Collecting feedback on the Dispute Resolution Process

Beasty

looksee wrote: »

One suggestion might be to mark resolved threads as Decision Upheld or Overturned so that it can be seen that some appeals by posters are successful.

And how would you mark those that are neither upheld or overturned? On some occasions a penalty may be reduced and in others increased. Sometimes conditions over future conduct are imposed. I've already covered this earlier in the thread but in my view "resolved" is perfectly adequate and, more importantly, accurate.

K-9

You used a word that nails it looksee, opinion. I think that is what Beasty means when he said he doesn't fear a DRP thread on a modding decision, I don't fear it either, a fair few mods out of 5/600 do though.

What I mean about not fearing it is;
I'm comfortable enough with my decisions with 5 or 6 years of modding behind me. Things have changed for the better for users in that time, we use friendly on thread warnings, pm's, stricter on thread warnings, thread bans and yellows as slaps on the wrists for posters. We really, really do not want to be banning users if possible.

That's great for users but also us mods. If a user goes to DRP I can be confident that there's an audit trail there to back up my decision.

That doesn't mean I'm necessarily right though, just my opinion had merit. If a C-mod decidea maybe you could have handled it a different way, that's all good. I'm still picking up new ways of dealing with things still. I pm'd a user and worked out a thread ban just yesterday, I'd prefer that worked than having to ban somebody.

So that's why I don't fear DRP, I don't look at it from us vs. them, whether that be a user, mod or C-Mod.

One thing that is frustrating as a mod is the "I'm not going to DRP because bias" or pointless exercise stuff. There isn't a lot we can work on when somebody says that, though I'd still try and work something out if possible.

With the help of Beasty we've showed it isn't pointless and a not insignificant (certainly not an amount that can be dismissed) amount do get rescinded by mods or C-Mod's.

That's good, because I think maddog for one was skeptical of the process completely, but now sees it can work for posters.

That doesn't mean it can't be improved or stream lined, but it does show a decent case will be heard, and that is what is important.

Beasty

MadDog76 wrote: »

Of course certain Forums will require a different Mod approach than others but I don't think it's too much to ask for a bit more consistency within the individual Forums themselves, ie. a Poster may post a close-to-the-bone post in After Hours (for example) which will be accepted, then another Poster may post a similarly close-to-the-bone post the following day in After Hours believing that it's fine as the other post was acceptable only to find him/herself infracted/banned because the Mod on duty that day "says so!".
It leaves Posters unsure of where they stand exactly ......... it's ok to "have the craic" ........ sometimes ......... maybe ......... depending?

Some of us make the effort to avoid going "close-to-the-bone", and as a result many posters manage to avoid any cards or bans even with very high post-counts. Anyone who does post stuff they know is "close-to-the-bone" can expect little sympathy from me if it results in a card or ban. Their best way of getting such decisions overturned is by approaching the relevant mod and seeking clemency. The fact a poster believes another poster was not actioned for something similar may be irrelevant, and appeals will deal with the specific circumstances leading to a mod's action and not other actions (or indeed inaction) within the forum or elsewhere on the site. In addition it's possible that other similar incidents have not come to the attention of local mods. We are generally talking shades of grey and a regular user may be unaware of other factors that may have influenced a particular mod to act in a particular way at a particular time.

Mods, CMods, and Admins all make judgements. If it comes to the DRP and in my view that judgement was reasonable in the context of site and forum rules, as I have already alluded to earlier in this thread, I will typically uphold the mod action. The onus in this process is for the appellant to show the mod action was unreasonable.

Ultimately we are all responsible for what we post here and ensuring it is within site and forum rules. If we fail to do that we rightly face the consequences which may be in one of a number of forms including a quiet word via PM, an in-thread warning, a card, or a ban. Only those final two remain on a user's site record and that is why the DRP process was introduced, giving users a formal way of getting those decisions reviewed by someone other than the acting mod. There are still ways other actions can be challenged in an informal way, including speaking to the mod directly, escalating it to a CMod or starting a thread in the Help Desk.

MadDog76

looksee wrote: »

When Cmods and Admins agree with a decision it does not mean they are 'siding' with the mod, they have considered it and ultimately accepted that the mod got it right. Yes, it is a matter of opinion, it has to be. When the Cmods and Admins agree with a decision or, indeed, overturn it, that has to be the end of it, the buck stops with the admins.

