Collecting feedback on the Dispute Resolution Process

weisses

As long as fixed definitions of sexism/ racism are treated differently depending which forum you post you will see laughable outcomes

I will raise a different feedback thread on it ... After the outcome of the ongoing dispute regarding racism

Canadel

Second Toughest in_the Freshers wrote: »

I've been an avid reader of the Dispute Resolution forum for the last two years, and in all that time I only remember twice reading a post from a c-mod saying something along the lines of: 'looking at this from the posters point of view, as is my role...'

Everything is from the mods' perspective, or the perspective of the ultra sensitive poster who finds a post offensive and calls the mod police. Your only option then is to attempt to explain yourself in a pm which can take considerable effort. Too many mods are mods more than they are posters. Mod warnings, and often posts, you will notice nearly always receive thanks from other mods. They really are like an internet police along with the ridiculous font for their usernames, almost like a uniform. Just in case you forget! Freeze, poster!

It's funny because I am absolutely in favour of forum moderation, to stamp out things like personal abuse, trolling, spamming, off topic threads and so on. But that seems to be only a small part of the moderation which is of myopic proportions on boards. All too often moderation on boards involves instantaneous warnings without reason or a well thought out explanation, shaping of discussion to microscopic levels, and an outright reluctance to admit mistakes in moderation. Prepare for this post to be moderated.

Second Toughest in_the Freshers

may as well be hung for a holocaust as a lamb...

I read this in a post by a former mod last night:

Moderation is really a fancy name for forum janitor or referee. You cleaned up the crud on the threads and separated the bold kids who couldn't behave and fought with each other.

and thats the way it should be.

But all too often, Mods see themselves as our lords and masters, expecting and demanding a level of deference, at every stage of the 'Dispute Resolution' process, that just isn't justified, and if it isn't provided the 'resolution' is only going to end one way. It should be enough to just be civil, **** it, if the ban was wrong you shouldn't even have to be civil, but manners cost nothing, right?



Going back to the OP, I think Dispute Resolution is a great thing to have, and fair play. But the foundation of warnings/ infractions that it's built on isn't sound. I believe mods should act more as janitors / caretakers, and as such should have absolute power to delete posts as they see fit.

(I seem to remember a big discussion about this taking place behind closed doors, but then it got dropped, forgot about, as the poster who raised the issue was site banned. And that goes back to a point I made earlier, theres plenty of feedback on Dispute Resolution, constructive feedback, on 'resolved' threads, that nobody takes any notice of.)

But when a warning (and it's 'just a warning, nothing to worry about') can be brought up 5 or ten years later, and used as a reason to ban someone, I think theres something wrong.


Theres only so many times you can say "It's not us, it's you" before you start to think, "maybe...



or,

Second Toughest in_the Freshers wrote: »

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

The Hill Billy

And we'll wrap it up now folks to allow the Dispute Resolution forum mods take stock of the feedback given so far.

tHB