No feedback from the Moderators after reporting inappropriate posts

Sunflower 27

Brutal Deluxe wrote: »

Explain some, please. Because right now we're going around in circles.
Will you please explain the motivations behind why you have reported posts in the past. It's crucial to helping me understand and secondly, to helping you understand my point.

It is actually you that appears to be going around in circles.

Dan_Solo

An File wrote: »

These are not the same thing. Good man for backtracking a little bit, though.

Does it matter whether I was saying the reporter's motivation is the most important factor or a lesser factor? Why are you saying it is a factor at all?
Of course now you are saying it isn't, but we can all clearly see you just said it was.
Backtracking 100% there yourself I see.

Tombi!

MrWalsh wrote: »

I haven't got access to reasons I've reported posts in the past but off the top of my head I know I have reported posts that were homophobic.

That's the rule-breaking reason. I don't want a reason. I want the motivation.
See, going into a bit more depth on what An File said (and was correct in his assumptions about what I'm trying to do), there are a lot of actual motivations that come into play when a post is reported.

Let's say, for example, you feel incredibly strongly about people who are gay, being completely equal to people who are not gay. You reported a post. Reason was it's homophobic. Motivation: you can't stand homophobia.

Do you know what I am saying?

Dan_Solo

An File wrote: »

It has nothing to do with the action taken on a reported post. I was explaining the rationale behind Brutal Deluxe's questions. I assume he's trying to get other posters in this thread to consider their own motivations.

If the motivation of the reporter has no relevance whatsoever to whether a reported post gets moderated or not, why are you bringing it up here in a thread about moderation?

Sunflower 27

Brutal Deluxe wrote: »

That's the rule-breaking reason. I don't want a reason. I want the motivation.
See, going into a bit more depth on what An File said (and was correct in his assumptions about what I'm trying to do), there are a lot of actual motivations that come into play when a post is reported.

Let's say, for example, you feel incredibly strongly about people who are gay, being completely equal to people who are not gay. You reported a post. Reason was it's homophobic. Motivation: you can't stand homophobia.

Do you know what I am saying?

And what is your point exactly?

MrWalsh

Brutal Deluxe wrote: »

That's the rule-breaking reason. I don't want a reason. I want the motivation.
See, going into a bit more depth on what An File said (and was correct in his assumptions about what I'm trying to do), there are a lot of actual motivations that come into play when a post is reported.

Let's say, for example, you feel incredibly strongly about people who are gay, being completely equal to people who are not gay. You reported a post. Reason was it's homophobic. Motivation: you can't stand homophobia.

Do you know what I am saying?

For homophobia disgust is the motivation.

What difference does it make though? My motivation could just as easily be because I don't like the other poster but a mod would never know that! I could be just as big a homophobe!

Tombi!

MrWalsh wrote: »

For homophobia disgust is the motivation.

Great. Let's keep at it. So for this example, I'll pretend I made a post saying something like "I can't believe they let X couple be on the telly. Sure they're gay. That's wrong to let a gay couple on TV".

Now you report that. You're damn right to report that because it's homophobia (speaking strictly as a mod of AH here; not talking about other forums).

So your motivation is literally "Brutal Deluxe posted something homophobic and that disgusts me. I want it removed/the poster to be punished/something done".

Am I completely right in that statement so far?

Edit: Saw your edit. But let's just focus on am I right in my statement so far for the moment, please.

Dan_Solo

Brutal Deluxe wrote: »

Do you know what I am saying?

You're saying you play guess-the-motivation instead of judging reported post purely on whether it needs to be moderated or not.

Insect Overlord

Dan_Solo wrote: »

If the motivation of the reporter has no relevance whatsoever to whether a reported post gets moderated or not, why are you bringing it up here in a thread about moderation?

Because motivation for reporting plays a significant part in assessing a reporter's desire to see obvious and public consequences for that report.

Moderation is not what's being discussed here. Feedback from moderators to posters is.

Pawwed Rig

Sunflower 27 wrote: »

Is it just me or has this thread opened anyone else's eyes up to the fact there would be a lot less reported posts and need for feedback and dispute forums and everything else if rules were consistently enforced in the same manner - all the time?

I doubt it as I think everyone else has stopped reading at this point.

Dan_Solo

Brutal Deluxe wrote: »

So your motivation is literally "Brutal Deluxe posted something homophobic and that disgusts me. I want it removed/the poster to be punished/something done".