As you said, this is about the transparency and fairness of the process of dispute resolution, which goes way beyond the detail of a particular incident; do you have suggestions on how to improve that transparency and fairness?

From what I've seen in DRP, the Uphelds versus the Overturns are unusually disproportionate ........ it just seems highly unlikely, statistically speaking, that the success rate for appeals in DRP would be so low without bias IMO.

I think the transparency issue could be improved by giving all three/four (appellant, Cmod/Admin and Mod) parties involved access to all communications during the process.
It seems unfair to me that the Cmod/Admin involved in the appeal is getting the Mod in question's "story" without the appellant being able to see, or know, what exactly is being said, ie. it's hard to defend your case if you're not seeing all of the evidence.
Likewise, it's also unfair that the Mod who's actions are being questioned cannot contribute to the DRP thread without being invited to do so ......... all parties should be allowed see all PM's as well as being allowed to post in the thread itself.

The fairness aspect could do with improvement also I feel ......... I would like to see an independent opinion, in the form of an "ordinary" Poster, being allowed review the case alongside the Admin if it gets to that stage. If both the "ordinary" Poster agree on the final decision then the thread could be marked Upheld/Over-turned ......... if the "ordinary" Poster and Admin disagree on the final decision then the Admins decision would be implemented with a "(Questionable)" added to Upheld/Over-turned.
And, like "ordinary" Posters, Mods would have a record sheet which could be used to help sway a decision one way or the other .......... what I mean by that is, like "ordinary" Posters record (how many warnings/infractions/bans etc. they have racked up) is used against them then Mods too could have a record ......... how many of this particular Mods infractions/bans ended up as Questionable or Over-turned in DRP?
This may make the Mods think twice before imposing a ban rather than imposing one in the heat of the moment then digging their heels in ......... or "chancing their arms" with a questionable ban and seeing how it plays out.

MadDog76

K-9 wrote: »

You used a word that nails it looksee, opinion. I think that is what Beasty means when he said he doesn't fear a DRP thread on a modding decision, I don't fear it either, a fair few mods out of 5/600 do though.

What I mean about not fearing it is;
I'm comfortable enough with my decisions with 5 or 6 years of modding behind me. Things have changed for the better for users in that time, we use friendly on thread warnings, pm's, stricter on thread warnings, thread bans and yellows as slaps on the wrists for posters. We really, really do not want to be banning users if possible.

That's great for users but also us mods. If a user goes to DRP I can be confident that there's an audit trail there to back up my decision.

That doesn't mean I'm necessarily right though, just my opinion had merit. If a C-mod decidea maybe you could have handled it a different way, that's all good. I'm still picking up new ways of dealing with things still. I pm'd a user and worked out a thread ban just yesterday, I'd prefer that worked than having to ban somebody.

So that's why I don't fear DRP, I don't look at it from us vs. them, whether that be a user, mod or C-Mod.

One thing that is frustrating as a mod is the "I'm not going to DRP because bias" or pointless exercise stuff. There isn't a lot we can work on when somebody says that, though I'd still try and work something out if possible.

With the help of Beasty we've showed it isn't pointless and a not insignificant (certainly not an amount that can be dismissed) amount do get rescinded by mods or C-Mod's.

That's good, because I think maddog for one was skeptical of the process completely, but now sees it can work for posters.

That doesn't mean it can't be improved or stream lined, but it does show a decent case will be heard, and that is what is important.

I'd agree with your post for the most part ......... I do think the DRP needs a lot of improvement before I would say it works well to be honest and I think improvements could, in time, eradicate the "DRP bias" attitude once those improvements are seen to be working fairly.

MadDog76

Beasty wrote: »

Some of us make the effort to avoid going "close-to-the-bone", and as a result many posters manage to avoid any cards or bans even with very high post-counts. Anyone who does post stuff they know is "close-to-the-bone" can expect little sympathy from me if it results in a card or ban. Their best way of getting such decisions overturned is by approaching the relevant mod and seeking clemency. The fact a poster believes another poster was not actioned for something similar may be irrelevant, and appeals will deal with the specific circumstances leading to a mod's action and not other actions (or indeed inaction) within the forum or elsewhere on the site. In addition it's possible that other similar incidents have not come to the attention of local mods. We are generally talking shades of grey and a regular user may be unaware of other factors that may have influenced a particular mod to act in a particular way at a particular time.

