Collecting feedback on the Dispute Resolution Process

seamus

Oryx wrote: »

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?

It adds a sense of fairness. Really it's the pursuit of fairness that causes the DRP to exist at all. It reflects what the original founders wanted but also what the community wants from a site.
It's funny that so many of the people who complain that boards is heavy handed and overmoderated congregate on places like Reddit, where you can be banned and censured with no reason and no route to appeal.

So in the interests of fairness, it doesn't seem right that a poster could have their appeal rejected, ask to speak to someone higher and be told just no, that can't.
But at the same time, a pointless appeal to the admin isn't just a waste of their time. Now everyone's time is being wasted even further.

The "council of mods" idea was one that we came up with way back when we were trying to figure out how to sort this timesink issue. Ultimately the problem is one of resources. These things take extensive development time to implement. Or significant manual effort on the part of one individual to track manually.

So in reality you have to work within the bounds of what's available to you. Big ideas require big effort.

Perhaps there could be a "court of appeals" style hard stop in the process. That is, give the Cmods the absolute power to reject an appeal to Admin and end the process.

It sounds unfair, but hell our actual legal process has this. Cmods (and mods) can easily spot the difference between someone being a dick and a genuine borderline or complicated query.

hullaballoo

What is inherently unfair is the unilateral nature of DRP. It's unfair on mods not to be allowed to reply publicly. Where a moderator has a good reason for taking a particular action but then agrees via PM with a CMod to reduce/rescind the action, their reasoning is unavailable, and that is unfair on everyone. From a moderator perspective, it can often just look like you have gone back over your previous decision but no one except the CMod will ever know why because they rarely post the reasons. From a user perspective, the explanation of rules/nuances of a forum is lost in the ether.

Even more unfair is the unilateral right of appeal to admin. If I disagree with a CMod's decision about an action I have taken, I just have to suck it up and may have to have my time further abused by the appellant.

In the legal system, such fundamentally unfair processes have been weeded out and everything works on a bilateral (or multilateral) basis.

I assume, although I do not know for sure, that the exclusion of moderators whose decisions are impugned is to prevent too-ing and fro-ing in the DR forum. The legal system has an answer to that too because obviously, the same issue could arise in Court.

Post #1: Appellant sets out background and facts and then grounds for appeal etc.

Post #2: Moderator adds any missing background/facts and gives reasons why the appeal should be rejected.

Post #3: Appellant responds but must limit the response to matters raised by the moderator and cannot at this stage bring in any new facts or issues. (If the Appellant strays beyond responding to the moderator, the decision-maker must disregard any newly raised information.)

Post #4: Decision-maker decision. (Incidentally, I agree that the CMod here should indicate whether it is open to the parties to appeal to admin or not.)


The reason fairness to both sides is important is because increasingly, moderators are being fettered by the site's commercial objectives and it's no longer enough for a moderator to use experience and discretion in order to deal with someone. We are being pulled into more uniform, one-size-fits-all moderating. Given that moderators no longer have any real discretion to deal with problems, we ought to be able to speak up for ourselves when our decisions are questioned and we really ought to be able to do so publicly.

Wibbs

hullaballoo wrote: »

The reason fairness to both sides is important is because increasingly, moderators are being fettered by the site's commercial objectives and it's no longer enough for a moderator to use experience and discretion in order to deal with someone. We are being pulled into more uniform, one-size-fits-all moderating. Given that moderators no longer have any real discretion to deal with problems, we ought to be able to speak up for ourselves when our decisions are questioned and we really ought to be able to do so publicly.

QFT.

Penn

hullaballoo wrote: »

The reason fairness to both sides is important is because increasingly, moderators are being fettered by the site's commercial objectives and it's no longer enough for a moderator to use experience and discretion in order to deal with someone. We are being pulled into more uniform, one-size-fits-all moderating. Given that moderators no longer have any real discretion to deal with problems, we ought to be able to speak up for ourselves when our decisions are questioned and we really ought to be able to do so publicly.

