Collecting feedback on the Dispute Resolution Process

MadDog76

An File wrote: »

Only because you know you just typed a stream of nonsense.

Thank you for proving my point.

MadDog76

The Randy Riverbeast wrote: »

If a lot of mod actions were being undone in DR wouldn't it mean there was a problem with moderation?

I received an infraction, messaged the mod and got it undone. No DR required. DR is for when the mod has looked at it again, decided that they made the right choice. People who have no chance are often seen disputing their bans and infractions because they have clearly broken the rules.

Yes it would ......... and that cannot possibly be the case now can it?

Mod/Cmod decisions must be upheld in the vast majority of cases in DRP.

KERSPLAT!

MadDog76 wrote: »

Mod/Cmod decisions must be upheld in the vast majority of cases in DRP.

Because there's a conspiracy, couldn't possibly be because they were deserved.

MadDog76

KERSPLAT! wrote: »

Because there's a conspiracy, couldn't possibly be because they were deserved.

It's not as complicated as a conspiracy, it's just what's needed in order to keep the wheels turning ........... undeserved bans (of which there are quite a few) overturned in the DRP process equals a problem with the Mods (ab)use of their "power" which, in turn, equals a problem with the site as a whole ........ that can't be possible.

I'm quite friendly with an individual (in the real world) who is currently a Mod on Boards so I have a fair idea of what I'm talking about ....... I've actually seen it with my own eyes.

EDIT: If I was the conspiratorial paranoid type I'd be asking why, of the last 10 visitors to my profile, 5 Mods have visited my profile since posting on this thread ....... must be a coincidence!

oscarBravo

MadDog76 wrote: »

...undeserved bans (of which there are quite a few)...

In your opinion. Not so much in the opinions of the people who actually volunteer their time to keep the site running.

There are two possibilities being considered here: either power-trippin' mods are banning people on a whim, and there's a whole wagon-circling process whereby category moderators and administrators, while clearly recognising the outrageous injustices being perpetrated under their noses, are too afraid to upset the moderators to dare to intervene.

Alternatively, the bans are by and large justifiable, and the cmods and admins agree with the reasoning that was used to decide a ban was warranted.

Now, if you happen to be someone who was banned and had your appeal denied, I can see why it's tempting to believe that the system is rigged against you - after all, it's human nature to claim that you haven't done anything wrong. But believing something don't make it so, and claiming that bans are undeserved don't make it so either.

tl;dr: everyone in the Shawshank was screwed by his lawyer.

Second Toughest in_the Freshers

maybe its just a difference of opinion on where the threshold for a bannable offence should be?

oscarBravo

Second Toughest in_the Freshers wrote: »

maybe its just a difference of opinion on where the threshold for a bannable offence should be?

Maybe. But if we're going to raise that threshold, we'd need some seriously compelling reasons to do so.

MadDog76

oscarBravo wrote: »

Now, if you happen to be someone who was banned and had your appeal denied, I can see why it's tempting to believe that the system is rigged against you - after all, it's human nature to claim that you haven't done anything wrong. But believing something don't make it so, and claiming that bans are undeserved don't make it so either.

tl;dr: everyone in the Shawshank was screwed by his lawyer.

The problem with that theory is the fact that I've held, and posted, my current opinion long before I ever received any temporary bans .......... you're right, believing something don't make it so ......... some inmates are actually innocent.

K-9

Second Toughest in_the Freshers wrote: »

maybe its just a difference of opinion on where the threshold for a bannable offence should be?

The threshold is quite high in forums like the Politics Cafe and AH and a few still can't keep within it. We shouldn't be increasing the limit to suit the very odd few that don't have any cop on at all.

MadDog76

K-9 wrote: »

The threshold is quite high in forums like the Politics Cafe and AH and a few still can't keep within it. We shouldn't be increasing the limit to suit the very odd few that don't have any cop on at all.

There's a problem with the threshold also as some Mod's seem to have different ideas as to where the limit lies compared to other Mods ......... some posters seem to be allowed to push the limit whereas other posters will be infracted/banned for even coming close to the limit.
It creates a sense of inconsistency that leaves a lot of posters vulnerable depending on the particular Mod who may, or may not, take issue with their particular post (or indeed the poster him/herself) whilst seemingly ignoring other more close-to-the-bone posts and/or posters.

On another point, I think the people posting in this thread should keep in mind that it's in the Feedback Forum and "Collecting Feedback" is in the the thread title which would indicate to me that feedback here is welcomed and encouraged?
Yet it seems that some of the Mods here are taking the feedback as a personal attack with responses such as "That's just a load of nonsense!" followed by multiple "Thanks" from their fellow Mods .......... it gives the impression that the feedback, unless positive and/or in favour of Mods, is not welcome?