So if somebody calls me an asshole when I report the post you could tell me I'm only trying to get back at him so you won't infract it.

Insect Overlord

Even straw men get tired. Give 'em a rest, like a good chap.

Dan_Solo

An File wrote: »

Because motivation for reporting plays a significant part in assessing a reporter's desire to see obvious and public consequences for that report.

Moderation is not what's being discussed here. Feedback from moderators to posters is.

You're kidding, right?
Of course a person being insulted is going to be one of the most likely people to report that insult. By your own admission now you're saying the moderation course you choose will depend on who reported it.

Dan_Solo

An File wrote: »

Even straw men get tired. Give 'em a rest, like a good chap.

Stick to the old reliables eh? Cry "strawman" and run for it...

MrWalsh

Brutal Deluxe wrote: »

Great. Let's keep at it. So for this example, I'll pretend I made a post saying something like "I can't believe they let X couple be on the telly. Sure they're gay. That's wrong to let a gay couple on TV".

Now you report that. You're damn right to report that because it's homophobia (speaking strictly as a mod of AH here; not talking about other forums).

So your motivation is literally "Brutal Deluxe posted something homophobic and that disgusts me. I want it removed/the poster to be punished/something done".

Am I completely right in that statement so far?

Edit: Saw your edit. But let's just focus on am I right in my statement so far.

Brutal, why don't you just say whatever it is you have to say?

The semantic gymnastics are tedious.

Tombi!

MrWalsh wrote: »

Brutal, why don't you just say whatever it is you have to say?

The semantic gymnastics are tedious.

I'd like to be able to help you understand that motivation behind reporting posts is a major deal?

A post that's homophobic and is reported (remember, in AH), has a very, very high chance of being reported regardless if you report it our of disgust at the content or because you dislike the poster.

On the other hand, a post that breaks no rules and you report it since you dislike someone, has little to no chance of being actioned since it actually breaks no rules.

MrWalsh

Brutal Deluxe wrote: »

I'd like to be able to help you understand that motivation behind reporting posts is a major deal?

A post that's homophobic and is reported (remember, in AH), has a very, very high chance of being reported regardless if you report it our of disgust at the content or because you dislike the poster.

On the other hand, a post that breaks no rules and you report it since you dislike someone, has little to no chance of being actioned since it actually breaks no rules.

So?

As mentioned already, wouldn't it be better all round if that was visible?

Insect Overlord

Dan_Solo wrote: »

Stick to the old reliables eh? Cry "strawman" and run for it...

There's little option at this stage. You appear to be about 5 minutes behind everyone else in this thread. Either that or you're deliberately misrepresenting the information being given to you and spinning it to suit your own agenda.

Your points, in summary:

• the content of the reported post isn't the most important factor if you've decided you don't like the motivations of the guy reporting it
• You did exactly admit that the motivation of the person reporting a post is taken into consideration.
• If the motivation of the reporter has no relevance whatsoever to whether a reported post gets moderated or not, why are you bringing it up here in a thread about moderation?
• You're saying you play guess-the-motivation instead of judging reported post purely on whether it needs to be moderated or not.
• you're saying the moderation course you choose will depend on who reported it

The actual point being made:

An File wrote: »

Because motivation for reporting plays a significant part in assessing a reporter's desire to see obvious and public consequences for that report.

Moderation is not what's being discussed here. Feedback from moderators to posters is.

That's all.

Sunflower 27

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

I doubt it as I think everyone else has stopped reading at this point.

hardly. This is a long thread by feedback standards.

osarusan

Brutal Deluxe wrote: »

Do you have an example or are we still just taking in theory here?

I know the thread has moved on, but here is a feedback thread which highlights what I'm talking about quite well -

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2057378350

Radio has immediate bans for certain breaches of rules, but discretion was being used regarding moderation.

A couple of mods, maybe c-mods, agreed with OP's point, but nothing ever came of it in the end as OP was banned.

Again, this might not be the right thread for it, as it's kind of a different topic, but the thread had come round to consistency of moderation and appropriate discretion.

I don't really see how zero tolerance of certain breaches and discretion to address and deal with every post according to its merits can work together, as the latter is, by its design, exclusive of the former.

Surely, it is one or the other.

Tombi!

