Collecting feedback on the Dispute Resolution Process

Spear

We've had the Dispute Resolution Process running for several years now, and it's time (with Davs blessing) to gather some general feedback from the users about it.

Are you happy with how it works?
Is it okay for admins to skip the cmod level in clear cut cases?
Should the mods be allowed respond by default?
Is the level of transparency working?
Is the exception of allowing PMs to be posted working?

or more basically:

Is it effective?

Or are there other asepects or suggestions regarding it?

KomradeBishop

There's a feeling/level of 'uphold mod action by-default' about some DRP threads.

Also, sometimes things are sorted out over PM with a bunch of mods, instead of in DRP - and things seem to be evaluated differently in both cases - e.g. PM's can have a wider scope of discussion, that in DRP might feel like it'd get shut down fast.

So on the one hand with DRP, mods and their decisions are publicly on-show and I think that factors in to how DRP threads go (maybe creating a defensiveness bias for mods, towards 'uphold-by-default' and limiting discussion more? I don't know.), which can make PM'ing instead less intimidating - but then the PM's don't have the benefit of transparency like DRP is intended for.


It feels like there can be a dissuasion to post things in DRP - a feeling that it's risky - but if you don't, little things can pile up.

For example, there's a non-zero chance of action against you being escalated, and mods can have unhelpful attitudes such as 'if you keep turning up on our radars you must be guilty' (i.e. some mods judge you on quantity, not severity, of mod action - which is not justified), and its frequently stated that taking up mod time marks you for trouble, which naturally would dissuade you from posting (DRP's put you on the radar even more, and take up more mod time). To be honest, a tiny bit of that feeling applies posting in this thread too - but I've never let that feeling here/DRP/elsewhere stop me pursuing something.

Sometimes as well (with more complicated DRP cases, not the usual shut-and-close ones), mod action can escalate totally unexpectedly, in really odd/unpredictable ways - especially true if there are historically up to half a dozen or more mods/cmods/admins involved, with each one having different interpretations of the past and the present problem - and the more this happens, the less likely it is that any mistakes/injustices by mods will be rectified (unless they are really clear and obvious mistakes).


DRP is effective in easy cases, and I'm sure for the vast majority of DRP cases, but when things get a bit complicated and start to go wrong, it can be a bit of a nightmare.

Skipping cmod in obvious cases is fine. When an action against a poster begins with an admin though, I don't think there's recourse to DRP - which is an issue because admins judgement can be as flawed as mods/cmods.

I thought mods could respond by default - but I've seen mods use rhetorical/smearing tactics to sabotage an appeal before - but then...maybe better that be public on a thread, than done behind-the-scenes.

On the level of transparency: Nobody has any idea what is said, or the information gathered (that the poster may not get a chance to contest) behind the scenes. I don't really have any suggestions here though, because mods need a private place to discuss stuff too.

Have noticed these nuances/problems - but not sure what suggestions to give regarding them.

One eyed Jack

I think it works very well as most moderator actions appear to be resolved at moderator level, without needing to go to DRP forum level. The only thing I wondered though is why is the DRP forum visible?

I think there's enough transparency in the procedure itself, so I'm just wondering would it be better if the forum were made access only and like the Prison forum, a poster who was infracted could only see their own thread.

I think it would be a good thing if Admins could step in at any point to avoid timesink threads, but I understand that they may not want to as reviewing cases takes up a lot of their time.

HanaleiJ5N

Works very well, there may be a perception that the majority of appeals are rejected but as an avid reader of that forum for years now (bit of an embarrassing admission that one) I believe that at least half of the threads started there are frivolous appeals which haven't a leg to stand on and couldn't possibly be overturned. A lot of the thread starters just outright refuse to accept that they have done wrong.

Feedback; have a stickied thread with links to (all?) successful appeals.
Why? So posters can see that some appeals are successful (plenty are), and posters can have examples set out on how to approach their appeal.

Also, I think a lot of people get away with essentially abusing the process. From deliberately omitting relevant (normally incriminating) information (which leads to extra CMOD/Admin work to uncover the whole story) to people who start appeals and come out with accusations of 'circling the wagon' and the like.

