Collecting feedback on the Dispute Resolution Process

KomradeBishop

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.

That's not been my experience - I'd go so far as to say that it looked almost like an attempt to smear and sabotage the DRP by the cmod involved (not the one who was dealing with the DRP, to be clear) - being able to drop in and post smears/ad-hominem.

If that happened in the DRP, then strongly makes me wonder what was said behind the scenes as well - no transparency or right of reply there - though mods still need a private place to talk.

KERSPLAT!

KomradeBishop wrote: »

That's not been my experience - I'd go so far as to say that it looked almost like an attempt to smear and sabotage the DRP by the cmod involved (not the one who was dealing with the DRP, to be clear) - being able to drop in and post smears/ad-hominem.

If that happened in the DRP, then strongly makes me wonder what was said behind the scenes as well - no transparency or right of reply there - though mods still need a private place to talk.

I'm just trying to understand this. Are you talking about Cmods who aren't involved in the DRP getting involved when a Cmod is already reviewing?

Penn

KomradeBishop wrote: »

That's not been my experience - I'd go so far as to say that it looked almost like an attempt to smear and sabotage the DRP by the cmod involved (not the one who was dealing with the DRP, to be clear) - being able to drop in and post smears/ad-hominem.

If that happened in the DRP, then strongly makes me wonder what was said behind the scenes as well - no transparency or right of reply there - though mods still need a private place to talk.

Can you link to the thread? Because you seem to have mentioned this drp a few times but without a link to it the full situation can't be established.

KomradeBishop

KERSPLAT! wrote: »

I'm just trying to understand this. Are you talking about Cmods who aren't involved in the DRP getting involved when a Cmod is already reviewing?

Cmod A who made the mod action, posting in a DRP thread that CMod B is reviewing. It's not against the rules or anything for DRP, just pointing it out, as a counterpoint to what Spear said.

KomradeBishop

Penn wrote: »

Can you link to the thread? Because you seem to have mentioned this drp a few times but without a link to it the full situation can't be established.

I've PM'd Spear a link, but won't link it here as I think it'd derail the thread.

KERSPLAT!

KomradeBishop wrote: »

Cmod A who made the mod action, posting in a DRP thread that CMod B is reviewing. It's not against the rules or anything for DRP, just pointing it out, as a counterpoint to what Spear said.

I assume they shouldn't be as they are, or should be, seen as just a mod in that case, hence the reason another cmod takes the DRP.

As Penn said, can you fire up some examples?

KomradeBishop

KERSPLAT! wrote: »

I assume they shouldn't be as they are, or should be, seen as just a mod in that case, hence the reason another cmod takes the DRP.

As Penn said, can you fire up some examples?

Ya maybe - I don't think it's a hard-fast rule like that. I'll forward on the PM since you're a cmod.

K-9

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

With mod and C-mod pm's, on thread warnings and thread bans it could be argued there's not much need for yellows anymore.

As for old cards, if somebody has a few cards from 5 or 6 years ago and little or none since well that the old cards wouldn't matter much. If they keep racking up the cards well the overall record will be taken into account.

I've a few old cards and I'm sure other mods too so they aren't important really.

Spear

Is there anyone who'd disagree with the concept that anything that warrants a permanent record entry, should therefore be appealable?

Beasty

Spear wrote: »

Is there anyone who'd disagree with the concept that anything that warrants a permanent record entry, should therefore be appealable?

Just on a point of detail, anyone who closes their account loses their right to appeal. I would add that Mods and Admins should still be able to take into account the records of individuals under prior accounts when considering future actions (as there seems to be a pattern of some posters closing accounts in the hope or expectation they can open a new one with a clean slate).

There is also a question of whether there should be a time limit for appealing any cards or bans as I have seen situations where posters are attempting to go back months or even years (when others involved, such as mods, may have forgotten what the underlying issue was or indeed may no longer be a mod (or could have closed their own account)). Any such time limit maybe needs to consider what happens if someone has a siteban during the period they could otherwise appeal - if say they have 2 weeks to appeal but pick up a siteban shortly after the card or ban they wish to contest perhaps their 2 weeks starts once the siteban is over.

If someone does wish to contest a long-standing forum ban to regain access they would still have the option of approaching current mods of the relevant forum.

Beasty

A further point re time limits. We say give the mod a couple of days to respond to any PM and it's possible a mod may simply be unavailable for an extended period. Perhaps the onus is on the user to PM the mod within a couple of days, and the mod to get back within a further couple of days. If they cannot resolve it within say a week, then the user still has a week in which to launch their appeal within the DRP (if we did put a 2 week limit on it)

muffler

Set up a new appeal forum with a 12 man jury consisting of a mix of mods and members and let them deal with card appeals. Discussions are private initially and outcome is non-appealable (is there such a word?)

The above is a very simplistic proposal but maybe its the nucleus of something new that can be tweaked a bit or worked on.

The Hill Billy

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.

Not true. As CMod I've made more than a few appeal rulings that weren't very popular with the mods concerned.

To be honest, remarks like that sting a bit. DRP is a process that we work hard at to maintain fairness & transparency for the site members. A lot of our personal time can go into some of these appeals. They are not dealt with lightly.

Lovely Bloke

Beasty, if you are looking to put a time limit on appealing, then you need a statute of limitations on how far back Admins can go in relation to issuing site-bans for accrued infractions, warnings, bans, Catbans and Sitebans.

Otherwise the process is a joke.

Beasty

Baldy Conscience wrote: »

Beasty, if you are looking to put a time limit on appealing, then you need a statute of limitations on how far back Admins can go in relation to issuing site-bans for accrued infractions, warnings, bans, Catbans and Sitebans.