MrWalsh wrote: »

So?

As mentioned already, wouldn't it be better all round if that was visible?

So?

That's your response to someone trying to actually help you understand why motivation matters? That's how you react when someone tries to help you understand that while something might break a rule, that if you report something out of malice and you only want to be told "yes, they get a card" doesn't help anyone, but the person's ego that reports it?

Tombi!

osarusan, I've never stepped foot in the radio forum and probably never will since I rarely use a radio.

However, even if I did, I couldn't comment since I'm not a mod there.

But, certain things are zero tolerance.
I'll give you an example right off the fact of how Boards works. No spam. You sign up and advertise your latest company, you get banned. Does that mean you're banned for good? Nope. Means you get a fair chance to understand the rules and if you're genuinely not a spammer, just someone who misunderstood, you get let back in.

Dan_Solo

An File wrote: »

Not bizarre at all, really.

Sometimes people report posts for the good of the forum. They might not appreciate people causing hassle and ruining the atmosphere.

Sometimes people are petty, and report stuff the way that annoying kids in classrooms tell on each other. "Miss, he said a bad word! Sir, he's using a biro instead of a pencil!" That kind of silly stuff, reporting just to feel smug about someone else getting in trouble.

Hence the motivation questions, I'd imagine. Intent AND content.

I'll quote you yet again to easily refute your stock allegations of strawmanning. You are discussing the moderation of posts here, not the public display of the moderation action. Np mention by you at all in this post of what you are now claiming you were talking about all along.

Sunflower 27

Brutal Deluxe wrote: »

So?

That's your response to someone trying to actually help you understand why motivation matters? That's how you react when someone tries to help you understand that while something might break a rule, that if you report something out of malice and you only want to be told "yes, they get a card" doesn't help anyone, but the person's ego that reports it?

Why are you making it so complicated. If someone reports a post for being homophobic and the post actually IS homophobic, what does it matter what the motivation is? And how can you ever know what the motivation is anyway? At best a mod would be guessing.

If the post is reported as being homophobic and actually isn't homophobic at all and is just a poster having a dig at another poster, then no action is necessary.

osarusan

Brutal Deluxe wrote: »

osarusan, I've never stepped foot in the radio forum and probably never will since I rarely use a radio.

However, even if I did, I couldn't comment since I'm not a mod there.

i've never been into that forum either, but the thread does highlight my point - they have zero tolerance policy for certain breaches:

There will be zero tolerance in relation to the following:
1. As per Nody's earlier warning, no one is to suggest that another poster is in any way associated with Ray D'Arcy or the show - this will be a one month ban for first offence, and more severe bans subsequently (there aren't many more before it's permanent);

Yet the OP was pointing out that certain posts breaching this rule were just being deleted, rather than the posters banned.

If you can't comment, fair enough, but as I said,

I don't really see how zero tolerance of certain breaches and discretion to address and deal with every post according to its merits can work together, as the latter is, by its design, exclusive of the former.

Insect Overlord

Dan_Solo wrote: »

You are discussing the moderation of posts here, not the public display of the moderation action. Np mention by you at all in this post of what you are now claiming you were talking about all along.

I use the word "report" twice in that post, and the word "motivation" once.

How many times in that post can you see the word "moderation"? How about "cards" or "warnings" or "infractions" or "ban" or "PM"?

Dan_Solo

Sunflower 27 wrote: »

Why are you making it so complicated. If someone reports a post for being homophobic and the post actually IS homophobic, what does it matter what the motivation is? And how can you ever know what the motivation is anyway? At best a mod would be guessing.

If the post is reported as being homophobic and actually isn't homophobic at all and is just a poster having a dig at another poster, then no action is necessary.

And since the person most likely to report personal abuse is the person insulted, how can the mod ever hope to guess whether it is being reported "for the good of the discussion" or for "revenge". And why would it matter either way?
Is the claim that moderation is sometimes done is secret so people who report posts don't get to see the action because that's all they wanted to see when they reported it? It's not credible.

Tombi!

I agree with the last part. They can't work together.
But if we take the example of spamming isn't allowed on Boards, what happens when a spammer gets banned and they genuinely didn't know they were breaking the rules?
I'll link you some threads in the Prison forum if needed but they get forgiven, their ban overturned, etc.

Hopefully you know what I am saying

Sunflower 27

Brutal Deluxe wrote: »

So?