Completely disagree. Mods always have and should have discretion to undertake mod actions based on their experience and judgement of a situation, even if it doesn't fit exactly in with one or more prescribed site rules. Once there is a clear, unbiased rationale behind such a decision, the experience and discretion of the mod is more valuable than the wording of any particular rule. That's why mods are chosen, for their ability to make such judgement calls when necessary.

Obviously, mods can't just ban/infract someone, claim they did so because of their experience of the poster and situation and not have that questioned. But if there's a clear rationale and reasoning behind it and the mod action is commensurate to the situation, then there would rarely be an issue with that.

I do agree that maybe the mod should be allowed the right to reply on-thread in a DRP though. At present, they could definitely request it from the CMod dealing with it, but maybe it should become an official part of the process.

hullaballoo

Penn wrote: »

Completely disagree. Mods always have and should have discretion to undertake mod actions based on their experience and judgement of a situation, even if it doesn't fit exactly in with one or more prescribed site rules. Once there is a clear, unbiased rationale behind such a decision, the experience and discretion of the mod is more valuable than the wording of any particular rule. That's why mods are chosen, for their ability to make such judgement calls when necessary.

The decision that is unbiased and rational can only be to do one of a limited number of things that most be done on a prescribed procedure and the moderator cannot circumvent that on the basis of moderator discretion because the system will overlay that decision with the prescribed procedure.

The only avenue by which the moderator can be vindicated is if they are publicly allowed to air their thought processes and have those reviewed by the higher-ups.

Since that is not happening, moderator discretion has been removed, in my opinion.

Beasty

So far as I am concerned the onus is on the appellant to show their card/ban was unwarranted/unreasonable. Hence they have a higher hurdle to surmount and get the opportunity to put their point across. There's little to be gained by allowing the mod to input if the CMod is going to uphold their action anyway (which happens in a significant majority of cases). Personally I would not overturn a mod's decision without giving them the opportunity to comment, albeit privately on the small number of occasions it has happened. Obviously I cannot speak for all CMods, but my interaction with others in the CMods forum suggests we generally seem to adopt a similar approach.

KomradeBishop

One things to note is that the lions share of the feedback is from mods/past-mods - nothing wrong with feedback from mods, but it could do with counterbalancing, as it seems to be leaning towards a trend of tipping DRP (even more) in favour of upholding mod decisions, when instead more feedback from posters who have been through DRP is needed.

Also, regarding mods right of reply: I always thought this existed, as I had seen this from a mod whose action was contested - but I realize now that it was a CMod (so it's ok for cmods to defend their mod action on DRP, but not mods apparently) - and my feeling on that, was that it was partly aimed at sabotaging/smearing the DRP - but then again, probably better for that to happen in public than behind the scenes (at least it's transparent then).


Also, people are advocating that mods should get to publicly defend themselves on DRP - but: What about posters getting to defend themselves, from what mods say about them in private? (posters don't even know what has been said, or what kind of behind-the-scenes consensus or misrepresentation/smears may be happening)

Very one-sided. Mods need a private place to discuss things, but it's unavoidable that that creates a lack of transparency, and removes a posters ability to defend themselves from what is said in private.

Nodin

hullaballoo wrote: »

........
The reason fairness to both sides is important is because increasingly, moderators are being fettered by the site's commercial objectives and it's no longer enough for a moderator to use experience and discretion in order to deal with someone. We are being pulled into more uniform, one-size-fits-all moderating. Given that moderators no longer have any real discretion to deal with problems, we ought to be able to speak up for ourselves when our decisions are questioned and we really ought to be able to do so publicly.

Would you care to expand on that? I've admittedly no knowledge of moderation on here, but am surprised that there's a need for the commercial objective (which I presume is advertising) to interfere or clash with moderation. Perhaps I'm just not thinking it through properly.

Spear

KomradeBishop wrote: »

One things to note is that the lions share of the feedback is from mods/past-mods - nothing wrong with feedback from mods, but it could do with counterbalancing, as it seems to be leaning towards a trend of tipping DRP (even more) in favour of upholding mod decisions, when instead more feedback from posters who have been through DRP is needed.

