No feedback from the Moderators after reporting inappropriate posts

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.