Essentially, DR is the courtroom of boards and a certain level of etiquette should be expected. Abuse of the forum should potentially lead to increased sanctions.

Oryx

An extension to the above suggestion: instead of marking threads resolved, mark them 'upheld' or 'overturned'

Beasty

Oryx wrote: »

An extension to the above suggestion: instead of marking threads resolved, mark them 'upheld' or 'overturned'

Many disputes get resolved behind the scenes, not necessarily fully upheld or indeed overturned. Sometimes a ban can be curtailed on the basis of "time served" or a red replaced with a yellow for example. In my view "resolved" is by far the best way of tagging a dispute thread that has been concluded in any fashion.

Spear

Beasty wrote: »

Many disputes get resolved behind the scenes, not necessarily fully upheld or indeed overturned. Sometimes a ban can be curtailed on the basis of "time served" or a red replaced with a yellow for example. In my view "resolved" is by far the best way of tagging a dispute thread that has been concluded in any fashion.

There's also in-between states like "agreement reached" or similar. Resolved at least just means resolved, one way or another.

K-9

From a mod perspective, if somebody makes a false claim I think mods deserve a right of reply, something short and to the point should be enough, so as not to derail the thread.

I wasn't aware until recently we could ask to get involved, mod replies always seem to be deleted so I just assumed we couldn't give our take on it. C-mods see things from a user perspective so DRP threads can be lonely places when all kinds of stuff is thrown at you.

Spear

K-9 wrote: »

From a mod perspective, if somebody makes a false claim I think mods deserve a right of reply, something short and to the point should be enough, so as not to derail the thread.

I wasn't aware until recently we could ask to get involved, mod replies always seem to be deleted so I just assumed we couldn't give our take on it. C-mods see things from a user perspective so DRP threads can be lonely places when all kinds of stuff is thrown at you.

Mod replies are deleted by default. They're only allowed unless explicitly asked, and that permission is also made clear on thread.

Spear

Feedback for the feedback thread...

I've started a thread in site dev to see if we can get the flowchart showing on touch. Apparently it's never been visible for the mobile users.

Dav

Quick answer on that - we can't and won't since touch. will be disappeared permanently in about 3-6 months.

Spear

Dav wrote: »

Quick answer on that - we can't and won't since touch. will be disappeared permanently in about 3-6 months.

Ah, okay. We could possibly rename the charter sticky to make it more obvious then.

muffler

The DRP is imbalanced as I see it from a mods pov. In any dispute you have 2 parties which in the case here is a poster and a mod. The poster has full right to post whatever they like whether it be truth or lies and its up there for all to see but the mod has no right of reply.

The mod's side of the dispute is given either by PM to a Cmod or in a mods private forum. That just throws the transparency aspect of the process right out of the window. But the wider public arent seeing things as they should be seen.

I have strong reservations regarding the posting of PMs. A poster is at liberty it seems to post a PM exchange but a mod cant do so in a public forum unless he gets the poster's permission first.

So for anyone to suggest that the process is biased towards mods is pure folly.

El Guapo!

Dav wrote: »

Quick answer on that - we can't and won't since touch. will be disappeared permanently in about 3-6 months.

Well that's a different matter altogether then. Personally I think that's an absolute disaster.
Getting rid of the touch site is pointless when the apps are absolutely dire.
I bet there's a massive number of members who use the touch site only. Myself included.

Dav

The whole point of building a responsive website is that you don't have a separate www. and touch. it works for both.

Diamond Doll

Dav wrote: »

The whole point of building a responsive website is that you don't have a separate www. and touch. it works for both.

Except when it doesn't.

I've tried Beta on my phone, it certainly doesn't work. The Touch site works very well, and it's what I use most of the time.

The Touch site is actually pretty good, maybe work on improving that? Rather than imposing something new.

I know the Beta site isn't something I'd ever use, either on my phone or my laptop. It's incredibly crap and frustrating.

I'll be sad to stop using Boards if you get rid of the Touch site. But I won't be using the Beta site as an alternative, absolutely not. I'm sure most others won't either.

Dav

It's a Beta - it's incomplete - that's the whole point of beta testing. It takes far more of it's leads from touch. than www anyway - the reason being that more people use a mobile device than a PC when browsing Boards.