I've a separate thread for mod feedback, but they're showing the same very wide spectrums of opinions too. There seems to be a lack of consensus everywhere about how to run DRP. This was a long overdue exercise.

K-9

If Mods did have a right of reply, it would need to be the the point and objective as possible. Tbh it never has been an issue for me except with a couple of more troublesome posters, making more outlandish claims. DRP works quite well for the most part, so that shouldn't be over looked either, sometimes we can focus on the negatives too much.

Mod replies would still have C-Mod and admin oversight, so for me it would really for clarification of the more outlandish claims, 1 reply to avoid a tit for tat debate. Tbh it would be more a mod putting their side for the public record, for viewers to see, not getting into a debate, considering that will have happened in pm exchanges anyway.

As for private mod discussions, need the wisdom of Solomon on that one!

Black Swan

In retrospect, members, mods, Cmods, Admins, and community managers have discussed and debated the purpose, guidelines, and content of the Dispute Resolution forum for years. Generally speaking, it has worked more often as not, consequently it has undergone very little change as a result.

During the past several years I've modded 18 forums. I've issued several cards and bans, especially in Politics, but only had a tiny number appealed, and only a couple overturned. I've never demanded that a Cmod allow me to reply as mod in a dispute, even if a member got a bit mean spirited, because I trusted that the Cmod would fairly review both sides of the appeal before posting their reply. Thus far it's worked.

I've Cmodded Region, Sports, and now Science, Health & Environment. I've been involved in the resolution of many disputes, and have both supported or overturned mod actions. In doing this, I find the most important step in the DR flow charted process to be the 1st one, where both parties to the dispute (member and mod) exchange PMs in an attempt to resolve the issue. Sometimes I've been asked to join the exchange, and sometimes the issue has been resolved in this 1st step. If so, most of this has occurred between member and mod behind-the-scenes.

In general transparency has been an important value to this dispute resolution process, but as a balancing factor it should be noted that it's sometimes easier to resolve a dispute between member and mod during a private exchange of PMs, where confidentiality and respect for the feelings of each party to this appeal are considered. I've read many a heated PM exchange in past years, where things got very personal before they were worked out, and often one or both parties will exchange apologies and leave in mutual respect. If this early heated exchange started 1st in the DRP between one or both parties, the public aspect of this exchange might make it more difficult for one or both parties to swallow their public pride.

Consequently, if anything is to change as a result of this DR discussion, may I strongly suggest that we come up with better ways to inform and encourage all parties to a dispute to focus on the 1st step in the DR flow chart? I continue to see members opening DRPs without attempting to complete step 1: exchange of PMs with mods. I would also like to encourage mods to go the extra mile in an attempt to resolve the dispute in step 1, and not just point the unhappy member to Cmods without a good faith effort. Yes, PM exchanges can sometimes be painful. Been there, done that. And if you both want to share your misery, please ask your Cmod to join in the 1st step exchange way, way before a DRP thread has been opened, if feasible.

Those are my 2 euros...

Spear

A bit more specific set of questions for now:

Should warnings in the form of yellow cards be appealable through DRP?
If so, do they justify admin attention?
Is there any point in having the yellow cards, if an on-thread warning does the same task without a permanent record?

KERSPLAT!

Spear wrote: »

A bit more specific set of questions for now:

Should warnings in the form of yellow cards be appealable through DRP?
If so, do they justify admin attention?
Is there any point in having the yellow cards, if an on-thread warning does the same task without a permanent record?

For me it's:

Yes, yellows should be appealable

Yes, they justify admin attention

In AH we try to use thread warnings to get posters back on track. If they keep up after that we issue yellow and then increment after that. It works as it so I don't see the point in changing it

For me, the system is grand the way it is.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Cookie_Monster

whats happened to DRP in the last couple of days, all the thread are gone into an archive with nothing active any more.

Into The Blue

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

whats happened to DRP in the last couple of days, all the thread are gone into an archive with nothing active any more.

No active disputes to resolve..

Beasty

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Yes - I've seen it numerous times (and it's happened to me)

I've dealt with over 150 appeals - now I'm not going to try and trawl through them all, but to put a bit of perspective on the process from my own experience I've had a look at all those I've been involved in during 2015.