That's your response to someone trying to actually help you understand why motivation matters? That's how you react when someone tries to help you understand that while something might break a rule, that if you report something out of malice and you only want to be told "yes, they get a card" doesn't help anyone, but the person's ego that reports it?

Was he meant to 'thank' you?

osarusan

Brutal Deluxe wrote: »

I agree with the last part. They can't work together.
But if we take the example of spamming isn't allowed on Boards, what happens when a spammer gets banned and they genuinely didn't know they were breaking the rules?
I'll link you some threads in the Prison forum if needed but they get forgiven, their ban overturned, etc.

Hopefully you know what I am saying

I know what you are saying.

You are giving examples of how it can work. Sure, it can work.

But are there times when it doesn't? In the thread I linked to, there are examples of mods saying basically 'it is zero tolerance exept when we don't want it to be'. Other mods were on the side of 'if it says zero tolerance, it shouldn't be selectively enforced.'

Again, this thread isn't about zero tolerance,so I'll bow out now.

KomradeBishop

Yea to be honest, if one thing this thread is making clear, it's that mod action is barely consistent at the best of times - and inconsistent is the norm.

I know there are 'genuine' rules lawyers out there, and consistency is a very difficult goal, but the reality is that moderation and application of the rules, really depends on each individual moderators personality - including their personal biases - and temperament at any given time; so from one forum to another (and from one mod to the next) you have absolutely no idea how moderation is going to differ.

Then when screwups happen, things are weighted towards upholding mod action anyway - DRP is a big help with this, but I would imagine that in most cases people can't be bothered (it would be easy to say "that's their fault then", but that is a cop-out, as even when you're a reg of years, there's a reluctance to go near it) - you're screwed also, if you fall between a crack/gap where mods start making up the rules as they go along (by trying to warp something as fitting an existing rule), and inconsistency is pointed out, and then the "we don't have to be perfectly consistent" excuse is used (often along with accusations of rules lawyering for pointing out the inconsistency...); this can happen for perfectly innocent reasons on mods part, where they're trying to deal with a real issue, but sometimes just take the easy way out.

I really dislike that mods engage in 'mind reading' of posters motives as well, without providing any feedback - that's the perfect way of developing groupthink, without giving the right of reply.


All of this goes back to a lack of adequate feedback, over many different aspects of moderating - more active feedback, even just little things like I mention on the first page, could probably go a long way to help with this.

Sunflower 27

KomradeBishop wrote: »

Yea to be honest, if one thing this thread is making clear, it's that mod action is barely consistent at the best of times - and inconsistent is the norm.

I know there are 'genuine' rules lawyers out there, and consistency is a very difficult goal, but the reality is that moderation and application of the rules, really depends on each individual moderators personality - including their personal biases - and temperament at any given time; so from one forum to another (and from one mod to the next) you have absolutely no idea how moderation is going to differ.

Then when screwups happen, things are weighted towards upholding mod action anyway - DRP is a big help with this, but I would imagine that in most cases people can't be bothered (it would be easy to say "that's their fault then", but that is a cop-out, as even when you're a reg of years, there's a reluctance to go near it) - you're screwed also, if you fall between a crack/gap where mods start making up the rules as they go along (by trying to warp something as fitting an existing rule), and inconsistency is pointed out, and then the "we don't have to be perfectly consistent" excuse is used (often along with accusations of rules lawyering for pointing out the inconsistency...); this can happen for perfectly innocent reasons on mods part, where they're trying to deal with a real issue, but sometimes just take the easy way out.

I really dislike that mods engage in 'mind reading' of posters motives as well, without providing any feedback - that's the perfect way of developing groupthink, without giving the right of reply.


All of this goes back to a lack of adequate feedback, over many different aspects of moderating - more active feedback, even just little things like I mention on the first page, could probably go a long way to help with this.

I totally agree, but as this has been an ongoing issue, it doesn't appear as if the 'powers that be' are willing to reduce the level of 'mod discretion' to try and reduce these issues.

You can't have it both ways. If there is no change in the set-up, the mods cannot complain that they have a tough job dealing with all the PMs and threads about unfair warnings or whatever it is.

The comment that if you reduce mod discretion it makes mods little more than robots is a very interesting one. They are moderating a site. They are there to enforce rules and keep the peace. Their personal feelings regarding posters should not come into it at all.

