No feedback from the Moderators after reporting inappropriate posts

Insect Overlord

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

Not sure I would agree with that. I would rather see any response to a mod action go straight to pm. I would consider quoting a mod action off topic in the vast majority of cases

Probably changes from forum to forum. Sometimes a suggestion to add a poll or split a topic can be taken at face value. It's best done by report or PM,definitely, but shouldn't necessarily call for a card/ban every time.

Tombi!

Sunflower 27 wrote: »

Can I ask how you know this? Is that just your personal opinion, because I actually think if people knew that the same rules were applied to everyone, people would not only know where they stand, but it would also cut down on a lot of the grievances that people take the time to post about.

I can only speak for myself when I say I would expect any site to treat members the same. Finding out they actually don't has come as a bit of a surprise to me.

I'm a bit confused on what you want.
Are you asking that the rules be applied to the letter, to everyone with no leeway or understanding of context?

osarusan

Brutal Deluxe wrote: »

I'm a bit confused on what you want.
Are you asking that the rules be applied to the letter, to everyone with no leeway or understanding of context?

As a general question , if the forum is one with 'zero tolerance' moderation, is't that exactly what should happen?

Isn't it exactly what zero tolerance is supposed to ensure?


It must be fairly frustrating for posters when one post is actioned on the basis that the forum is zero tolerance, while others are not actioned because discretion is used.

Beasty

Sunflower 27 wrote: »

Can I ask how you know this? Is that just your personal opinion.

The clue is in the words I used:

Beasty wrote: »

That's one of the biggest attributes of this site and I think a lot of people would be put off if we applied the letter of the rules consistently across the board.

Sunflower 27 wrote: »

I actually think if people knew that the same rules were applied to everyone, people would not only know where they stand, but it would also cut down on a lot of the grievances that people take the time to post about.

Just one point - the same rules are applied to everyone, just applied differently depending on the circumstances - sometimes there may be a deletion, sometimes a thread may be closed, sometimes a card or ban may be issued. Sometimes different mods take a different approach - as I've already said we are all human

Tombi!

osarusan wrote: »

As a general question , if the forum is one with 'zero tolerance' moderation, is't that exactly what should happen?

Isn't it exactly what zero tolerance is supposed to ensure?


It must be fairly frustrating for posters when one post is actioned on the basis that the forum is zero tolerance, while others are not actioned because discretion is used.

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

Sunflower 27

Beasty wrote: »

The clue is in the words I used

Ok, I just wanted to clarify that your comment is based just on your opinion and nothing more than that.

Dan_Solo

Brutal Deluxe wrote: »

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

Unless you just skipped to the end of the thread you would have read about one such example over the last few pages.

K-9

osarusan wrote: »

As a general question , if the forum is one with 'zero tolerance' moderation, is't that exactly what should happen?

Isn't it exactly what zero tolerance is supposed to ensure?


It must be fairly frustrating for posters when one post is actioned on the basis that the forum is zero tolerance, while others are not actioned because discretion is used.

Is there a forum on Boards with a zero tolerance approach though?

On certain issues yes, but I'm not aware of a whole forum like that.

Tombi!

Dan_Solo wrote: »

Unless you just skipped to the end of the thread you would have read about one such example over the last few pages.

I could be wrong but I'm not remembering a mod, cmod or admin stating that any policy is a zero tolerance and they don't apply it equally.
Can you explain a bit more?

Sunflower 27

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

Not sure I would agree with that. I would rather see any response to a mod action go straight to pm. I would consider quoting a mod action off topic in the vast majority of cases

Would I have still got the warning if I suggested a sticky but did not quote the mod's comment of what we could and could not post?

MrWalsh

K-9 wrote: »

?..the 2/10 times is totally unfair on normal, decent users who get cards for nothing really!

So users do get carded for nothing sometimes then? Because of the rules.

Dan_Solo

Brutal Deluxe wrote: »

I could be wrong but I'm not remembering a mod, cmod or admin stating that any policy is a zero tolerance and they don't apply it equally.
Can you explain a bit more?

Well you haven't looked far then. The very same thread we're discussing had a "final mod warning" with completely randomly (being generous) applied moderation afterwards which was supposed to be for anything "uncivil". And a ban for moderation discussion followed a few posts later by a "secret" moderation action for exactly the same thing.

K-9

MrWalsh wrote: »

So users do get carded for nothing sometimes then? Because of the rules.

Yep, that's what zero tolerance is, it's a bitch to mod so must be worse for users.