K-9

MadDog76 wrote: »

There's a problem with the threshold also as some Mod's seem to have different ideas as to where the limit lies compared to other Mods ......... some posters seem to be allowed to push the limit whereas other posters will be infracted/banned for even coming close to the limit.
It creates a sense of inconsistency that leaves a lot of posters vulnerable depending on the particular Mod who may, or may not, take issue with their particular post (or indeed the poster him/herself) whilst seemingly ignoring other more close-to-the-bone posts and/or posters.

On another point, I think the people posting in this thread should keep in mind that it's in the Feedback Forum and "Collecting Feedback" is in the the thread title which would indicate to me that feedback here is welcomed and encouraged?
Yet it seems that some of the Mods here are taking the feedback as a personal attack with responses such as "That's just a load of nonsense!" followed by multiple "Thanks" from their fellow Mods .......... it gives the impression that the feedback, unless positive and/or in favour of Mods, is not welcome?

Feedback is a 2 way street. If somebody is going to keep on making claims without taking into account evidence and opinions otherwise, that is of less value than considered feedback.

Consistency is strived for and I'd encourage mod teams to consult with each other over decisions, many do. Considering the amount of cards, bans and other mod actions every month, a tiny percentage goes to DRP. That is because the vast majority are deserved and far more cases are worked out by pm, than reach DRP.

DRP cases are taken seriously and mods bear that in mind when giving out cards and bans. Usually there's a trail of posts, on thread warnings and maybe pm's leading up to a card or ban, if it comes to bans, there'll often be a long audit trail to go through. You are free to dismiss that and believe to the contrary.

MadDog76

K-9 wrote: »

Feedback is a 2 way street. If somebody is going to keep on making claims without taking into account evidence and opinions otherwise, that is of less value than considered feedback.

Consistency is strived for and I'd encourage mod teams to consult with each other over decisions, many do. Considering the amount of cards, bans and other mod actions every month, a tiny percentage goes to DRP. That is because the vast majority are deserved and far more cases are worked out by pm, than reach DRP.

DRP cases are taken seriously and mods bear that in mind when giving out cards and bans. Usually there's a trail of posts, on thread warnings and maybe pm's leading up to a card or ban, if it comes to bans, there'll often be a long audit trail to go through. You are free to dismiss that and believe to the contrary.

My "claims" are based on the evidence, ie. I've looked through the DRP threads and, from what I've seen, Cmods ruling against Mods is an extremely rare occurrence ......... I haven't been able to find any examples at all of an Admin ruling against a Cmod.
That seems statistically unlikely which would logically lead me, and any sensible person who reads through the threads, to believe that there's something else going on here?
If my deductions are even vaguely on track then having the DRP serves no other purpose than having an appearance of a fairness which does not actually exist.

Now, the how's and why's of a poster being banned/infracted etc. leading to the DRP are a topic for another thread (that I would be more than happy to discuss at length) but this thread is about the DRP itself so, based on looking through the DRP threads, I believe there is an issue with transparency and the outcomes having an inevitable feel about them ........... if you think my "claims" are baseless then please, by all means, show me these multiple examples of posters successfully appealing their cases in DRP??

On another note, I'd imagine if this thread had been started by an "ordinary" poster then it would have been buried and/or closed by now so I applaud Spear for raising the topic of discussion.

K-9

Beasty gave stats on his decisions earlier on the thread. About 28% were either lifted or reduced by the mod in question or by the C-Mod.

Over a quarter is not something to be dismissed lightly.

Peregrine

MadDog76 wrote: »

My "claims" are based on the evidence, ie. I've looked through the DRP threads and, from what I've seen, Cmods ruling against Mods is an extremely rare occurrence ......... I haven't been able to find any examples at all of an Admin ruling against a Cmod.

Your conjecture is not based on evidence, it's based on your interpretation of the data.

If I follow a similar logic as you, I could conclude that moderators on boards.ie are almost always spot on because of how seldom (not as rare as you say) a moderator's decision gets overturned by an independent Cmod and admin. And it would be an equally valid conclusion.

Of course, I know that it's not as black and white as that.

The Randy Riverbeast

MadDog76 wrote: »

Yes it would ......... and that cannot possibly be the case now can it?

Mod/Cmod decisions must be upheld in the vast majority of cases in DRP.

