confirming is a "sitewide rule" can be ignored due to moderator discretion.

Dan_Solo

Nody wrote: »

What point is there to show a yellow card without any text (for example)? You don't know what the post said unless you read it so how do you know what the yellow card relates to?

That's more or less the opposite of what is being asked.
If a post isn't so bad that it has to be deleted but is infracted, then what is the advantage of NOT making the card public?

Sunflower 27

Nody wrote: »

You took the case of arguing with a mod on thread; that's a sitewide rule as a big no no for ages and if people have not picked it up yet from all the charters etc. yet then nothing is going to change that fact. Half the time I get people complaining "It's not my fault I broke the charter because I did not read it" so why would you think on thread warnings (which assumes you read the post before actioning of it AND the thread does not run away pages upon pages from said warning) would somehow be an improvement?

Was this in relation to me? I think arguing with a mod is a stretch when you suggest a sticky because people are supposedly posting things they were apparently not meant to be posting over and over again.

A suggestion done in a courteous manner does not equate to arguing. But if it is the case that we can't quote a moderator - ever - then OK I get that. But surely, that should be site-wide and the 'punishment' dished out should be the same in every case. it should be shown on site in every case.