Thems the rules though, we can't even rescind a card after a polite pm exchange with a poster, sucks tbh. Its a sinch to mod though, ticking boxes and all that.

If you can't differentiate between a troll and ordinary user, what's the point? Set up a script or something.

Tombi!

Dan_Solo wrote: »

Well you haven't looked far then. The very same thread we're discussing had a "final mod warning" with completely randomly (being generous) applied moderation afterwards which was supposed to be for anything "uncivil". And a ban for moderation discussion followed a few posts later by a "secret" moderation action for exactly the same thing.

But this didn't happen in this thread.
You do realize I'm talking about this thread, yes? I didn't go through every thread created on the site

Dan_Solo

Brutal Deluxe wrote: »

But this didn't happen in this thread.
You do realize I'm talking about this thread, yes? I didn't go through every thread created on the site

Nobody suggested it happened in this thread. Ever. At all. Why did you and only you assume the discussion about moderation standards was about the standards in this thread itself? If you had read anything other than the last page you might have got this, not that it makes sense even then.

Tombi!

Dan_Solo wrote: »

Nobody suggested it happened in this thread. Ever. At all. Why did you and only you assume the discussion about moderation standards was about the standards in this thread itself? If you had read anything other than the last page you might have got this, not that it would make sense even then.

I'm not really sure if you're understanding me here so I'll try to explain from the start of when I posted today.
I'm a bit confused on what you want.
Are you asking that the rules be applied to the letter, to everyone with no leeway or understanding of context? was my reply to Sunflower 27
To which they ignored and instead I get a response from osarusan responding in a manner that has little to do with my original question. So, then I request clarification and then you respond instead.


So I suppose the best course of action is to ask you directly and hope you respond: Are you asking that the rules be applied to the letter, to everyone with no leeway or understanding of context?
That then somehow became you claiming that we have a forum that is zero tolerance towards moderation but that would technically mean that moderation isn't allowed.

So can we backtrack a bit and maybe you want to look at everything I've said?

Dan_Solo

Brutal Deluxe wrote: »

I'm not really sure if you're understanding me here so I'll try to explain from the start of when I posted today.
I'm a bit confused on what you want.
Are you asking that the rules be applied to the letter, to everyone with no leeway or understanding of context? was my reply to Sunflower 27
To which they ignored and instead I get a response from osarusan responding in a manner that has little to do with my original question. So, then I request clarification and then you respond instead.

So I suppose the best course of action is to ask you directly and hope you respond: Are you asking that the rules be applied to the letter, to everyone with no leeway or understanding of context?
That then somehow became you claiming that we have a forum that is zero tolerance towards moderation but that would technically mean that moderation isn't allowed.
So can we backtrack a bit and maybe you want to look at everything I've said?

Ah right, I didn't find it confusing. So you don't want to talk anymore about your previous insistence that we were discussing the moderation of this thread itself. Apology accepted, eh?
If spamming and legal issues are 100% enforced, then why not discussion of moderation? Isn't that what Feedback is for?

Tombi!

Well since I'm confused and you aren't, could you at least explain?
I'll put the posts in this thread I made before today:
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

Second post is responding to this one:

Sunflower 27 wrote: »

But should a yellow warning be shown on all posts that get a warning? That is my point. And has been from the start. Not whether a repeat offender gets a ban.

I was told by the mod in my case that the other person may have got a warning from another mod and it not show on his post. It makes no sense at all.

Now my response to it:

Brutal Deluxe wrote: »

That's automatic; it was explained already.
The confusion might be an on thread warning vs a warning which results in a yellow.
A "warning" is technically when you're given a warning.
The phrase "on thread warning" means when a mod posts and gives an instruction "stop posting, calm down with the insults, get back on topic, etc" which is confusing if you don't know the context behind the sentence.

And the third is:

Don't quote me on this but I was told this a while back before I was a mod: due to technical limitations, you can't ban and display a card. A ban is one of the options we can use. It's basically an "or" thing, not an "and" thing.

Dan_Solo

Brutal Deluxe wrote: »

Well since I'm confused and you aren't, could you at least explain?
I'll put the posts in this thread I made before today:

Are you asking a question, answering one, or just reposting everything you've previously posted for some reason?
And you haven't acknowledged yet that we aren't discussing the moderation in this thread at all. TBH I'm not sure if I can explain anything to you if you're still stuck at that point.

Tombi!