The case is either:
1. The mods were right, the person deserved the infraction or ban
2. There is a conspiracy of the higher ups trying to cover up poor modding instead of just fixing it.

Maybe if the cmods and admins are running their own websites and want to move people over to it instead of boards you might be right. Otherwise there are people trying to run the site into the ground because....reasons.

MadDog76

Beasty wrote: »

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

K-9 wrote: »

Beasty gave stats on his decisions earlier on the thread. About 28% were either lifted or reduced by the mod in question or by the C-Mod.

Over a quarter is not something to be dismissed lightly.

Actually, based on Beasty's own claims, Beasty only actually ruled against four Mod decisions in a whole year ......... an Admin never, in that year, ruled against him ...... not even once.

K-9

And 7/25 were lifted or over turned.

Not to be ignored as insignificant as I said.

MadDog76

Peregrine wrote: »

Your conjecture is not based on evidence, it's based on your interpretation of the data.

If I follow a similar logic as you, I could conclude that moderators on boards.ie are almost always spot on because of how seldom (not as rare as you say) a moderator's decision gets overturned by an independent Cmod and admin. And it would be an equally valid conclusion.

Of course, I know that it's not as black and white as that.

The data is fairly black & white, ie. x amount of appeals with y amount being ruled in favour of the Mods versus z amount of appeals being ruled in favour of the poster appealing his/her case .......... it's really not that complicated.

And, as incredible as this sounds, we are actually being asked to believe (blindly) that Mods "are almost always spot on" ........ what's the alternative?

MadDog76

K-9 wrote: »

And 7/25 were lifted or over turned.

Not to be ignored as insignificant as I said.

3 of that 7 were lifted or over-turned by the Mod him/herself ........ meaning that a Cmod (Beasty) only ruled against a Mod in DRP on four occasions in an entire year .......... and an Admin never over-turned that Cmod's ruling ........ not even one time in that whole year.

It would also be helpful if links were provided to those cases that Beasty ruled against a Mod in DRP as I can't seem to find them myself?

MadDog76

The Randy Riverbeast wrote: »

The case is either:
1. The mods were right, the person deserved the infraction or ban
2. There is a conspiracy of the higher ups trying to cover up poor modding instead of just fixing it.

Maybe if the cmods and admins are running their own websites and want to move people over to it instead of boards you might be right. Otherwise there are people trying to run the site into the ground because....reasons.

1. Not possible ......... Mods are human beings and, as such, could never be (almost) 100% right.

2. How could they fix an ingrained problem of hundreds of Mods all "working" for free ........... you can hardly "fire" them ........ or even reprimand them.

Boards needs the Mods, the Mods do not need Boards ......... that's an important fact to keep in mind in this discussion.

deepesthole

K-9 wrote: »

The threshold is quite high in forums like the Politics Cafe and AH and a few still can't keep within it. We shouldn't be increasing the limit to suit the very odd few that don't have any cop on at all.

Nobody in this thread has complained about the height of the threshold. It's that it isn't a fixed height.

K-9

MadDog76 wrote: »

3 of that 7 were lifted or over-turned by the Mod him/herself ........ meaning that a Cmod (Beasty) only ruled against a Mod in DRP on four occasions in an entire year .......... and an Admin never over-turned that Cmod's ruling ........ not even one time in that whole year.

It would also be helpful if links were provided to those cases that Beasty ruled against a Mod in DRP as I can't seem to find them myself?

And 7/25 cases that went to DRP were ruled on favourably to the poster. I'm surprised it is as high as 28% going on the concerns raised in your posts. Much higher than that and I'd be asking serious questions about the modding decisions.

Old threads are archived so you can go through them in the archive forum.

K-9

deepesthole wrote: »

Nobody in this thread has complained about the height of the threshold. It's that it isn't a fixed height.

Somebody did, I wouldn't have replied with that otherwise.

Different forums have different standards or criteria, politics cafe vs. politics general as an example, both forums cater for different styles of posting.

MadDog76

K-9 wrote: »

And 7/25 cases that went to DRP were ruled on favourably to the poster. I'm surprised it is as high as 28% going on the concerns raised in your posts. Much higher than that and I'd be asking serious questions about the modding decisions.

Old threads are archived so you can go through them in the archive forum.

I'm surprised it's as high as 28% myself .......... you'll have to forgive me because I'm also a little doubtful as I've gone through the Archives and I can't seem to find them??

Maybe there are 7 clear-cut examples of Beasty over-ruling Mods bans/infractions in 2015 in DRP but their existence seems to be alluding both of us as neither of us have been able to produce this evidence which would elevate your claims to actual fact and prove my claims to be nothing more than just ........ "claims".