Beasty

25 posters have "contributed" to this thread. Of that, I would think less than half (probably nearer a quarter) have suggested there is an "issue" - personally I am not seeing one at all - the site operates very well. If people want to avoid getting themselves actioned by mods they should simply read and abide by the rules, and not worry too much about what anyone else is posting (they still have the report post function available to alert mods to any perceived inconsistencies)

Dan_Solo

Beasty wrote: »

25 posters have "contributed" to this thread. Of that, I would think less than half (probably nearer a quarter) have suggested there is an "issue"

Considering 99% of the footfall in Feedback is moderators, even a quarter is massive.
Not that it would ever be put to a vote in AH or anything ("Do you approve of secret moderation?"), because we are well aware this isn't a democracy.

PS, nice use of inverted commas for "contributed". How "clever" of you.

Sunflower 27

Beasty wrote: »

25 posters have "contributed" to this thread. Of that, I would think less than half (probably nearer a quarter) have suggested there is an "issue" - personally I am not seeing one at all - the site operates very well. If people want to avoid getting themselves actioned by mods they should simply read and abide by the rules, and not worry too much about what anyone else is posting (they still have the report post function available to alert mods to any perceived inconsistencies)

Oh really. It appears that being actioned by a mod comes down to the mod that reads the post, not any specific charter rule.

This is not a popular forum by any stretch. Counting up the posters on here is on no way an accurate sample of the site as a whole, not even close.

"Contributed". That's very petty.

K-9

Dan_Solo wrote: »

Exactly what you said. You very very clearly stated you thought we were discussing moderation of this thread. Nobody is talking about moderation of this thread so your "But it didn't happen in this thread" and "I'm talking about this thread" are meaningless to every other poster here.

Why would anybody be talking about moderation of this thread? I really don't get why anybody would get that from his post, never mind run with it post after post. Sometimes I wonder if people do this deliberately knowing a mod will waste time going down that road.

K-9

MrWalsh wrote: »

If I report a post I don't know if it was ever actioned because not all mod actions are visible to all users.

I don't know if you are deliberately misunderstanding this, it's in the thread title!

It's irrelevant that it's "recorded" because that's not visible to Joe User.

If you report something to the guards if everything they do will be visible either. Obviously we're just a simple website but I don't know if what you want happens in offline life even!

Sunflower 27

If I posted "modded" I imagine I would be a "dick".

Dan_Solo

K-9 wrote: »

Why would anybody be talking about moderation of this thread?

Why don't you ask him? I amply proved from his posts that that's what he was doing.
Sometimes I wonder if moderators deliberately pretend that certain points haven't been well proven so they can back another moderator regardless.

K-9

Sunflower 27 wrote: »

Is it just me or has this thread opened anyone else's eyes up to the fact there would be a lot less reported posts and need for feedback and dispute forums and everything else if rules were consistently enforced in the same manner - all the time?

It sounds as if mod discretion is what is important when really it should be about the general posting public. They are what makes the site. Without them there would be no need for mods at all. It seems to me the site is quite misguided in this regard.

If ordinary decent users get petty cards, and are treated the sane as trolls, no thank you.

We mod to help the vast majority of users who use boards as a resource, not to aid trolls being petty, because that's what will happen if you got what you want.

Beasty

Sunflower 27 wrote: »

"Contributed". That's very petty.

Apologies - it was not meant to be derogatory to any posters, but more to highlight that a small number of those posters (and I guess I am now falling into that category) have "contributed" more than others (and some much less so) - perhaps the inverted commas was not the best way to get that across

Dan_Solo

K-9 wrote: »

If you report something to the guards if everything they do will be visible either. Obviously we're just a simple website but I don't know if what you want happens in offline life even!

Well since you brought it up, do you think the Gardai make decisions on whether to publicise criminal cases based on their peceived motivations of the person who reported the crime?

Dav

This has turned into a farce.

Moderation on this site is NEVER going to be 100% transparent - it CAN NOT WORK THAT WAY. You have NO RIGHT to know what happens to any member on this site except yourself, we are not some sort of public body accountable to the citizens, we are a website run by volunteers with the guidance and tools provided by the staff of the company. We are NEVER going to be any different.

If you have a problem with that, then leave, I'm not interested in entertaining this nonsense any further.