I think you missed my point Beasty ........... what may be considered a "close-to-the-bone" post today will be seen as a perfectly acceptable post tomorrow by another Poster because of the lack of action (even after said post is Reported) by the Mods .......... it can then come as a bit of a "huh??", speaking as a Poster, when you are infracted/banned for posting in a similar style ............ it creates confusion which could be avoided by the Mods being more consistent with their actions.

Beasty

MadDog76 wrote: »

From what I've seen in DRP, the Uphelds versus the Overturns are unusually disproportionate ........ it just seems highly unlikely, statistically speaking, that the success rate for appeals in DRP would be so low without bias IMO.

I disagree completely with this assertion. If you wish to start claiming some stats support your view, your assumptions need to be properly laid out. The only way you can make the assertion above is by assuming that, somewhat absurdly, those appeals that come to the DRP are somehow "balanced" between those that should be overturned and those that should be upheld. That is clearly not the case. Actually if you did spend some time reading the DRP archive I think you will find a very large proportion involve quite clear forum or site rule breaches. Obviously they cannot be overturned simply to get to some "quota" to suit you.

As I've mentioned twice already, the onus is on the appellant to show the penalty was unreasonable. If they cannot their appeal will in all likelihood fail. What the stats actually show, in my own view, is what a good job the mods are generally doing in getting their decisions right, and certainly very few are shown to be "unreasonable"

Beasty

MadDog76 wrote: »

I think you missed my point Beasty ........... what may be considered a "close-to-the-bone" post today will be seen as a perfectly acceptable post tomorrow by another Poster because of the lack of action (even after said post is Reported) by the Mods .......... it can then come as a bit of a "huh??", speaking as a Poster, when you are infracted/banned for posting in a similar style ............ it creates confusion which could be avoided by the Mods being more consistent with their actions.

The site works on the back of a lot of time and effort put in by its mods, CMods and Admins. Processes are in place to deal with complaints, without those volunteers having to go searching out problems.

If you are reporting stuff that is not actioned while you think other similar stuff is getting actioned, speak to a local mod about it if the apparent lack of consistency concerns you. If you are not satisfied with the outcome, contact a CMod. If still not satisfied, start a thread in Help Desk. Either you will at some stage get an explanation you are satisfied with, or get the opportunity to fully air your grievance.

Spear

Getting back to DRP itself....

There's a provision that if anyone abuses the DRP process, the ban could be extended.

Currenly it's rarely enforced however.

Are people happy with this rules existence?

Should it be removed since it's rarely enforced?

Should it be enforced more to discourage abusers?

Or could it have a chilling effect on anyone who would otherwise contest something?

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

MadDog76

Spear wrote: »

Getting back to DRP itself....

There's a provision that if anyone abuses the DRP process, the ban could be extended.

Currenly it's rarely enforced however.

Are people happy with this rules existence?

Should it be removed since it's rarely enforced?

Should it be enforced more to discourage abusers?

Or could it have a chilling effect on anyone who would otherwise contest something?

That rule would certainly scare me off using DRP, to be honest, no matter how valid I feel my appeal is .......... coupled with the fact that, as I see it, the success rate is so low in DRP then also facing an increased punishment if/when the appeal is over-turned would absolutely deter genuine appellants from going to DRP.

MadDog76

Beasty wrote: »

I disagree completely with this assertion. If you wish to start claiming some stats support your view, your assumptions need to be properly laid out. The only way you can make the assertion above is by assuming that, somewhat absurdly, those appeals that come to the DRP are somehow "balanced" between those that should be overturned and those that should be upheld. That is clearly not the case. Actually if you did spend some time reading the DRP archive I think you will find a very large proportion involve quite clear forum or site rule breaches. Obviously they cannot be overturned simply to get to some "quota" to suit you.

As I've mentioned twice already, the onus is on the appellant to show the penalty was unreasonable. If they cannot their appeal will in all likelihood fail. What the stats actually show, in my own view, is what a good job the mods are generally doing in getting their decisions right, and certainly very few are shown to be "unreasonable"

Simply basing my view from your own record in DRP in 2015, ie. only four successful appeals and not even one of your Upheld decisions over-turned by an Admin ............. we'll just have to agree to disagree on this one I'm afraid.

As for the Mods getting it right most of the time .......... hmmmmm ........ that's another topic on it's own but suffice to say we'll also have to agree to disagree on that one too.

MadDog76

Beasty wrote: »

The site works on the back of a lot of time and effort put in by its mods, CMods and Admins. Processes are in place to deal with complaints, without those volunteers having to go searching out problems.