Ignoring those threads that were not disputing a card or ban I've dealt with 25 appeals during 2015

Of those, 3 (12%) were overturned/lifted by the relevant mod without me having to take any decision
4 (16%) were overturned/lifted by me
In 1 case I increased the penalty, and in another I imposed additional conditions on the appellant
I upheld 14 mod decisions (56%)
In 2 cases the appellant was sitebanned before the appeal was concluded

Hence in total I upheld or increased penalties in 16 cases (64%), and of those 4 (16%) asked for an Admin to review my decision. In all 4 cases during 2015 the Admins upheld my decision

CabanSail

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

whats happened to DRP in the last couple of days, all the thread are gone into an archive with nothing active any more.

It is a bit quiet. I have started a few rumors and that should heat things up soon


My views are that any actions which form a record should have an option of appeal, however the Admin review should only be available for Bans. Cards should stop at CMod level.

Buona Fortuna

CabanSail wrote: »

My views are that any actions which form a record should have an option of appeal, however the Admin review should only be available for Bans. Cards should stop at CMod level.

That's OK upto a point. The only problem I see is that there is a bit of "blurring" of the line between CMods and Mods. Some CMods still Mod.

Beasty

Buona Fortuna wrote: »

That's OK upto a point. The only problem I see is that there is a bit of "blurring" of the line between CMods and Mods. Some CMods still Mod.

Can't speak for all categories, but we ensure no-one in Sports deals with appeals from forums they actively mod

Spear

Buona Fortuna wrote: »

That's OK upto a point. The only problem I see is that there is a bit of "blurring" of the line between CMods and Mods. Some CMods still Mod.

It's been the convention to have cmods recuse themselves where they're the mods involved, though that's not codified in the rules.

Buona Fortuna

Spear wrote: »

It's been the convention to have cmods recuse themselves where they're the mods involved, though that's not codified in the rules.

Maybe then if there's no right to an admin review, it should be specified?

I think most "honest offenders" (for want of a better term) just want another fresh pair of eyes to cast over it.

KERSPLAT!

I'll deal with DRPs from AH but if I was involved in the dispute i.e I issued the card or ban being disputed, then it would be passed to another Cmod and I would only take part as a mod

Saipanne

I just read it for a laugh. It's just one guy against a load of mods backing each other, no matter what. I've even had a real life friend (mod) say that this is the case.

It's a joke, hence why I read and laugh.

Buona Fortuna

KERSPLAT! wrote: »

I'll deal with DRPs from AH but if I was involved in the dispute i.e I issued the card or ban being disputed, then it would be passed to another Cmod and I would only take part as a mod

I hear what you're saying but you are still part of the "Mod Team".

Given that what we're talking about is doing away with the Admin review it doesn't have a warm cuddly feel to it.

KERSPLAT!

Buona Fortuna wrote: »

I hear what you're saying but you are still part of the "Mod Team".

Given that what we're talking about is doing away with the Admin review it doesn't have a warm cuddly feel to it.

Well all mods, cmods and admin are part of the admin team...

KERSPLAT!

Saipanne wrote: »

I just read it for a laugh. It's just one guy against a load of mods backing each other, no matter what. I've even had a real life friend (mod) say that this is the case.

It's a joke, hence why I read and laugh.

If your friend says so, it must be true.

Saipanne

KERSPLAT! wrote: »

If your friend says so, it must be true.

Correct.

Buona Fortuna

KERSPLAT! wrote: »

Well all mods, cmods and admin are part of the admin team...

Yes, clearly, but I think you took me more broadly than I meant.

Taking AH as a case in point. I get card from Boom_Bap that I think is unjustified. I appeal and you say - its fair off you go.

KERSPLAT!

Buona Fortuna wrote: »

Yes, clearly, but I think you took me more broadly than I meant.

Taking AH as a case in point. I get card from Boom_Bap that I think is unjustified. I appeal and you say - its fair off you go.

OK I get your point but at the same time I don't agree that I would treat that card any different to any card a poster got elsewhere in any of the forums I'm cmod for, if that makes sense.