Aint Eazy Being Cheezy

I can't see myself using boards either, once the touch site is pulled. The vast majority of my browsing is done on my phone, the full site isn't suitable for this and the beta version is beyond shyte. I think you'd be making a big mistake in getting rid of touch.

Oryx

I realise this is off topic, but I just turned on Beta on my phone. It needs a lot of work. More than 3 months of work. Half the things I tried didn't perform correctly. If that is the only option for phone use, I think Ill be another who drifts away. I hope the fixes are good ones before the change is made. I can get used to the new look, but the functionality leaves a lot to be desired.

I always knew the flowchart didn't appear on touch, I'm surprised those involved didn't seem to realise.

What % of sanctions are overturned in drp? (Just curious)

Penny Tration

Tbh if touch goes, I'll be using boards a hell of a lot less, if at all. The beta isn't something I'd use. Not as it is anyway and I dunno if it'll be much better in 3 months.

As to the drp, I think mods should have right of reply.

muffler

Wow, from DRP discussion/feedback moving swiftly along to touch to beta to.......

Diamond Doll

muffler wrote: »

Wow, from DRP discussion/feedback moving swiftly along to touch to beta to.......

Just to note, it was Dav that brought all that up!

muffler

Diamond Doll wrote: »

Just to note, it was Dav that brought all that up!

A temp ban wouldnt go astray but seeing as its Xmas we could probably excuse him

Zymurgist

Also to be fair the responsive site testing forum is now a ghost town.

A lot of feedback provided and very little acknowledged.

Spear

Getting back on topic...

We've since implemented an archive for DRP threads, much like Helpdesk and N&F have. It should help visiblity and make it less likely for threads to be overlooked and left waiting.

OldGoat

Transparency is overrated. All that becomes transparent in the DRP is belligerence.

Do away with the Admin layer. It's become the normal route rather than a last resort for exceptional and controversial disputes. It's time-sinking just for the appearance of transparency and it's over used.

Create a short list of Cmod volunteers that users can select from if they are not comfortable with their own forums CMod. These volunteer Cmods can call on the other listed Cmods if necessary to discuss the dispute though their deliberations will be private.

Cmods decision is final thus reducing the appeal level to two layers rather than three but allowing the user a choice, a wider scope of 'judge' for their dispute if they feel that the forums Cmod might be showing a bias.

Admin maintain the right to interfere/over-rule with the process at any point.


Too draconian?

Spear

The only thing I'd object to myself there is the option to choose the cmod involved. There's a number of possible issues there, including the perception of bias since it gives rise to the perception that users would choose a cmod that may be favourable to them. And more practical issues that the cmod chosen could be unavailable/diong real world stuff/sick etc, which lead to needless delays in resolution. Additionally it would need tech staff work, which is scare and unlikely therefore.

Penn

OldGoat wrote: »

Create a short list of Cmod volunteers that users can select from if they are not comfortable with their own forums CMod. These volunteer Cmods can call on the other listed Cmods if necessary to discuss the dispute though their deliberations will be private.

Can't see that working. Other CMods wouldn't have access to the relevant mod forums where discussions concerning the user or ban may have taken place.

Beasty

OldGoat wrote: »

Create a short list of Cmod volunteers that users can select from if they are not comfortable with their own forums CMod. These volunteer Cmods can call on the other listed Cmods if necessary to discuss the dispute though their deliberations will be private.

It's got to be a CMod from the category in question, as we cannot see deleted/edited stuff or discussions in relevant mods forums from outside the category we have responsibility for. Certainly within Sports we usually would not deal with anything from any forum where we continue to be active mods anyway. In addition, what if the nominated CMod is simply not available?

There was a very long period when I did every Soccer appeal as Gav is a mod there. At that time there was simply no-one else available at CMod level to consider the appeal.

Oryx

What does an admin appeal add to the process? What do they have access to that cmods dont? Do they ever overturn anything outright based on new info or is it more a case they have the power to grant a kind of benevolent pardon if they see fit?

OldGoat

In my haste to rant I totally forgot that CMods don't have access to other fora. Strike the idea as a non runner.

However I still maintain the the admin layer of the DRP is overused and (mostly) unnecessary.