If you are reporting stuff that is not actioned while you think other similar stuff is getting actioned, speak to a local mod about it if the apparent lack of consistency concerns you. If you are not satisfied with the outcome, contact a CMod. If still not satisfied, start a thread in Help Desk. Either you will at some stage get an explanation you are satisfied with, or get the opportunity to fully air your grievance.

I have actually taken your recommended approach in the past, as have other Posters I've spoken to, but the general response was "Other posters/posts are not your concern" ......... in effect "Mind your own business!".

But I don't want to go too deep into that issue here as it's off-topic.

Spear

MadDog76 wrote: »

That rule would certainly scare me off using DRP, to be honest, no matter how valid I feel my appeal is .......... coupled with the fact that, as I see it, the success rate is so low in DRP then also facing an increased punishment if/when the appeal is over-turned would absolutely deter genuine appellants from going to DRP.

The rule only applies to threads that are abusive in nature, not those who don't get overturned.

oscarBravo

MadDog76 wrote: »

Simply basing my view from your own record in DRP in 2015, ie. only four successful appeals and not even one of your Upheld decisions over-turned by an Admin ............. we'll just have to agree to disagree on this one I'm afraid.

As for the Mods getting it right most of the time .......... hmmmmm ........ that's another topic on it's own but suffice to say we'll also have to agree to disagree on that one too.

You seem to be consistently arguing from the premise that there should be as many successful as unsuccessful appeals. This premise seems to be based in turn on the premise that, statistically, a moderator decision is as likely to be incorrect as correct.

Both premises seem fundamentally flawed to me. If moderators were getting half their decisions wrong, they wouldn't be performing their role particularly well.

If someone is appealing a moderator decision, it's because they disagree with it. (Well, duh.) In many cases, this disagreement stems from the belief that the action for which they received a sanction was, in fact, acceptable, when the moderator thought that it was not. So far, so unsurprising.

Different people have different views as to what should be acceptable on this site. The difference between the moderator and the appellant is that the moderator is someone who has taken on the responsibility of upholding the site's ethos. That means that the moderator's view of what's acceptable is much more likely to align with the view of the cmods and admins, because the responsibility is one we all share.

K-9

Indeed. Take the stats we do have, 7/25 cases got over turned by the mod or C-Mod, not an insignificant amount at all.

Take away the 3 mod cases and 4/22 got overturned by a mod, but how many of those 22 cases were slam dunk cases?

Ignoring the 3 cases were mods overturned cards but counting say 5 or 6 clear cut cases is skewing the sample with a bias against mods, which is no good either.

Beasty

K-9 wrote: »

Indeed. Take the stats we do have, 7/25 cases got over turned by the mod or C-Mod, not an insignificant amount at all.

Take away the 3 mod cases and 4/22 got overturned by a mod, but how many of those 22 cases were slam dunk cases?

Ignoring the 3 cases were mods overturned cards but counting say 5 or 6 clear cut cases is skewing the sample with a bias against mods, which is no good either.

It's actually 18, rather than 22 we are talking about (25-7)

I've had a quick look through those 18 again. As I've already mentioned 2 were sitebanned before the process was concluded. Another 3 have since been sitebanned, and one closed their account then started a number of new accounts which were subsequently sitebanned

Again without going into details, of those 18, I think it is reasonable to say those 6 now sitebanned were pretty much out and out troublemakers. That leaves 12. Of those I spent some time trying to persuade one user to follow the correct process. They failed to do so, and I had no option but to uphold the card as the user was basically wasting my time. However the user then did speak to the mod and the mod overturned the card, so the number overturned by mod or CMod actually increases from 7 to 8, and the number we are left with arguably beyond the "slam-dunks" (although none were treated as such within the DRP - just subsequent events arguably established the trolling nature of those individuals) reduces to 11.

Of course, all this is simply my own experience and I'm certainly not claiming these stats are representative of other CMods or categories. However as the thread has resulted in questions over the information I have posted I think it reasonable to continue to highlight a bit more background to those stats

K-9

Sorry, bloody auto correct. 3 cases mods overturned decisions, 4 the C-mod did. Take away the 3 mod cases, 4/22?

But as your analysis shows, that doesn't give a true picture either. True, no case is a slam dunk, especially if we are just looking at numbers with no analysis at all, but to be consistent then, you can't dismiss the 3 cases that mods overturned!

Beasty

Spear wrote: »

Getting back to DRP itself....