Otherwise the process is a joke.

I find that an odd argument. It's entirely reasonable to expect posters to appeal a decision within a set timescale when it's fresh in everyone's mind. If someone chooses not to appeal yes it remains in their record, but if anyone is getting to the stage of a siteban for their overall record I don't think it's going to be down to the odd card they could not be bothered disputing.

Admins can see the overall record when deciding on future actions at site levels.In most cases Mods will add some commentary at the time they take action which can help the Admins understand the nature of problems a particular poster may be causing. They will though act based on an overall history which may, for example, be littered with examples of trolling, rather than a single non-appealed card

K-9

Baldy Conscience wrote: »

Beasty, if you are looking to put a time limit on appealing, then you need a statute of limitations on how far back Admins can go in relation to issuing site-bans for accrued infractions, warnings, bans, Catbans and Sitebans.

Otherwise the process is a joke.

Maybe 3 months to appeal a card.

3 years for reviewing records.

Both can't be the same for obvious reasons.

Dr Turk Turkelton

K-9 wrote: »

Maybe 3 months to appeal a card.

3 years for reviewing records.

Both can't be the same for obvious reasons.

I would say a year would be loads for reviewing records.
Sometimes I see cases of people who have been members for ten years (or more) and every card they ever had gets brought up which is completely unfair.
People can change their posting habits hugely in a year especially if they are young when they join so I would see that as an upper limit.

One month is more than enough to appeal an infraction though.

K-9

A year tops for reviewing cards for me, the onus is on the poster to appeal and we are volunteer mods.

Within reason for old cards. If somebody keeps picking up 5 or 6 cards and a ban or 2, every single year, well that is relevant. A clean record or the odd card is different, though again context, post count and activity and stuff like that.

If you post half way reasonably and heed warnings the issue shouldn't really arise. There's a few re-regs, even a couple serial ones who caused bother in their time, posting away fine on the site and that's great. As long as you can show you are prepared to change, that's great.

Mods much prefer spending time that way than dealing with serial trouble makers.

Penn

Dr Turk Turkelton wrote: »

I would say a year would be loads for reviewing records.
Sometimes I see cases of people who have been members for ten years (or more) and every card they ever had gets brought up which is completely unfair.
People can change their posting habits hugely in a year especially if they are young when they join so I would see that as an upper limit.

One month is more than enough to appeal an infraction though.

But it's kind of irrelevant because someone who has changed their posting habits likely won't be getting more cards/bans and so are unlikely to be site banned because of their record. Really old bans/infractions are only brought up if the problem is continuous and new bans/infractions are still being given to those posters, showing that they aren't changing their posting habits.

I think the overall appeal process is bs, for example I have been reading this forum for a while and I never see Beasty overturn a decision! Even if the poster is in the right he will go with the mods decision...

Insect Overlord

Deleted User wrote: »

I think the overall appeal process is bs, for example I have been reading this forum for a while and I never see Beasty overturn a decision! Even if the poster is in the right he will go with the mods decision...

Did you even read the thread before you decided to post?

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=98162157&postcount=48

KomradeBishop

Beasty wrote: »

Just on a point of detail, anyone who closes their account loses their right to appeal. I would add that Mods and Admins should still be able to take into account the records of individuals under prior accounts when considering future actions (as there seems to be a pattern of some posters closing accounts in the hope or expectation they can open a new one with a clean slate).

There is also a question of whether there should be a time limit for appealing any cards or bans as I have seen situations where posters are attempting to go back months or even years (when others involved, such as mods, may have forgotten what the underlying issue was or indeed may no longer be a mod (or could have closed their own account)). Any such time limit maybe needs to consider what happens if someone has a siteban during the period they could otherwise appeal - if say they have 2 weeks to appeal but pick up a siteban shortly after the card or ban they wish to contest perhaps their 2 weeks starts once the siteban is over.

If someone does wish to contest a long-standing forum ban to regain access they would still have the option of approaching current mods of the relevant forum.

Problems with this are the reasons some posters close accounts, e.g. to take a break, or I've seen some posters do it to evade harassment - closing accounts isn't automatically about hiding identities from mods or evading bans, and making rules that assume that is the case, would be quite unfair.

Also, regarding the time length of appeals: Posters often get told 'try again in a year' or such (by cmods), when it comes to appeals. If there is to be a timelength on appeals, there should be a timelength on the bans.

Buona Fortuna

^^^^^

Sure.

At the end of the day though this is just a website. We're not talking about a real criminal record or real time in prison. There's no need for a load more rules and the court of infinite appeal.

All I would ever want is for someone not connected to look it over - if its fair C'est la vie.

Second Toughest in_the Freshers

thread going on here, probably some background we're not aware of, but on the face of it, it doesn't seem fair

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2057543029

Into The Blue

The don't be a dick rule is grand for a general boards ethos, but is far too vague to be used as a final, no appeal possible, ruling by an administrator of the site.

The Hill Billy

This thread is for feedback on the general process & not for discussion of specific appeals.

tHB

The_Valeyard

Are all disputes private until they are resolved? Seems a bit closed doors...?

KERSPLAT!

The_Valeyard wrote: »

Are all disputes private until they are resolved? Seems a bit closed doors...?

Nope, it's an open forum and not pre-moderated, as far as I'm aware. There's an archive now just so it's easy to see what is resolved and what needs attention

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/forumdisplay.php?f=1731

Spear

The_Valeyard wrote: »

Are all disputes private until they are resolved? Seems a bit closed doors...?

Everything is public. There's not even pre-moderation so there can't even be an incorrect perception of anything being held back.

Buona Fortuna

@Kersplat - I see that we can now "thank" posts in the archive is that a hiccup?