MadDog76

K-9 wrote: »

Somebody did, I wouldn't have replied with that otherwise.

Different forums have different standards or criteria, politics cafe vs. politics general as an example, both forums cater for different styles of posting.

The Thresholds are not even clear in some threads never mind Forums .......... I've often read a post and thought "He's in for a warning and maybe even a ban with that post!" ......... then nothing happens?
In the same thread I could see another post with a Red Flag beside it and I'm left confused wondering "Why?" ........... it seems to depend on the Mod who reads it and the Poster who posted it ......... it's just a bit vague and unclear to be honest.

K-9

Ah here, I don't mind a good ould Conspiracy Theory now and again, but questioning the integrity of the stats collated by Beasty...

As the great Lance Armstrong said; "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof".

Any mod providing stats maybe biased and making "claims" so it would be better if you do the research, otherwise it risks being dismissed as just a "claim".

deepesthole

K-9 wrote: »

Ah here, I don't mind a good ould Conspiracy Theory now and again, but questioning the integrity of the stats collated by Beasty...

As the great Lance Armstrong said; "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof".

Any mod providing stats maybe biased and making "claims" so it would be better if you do the research, otherwise it risks being dismissed as just a "claim".

Why are you insistent a completely unreferenced claim from a mod is is a "stat" but the same from a non-mod is a "conspiracy theory"?
That sounds a bit biased there itself, no?

MadDog76

K-9 wrote: »

Ah here, I don't mind a good ould Conspiracy Theory now and again, but questioning the integrity of the stats collated by Beasty...

As the great Lance Armstrong said; "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof".

Any mod providing stats maybe biased and making "claims" so it would be better if you do the research, otherwise it risks being dismissed as just a "claim".

I'm not saying Beasty's examples aren't accurate but until I see them for myself I can't be sure ......... I've looked for them and I can't find them?

If you, Beasty or anybody else could provide links to Beasty's examples then that'll go a long way to proving Mods claims on here are actually factual statements .......... Mods', Beasty's or otherwise, integrity are no more, or less, valuable than mine or any other "ordinary" Posters on here.

There's a lot of Mods contributing to this thread, surely one of you can find and provide links if such examples do exist?

K-9

MadDog76 wrote: »

I'm not saying Beasty's examples aren't accurate but until I see them for myself I can't be sure ......... I've looked for them and I can't find them?

If you, Beasty or anybody else could provide links to Beasty's examples then that'll go a long way to proving Mods claims on here are actually factual statements .......... Mods', Beasty's or otherwise, integrity are no more, or less, valuable than mine or any other "ordinary" Posters on here.

There's a lot of Mods contributing to this thread, surely one of you can find and provide links if such examples do exist?

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

There's 77 pages in the archive there, I'm on the mobile site. It would be preferable that you do a sample because that would be unbiased from your viewpoint. Individual cases can't be discussed but there's plenty of information and data there for you to browse. I'm not seeing a reason to be reluctant to do so.

Beasty

OK MadDog let me throw some more "informed comment" your way. Just to add I've not only looked at most dispute threads over the years, but I've actually dealt with over 10% of them.

What I find is the mods on this site actually do a very good job, which is part of the reason a relatively small number of cards and bans get overturned in DRP.

However you only see a small part of the overall dispute process within the Dispute Resolution Forum. In many cases agreement is reached between mod and user before it goes near the DRP. To illustrate this we have a thread in the mods forum where mods post to request cards (red or yellow) be overturned. Since the DRP started that thread has had getting on for 1,000 requests made by mods for cards to be overturned. That is on top of any cards overturned directly by Admins.

Bans are different as mods can overturn or lift them without Admin input. There have probably been many hundreds of bans and cards overturned that never hit that thread. In total there have been just over 1,500 dispute threads and I would suggest as many disputes have been resolved by mods and Admins agreeing to overturn the cards and bans directly as have been formally appealed.

Again using myself as an example, I have 20 posts in that infraction reversal thread. I have probably overturned another 20+ bans that I have issued (ie outside the DRP process). Virtually all of that will be in the Cycling forum (and I've probably had less than a handful of my own actions challenged in the DRP).

None of this is suggesting there is a fundamental problem with the disputes process. As many get overturned behind the scenes as get challenged within the DRP. Many more get accepted by users following discussion with the mod (I'm not going to trawl through all 5,000+ PMs in my Inbox, but I have certainly discussed a hell of a lot more than the 40+ actions referred to above with users)