There's a provision that if anyone abuses the DRP process, the ban could be extended.

Currenly it's rarely enforced however.

Are people happy with this rules existence?

Should it be removed since it's rarely enforced?

Should it be enforced more to discourage abusers?

Or could it have a chilling effect on anyone who would otherwise contest something?

I would definitely like to see this rule enforced

Currently what might happen is an Admin steps in, instructs a user to change their tone, perhaps closing the thread and inviting them to start a new one. There really is little disincentive to certain posters posting some pretty harsh comments about mods who then do not get the chance to defend themselves. In my view we should discourage such behaviour by imposing "proper" penalties.

WarZ

Users should be allowed to engage. Boards.ie should be more open to democracy and accountability. Public decisions should have to be defended from the public. Is this a private site or a dictatorship?

The average poster stands little chance against the powerful cmods and admins in DRP. It's akin to a suspect being attacked from a team of prosecutors without having a defence team assigned to them. The scales of justice weigh heavily in favour of the elite of boards. However without the average user posting here regularly their power is useless. I don't think the status quo is acceptable anymore

looksee

WarZ wrote: »

Users should be allowed to engage. Boards.ie should be more open to democracy and accountability. Public decisions should have to be defended from the public. Is this a private site or a dictatorship?

The average poster stands little chance against the powerful cmods and admins in DRP. It's akin to a suspect being attacked from a team of prosecutors without having a defence team assigned to them. The scales of justice weigh heavily in favour of the elite of boards. However without the average user posting here regularly their power is useless. I don't think the status quo is acceptable anymore

But it is not the average poster that is at issue. The average poster makes good, sound, entertaining, productive posts, it is just the few who are out to do damage to the posting ethos of the site. Occasionally someone innocent of malicious or damaging intention gets caught in the net, but they are the ones that are set loose with either a mild warning or an apology.

That nonsense about 'the elite of boards' means nothing. I am a mod, but there is nothing elite about me. I can make suggestions, and clean up messes, and keep people steered in the right direction but there is nothing elite about me, I post as a regular poster, though if anything I could argue that I am subject to more rules and expectations than non-mod posters.

And yes, since you ask, boards is a dictatorship. A very benign dictatorship, but still. I have no problem with that, it works, it suits the vast majority of people and there is no point or need for a cumbersome administration maintaining a 'democracy'.

When a time comes that there is no choice but to communicate with other people through Boards, or when you pay fees/taxes for its maintenance and administration then you can demand more rights. In the meantime there is the (given) right of opinion and appeal - which can be removed if abused, and the right to be able to post within the rules, which are there for everyone's comfort and are in the vast majority of cases, not disputed.

The Hill Billy

MadDog76 wrote: »

I'm sure your reasons for allowing Mods to reverse their decisions before you do it for them are commendable but I think your politeness to Mods "behind the scenes" could/can, unintentionally from your point of view, promote abuse of the power to dish out bans/infractions, ie. some Mods may be adapting an attitude of "Sure I can ban/infract whoever I like" for less than deserving reasons knowing that a Cmod in DRP will, most likely, uphold the decision or, at worst, give the Mod the opportunity to reverse the decision him/herself thus saving them from any public embarrassment or accusations of being a "bad" Mod.

This practice in the DRP may be perceived as protecting substandard Mods whilst maintaining the status quo ....... in short, let's just keep the wheels turning as fast as possible so nobody notices that the wagon is broken.

Rest assured that if there is a problem with incorrect cards/bans being dished out or substandard modding in general - when this comes to the attention of CMods & Admins it is dealt with fairly sharpish. It is not in the site's interests to have Mods causing upset in any forum & p***ing off boards members.

bruno1x

looksee wrote: »

But it is not the average poster that is at issue. The average poster makes good, sound, entertaining, productive posts, it is just the few who are out to do damage to the posting ethos of the site.
.

You are correct, the average poster is not the problem, its bias mods.
What is the ethos of each mod?
Should they not have to declare if they are left wing or right wing?
They like Man Utd and not Arsenal?
Politically correct to the extreme?
Simple things get a infraction all because the Mod don't agree with the post or takes offence, if the posters knew the mods position before they would know how to avoid the wrath of the mod on matters.
You can't say this does not happen because it does.
I suppose mods are in supposed to be neutral, but we all can see thats not the reality.
How do you fix it?
Obviously the mod of a forum has a interest in that subject so get the mod to declare their personal stance on the forums they mod, poster will then know where they stand and how to avoid their wrath, or pay completely neutral mods to do the job.