Ah, I see now.
Right, you're on about a post. I'm on about a forum in general. Which I was talking to osarusan about.

So why you feel the need to bring up one post when the topic me and that poster were discussing was about a forum and not one single post is kinda odd.

Dan_Solo

Brutal Deluxe wrote: »

But this didn't happen in this thread.
You do realize I'm talking about this thread, yes? I didn't go through every thread created on the site

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.

MrWalsh

K-9 wrote: »

Yep, that's what zero tolerance is, it's a bitch to mod so must be worse for users.

Thems the rules though, we can't even rescind a card after a polite pm exchange with a poster, sucks tbh. Its a sinch to mod though, ticking boxes and all that.

If you can't differentiate between a troll and ordinary user, what's the point? Set up a script or something.

So is it a bitch to mod or a cinch to mod? I'm confused.

Is moderation also sometimes secret and sometimes visible there?

Insect Overlord

MrWalsh wrote: »

So is it a bitch to mod or a cinch to mod? I'm confused.

Is moderation also sometimes secret and sometimes visible there?

The soccer forum is a bitch to read because everything has to be zero tolerance. I'd imagine modding it is even worse.

There's no secret/invisible mod tools either, unless you count PMs as "secret". Everything is recorded.

MrWalsh

An File wrote: »

There's no secret/invisible mod tools either, unless you count PMs as "secret". Everything is recorded.

Yes but not visible to users. That's the whole point under discussion here.

Tombi!

MrWalsh wrote: »

Yes but not visible to users. That's the whole point under discussion here.

Erm... what?
Every mod action is recorded by a PM at the very least. The exception being "on-thread warnings" (which are not a card). And then it's literally a post on a forum.
Example being something like: Mod - MrWalsh don't post in this thread again
That's still recorded.

If I give you a card or ban you, you get a PM about it.

Dan_Solo

An File wrote: »

The soccer forum is a bitch to read because everything has to be zero tolerance. I'd imagine modding it is even worse.

There's no secret/invisible mod tools either, unless you count PMs as "secret". Everything is recorded.

Why would an identical issue (debating moderation) be dealt with differently then in the same thread? One overt, the other by PM? It might even make sense if the first one was the PM, but the opposite happened.

Beasty

So far as I am concerned, bottom line here is posters are expected to read and abide by forum and site rules (which include the "don't be a dick" rule, not that I am mentioning that in connection with anything specifically raised in this thread, but it is a general "catch all" for poor poster behaviour)

If you follow the rules, you stay out of trouble. If you find yourself carded or banned and believe you have followed the rules, there are avenues to dispute a mod decision. If you fail to follow the rules, you cannot complain if a mod takes action. Equally you can probably consider yourself fortunate if there is no mod action taken.

If you feel someone else has not followed the rules, report the post and let the local mods look at it. They may take action. That action may be visible, or it may be hidden (such as a PM warning). If, having reported something, you still feel strongly about something you believe should have been acted upon but you don't feel it has been, PM the local mods to discuss it. If you still are not satisfied, the CMods are here to follow it up with. If you are not satisfied with a CMod's response, start a thread in Help Desk, which is the avenue to Admin (and indeed further mod, CMod and other user) input (although that forum is pre-moderated it seems to me that most stuff raised there does get proper attention)

I think this site has put in place more than adequate procedures to deal with any concerns/complaints raised by users

MrWalsh

Brutal Deluxe wrote: »

Erm... what?
Every mod action is recorded by a PM at the very least. The exception being "on-thread warnings" (which are not a card). And then it's literally a post on a forum.
Example being something like: Mod - MrWalsh don't post in this thread again
That's still recorded.

If I give you a card or ban you, you get a PM about it.

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.

Tombi!

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.

Ah, now we're back on track. I thought it was made clear that users don't need to know since it adds little of value.

Can you tell me how that relates to the whole "zero tolerance" policy?

MrWalsh

Brutal Deluxe wrote: »

Ah, now we're back on track. I thought it was made clear that users don't need to know since it adds little of value.

Can you tell me how that relates to the whole "zero tolerance" policy?

If by "made clear" you mean, "this is how it is and if you don't like it tough" then yes, that has been the overwhelming impression here.

The zero tolerance point is obvious? Either it exists or it doesn't, so if it does it should be applied equally. There was some double speak about the rules being the same but applied differently depending on "context", but the point was, if zero tolerance exists it should be applied equally. Whether that's a bitch to mod or a cinch to mod I can't tell you.