Chips Lovell

Mods are expected to be impartial and mod according to the charter/overall Boards guidelines regardless of their personal views.

If a Liverpool supporting mod was seen carding Arsenal supporters and ignoring offences by Liverpool supporters, they wouldn't be long in the job.

KomradeBishop

Technically Boards is a dictatorship - but Boards knows, that if it acted like one, it would have no posters. That's part of why Feedback and DRP exist in the first place: Boards has to show it's accountable to its posters. In practice it's not a dictatorship.


Anyway, what does Boards make of its wide reputation for overzealous moderating?

This isn't a fictional thing either, and it's not something that can be dismissed as "anyone who complains like that, probably got themselves banned, and therefore deserved it" - as that would be fallacious/self-serving reasoning - Boards does actually have this kind of a rep, and you can see it in places like e.g. Reddit.

There are even prominent academics who have had this opinion/experience - like when Brian Lucey got banned.

If this kind of a rep exists, and is as widespread as it is, it's probably there for a good reason - so is something worth paying attention to and trying to rectify.

K-9

Some people prefer Reddit, politics.ie or wherever, plenty obviously like boards, it's just personal preference really, I don't get the hatred at all, or why somebody would bother re-reging over and over again, but such is life!

Btw, that's quite complimentary on us compared to usual!

Dav

Brian Lucy was banned for posting links to his blog and absolutely refused to acknowledge that no one here wanted nor asked for it and therefore it was spam. The people who want to bad mouth us are the people who have reason to bad mouth us and that's almost always because they've run into our rules and have decided that they are outraged that they're not allowed do what they like on this particular corner of the internet. It's not like we're running some sort of brutalist totalitarian state over here, we simply ask you to be civil and to not break the law - it's not really a big ask is it? People seem to think they have some sort of need to be horrible to one another and humanity in general on the internet, I'm damned if I can figure out why, but we're not going to allow it.

KomradeBishop

K-9 wrote: »

Some people prefer Reddit, politics.ie or wherever, plenty obviously like boards, it's just personal preference really, I don't get the hatred at all, or why somebody would bother re-reging over and over again, but such is life!

Btw, that's quite complimentary on us compared to usual!

You're characterizing it as 'hatred' and are making a conflation with serial re-regs - i.e. tarring those who criticise Boards in the link I provide, as being overly emotional, or otherwise unhinged as serial re-regs - which is very much like the "anyone who complains like that, probably got themselves banned, and therefore deserved it" fallacious/self-serving reasoning I gave an example of.

If people are complaining about overzealous modding, that's not down to a 'personal preference' either - it's a specific criticism.

Overall, comes across as a dismissal.

Chips Lovell

Put it this way, Boards isn't to their taste. And that's fine. People have different preferences on how how tightly or loosely moderated discussion should be. You can't be all things to all people.

Someone who posts on Boards may have little interest in using Twitter or Politics.ie for example and there probably isn't much either of the latter could do to change that without annoying their current core user base.

KomradeBishop

Dav wrote: »

Brian Lucy was banned for posting links to his blog and absolutely refused to acknowledge that no one here wanted nor asked for it and therefore it was spam. The people who want to bad mouth us are the people who have reason to bad mouth us and that's almost always because they've run into our rules and have decided that they are outraged that they're not allowed do what they like on this particular corner of the internet. It's not like we're running some sort of brutalist totalitarian state over here, we simply ask you to be civil and to not break the law - it's not really a big ask is it? People seem to think they have some sort of need to be horrible to one another and humanity in general on the internet, I'm damned if I can figure out why, but we're not going to allow it.

The bolded bit is the same type of dismissal I highlighted in my previous two posts - it is automatically discarding criticism, simply because people have run into the rules - which is fallacious/self-serving reasoning, as it is the impression of overzealous moderating that is being criticised by these people (an impression people are only likely to gather, having run into that problem).

If people complain of overzealous modding, and react negatively to it, perhaps they feel they have been dealt with in a disrespectful - bordering on, though maybe not crossing, uncivil - way?

Brian's links were marked as spam, due to the manner in which he posted them - but they generated worthwhile discussion, and were wanted. The 'ban first, let poster sort it out later' approach to things like this, will certainly rile a lot of people - and would not feel very respectful - so I can see how it will generate a strong reaction from many people, who would otherwise not stray from the rules (and would have valuable contributions to provide) with a lighter approach to modding.