Collecting feedback on the Dispute Resolution Process

K-9

KomradeBishop wrote: »

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.

Sorry Kb, you are just after dismissing the first line or 2 of the post you respobded to! I said people prefer different sites due to personal preference, that isn't dismissive.

Site layout seems a big reason, some prefer reddit, some here. Some prefer less moderation.

Second Toughest in_the Freshers

KomradeBishop wrote: »

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?

That's why I think this thread is doomed to failure, and I haven't really commented on it. Plenty of constructive feedback on 'resolved' DR threads that just gets ignored, 'as you don't want to appeal to Admin I'm marking this as resolved' or an admin comes in 'infraction upheld' and thread locked.

K-9 wrote: »

Site layout seems a big reason, some prefer reddit, some here. Some prefer less moderation.

also, i don't really see what site layout has to do with moderation

deepesthole

The Hill Billy wrote: »

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.

When was a mod last removed because they were biased?

Second Toughest in_the Freshers

I think there was one not too long ago, (yep, searching "no longer a mod" brings up one about two and a half months ago), but I couldn't say when the last before that was

oscarBravo

KomradeBishop wrote: »

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?

Presumably they do, indeed, feel that way. I'm not sure why that necessarily means the site should automatically change to suit them.

I know people out here in the real world who have a problem with me personally. I disagree with their reasons for having a problem with me, and as such I see no reason to change who am in order to address the problem that they have.

I'm sure they see me as arrogant and dismissive. I can't help that.

recylingbin

oscarBravo wrote: »

Presumably they do, indeed, feel that way. I'm not sure why that necessarily means the site should automatically change to suit them.

I know people out here in the real world who have a problem with me personally. I disagree with their reasons for having a problem with me, and as such I see no reason to change who am in order to address the problem that they have.

I'm sure they see me as arrogant and dismissive. I can't help that.

So you would try to bend their personality to yours?

oscarBravo

recylingbin wrote: »

So you would try to bend their personality to yours?

I have no idea where you got that from.

KomradeBishop

oscarBravo wrote: »

Presumably they do, indeed, feel that way. I'm not sure why that necessarily means the site should automatically change to suit them.

I know people out here in the real world who have a problem with me personally. I disagree with their reasons for having a problem with me, and as such I see no reason to change who am in order to address the problem that they have.

I'm sure they see me as arrogant and dismissive. I can't help that.

It's a matter of double standards - the site doling out mod action to posters, in a way that can seem disproportionate to the point of being disrespectful/uncivil - and then expecting the actioned poster to be perfectly respectful/civil in response:
It's mods unintentionally setting the stage for some posters to (understandably but regretfully) react in an outraged way, where - when the outraged response happens - that's then used to justify escalating action against the poster and writing them off.

I'm not debating what points of the above are justified or not (I can see both sides point of view in a situation like that): I'm pointing out a situation whose occurrence is completely predictable and avoidable among at least some amount of posters, and which could be avoided by having a lighter touch to moderation in many situations.

For example, not outright banning posters who make a post looking like spam, if e.g. they look like a normal poster (have some amount of normal posts) - could just post a mod note in the thread or something.


More than a few times, I've PM'd mods on forums, when I'm unsure of something, just to ask "is posting this ok?" - I've never had the reverse situation of a mod PM'ing me, just on a personal level, saying "Hey - thanks for the post/thread there, but it doesn't fit the ethos of this forum, would you like me to move it to 'x' instead?" - instead usually the first thing you receive is a pissed-off-bold-font mod message, usually the first in a confrontational/painful exchange, and sometimes with a warning attached.

It's funny - the last time this happened, both of the above occurred: I asked "is posting this ok?" from one mod, who was very polite/thankful and even posted up the thread for me - so I was being pretty careful - and then later on in the same thread, despite how careful I was being, I had to deal with an out-of-the-blue warning from another mod, which I later got reversed (was all resolved in the end, so no issue with any of the mods involved - it's just an example of the kind of issue I'm talking about).

KomradeBishop

Anyway sorry, I'll leave it there on that, as that isn't about DRP.

K-9

The politics cafe would use that approach Kb, pm's, on thread warnings, cards, a private forum, short bans, C-mod warnings and then lengthier bans, Category bans and the inevitable permaban. Quite the list isn't it? For all I know somebody on reddit or wherever could still be moaning/trolling after all that.

I don't think we could be accused of being dismissive with yourself Kb to give an example.

KomradeBishop

K-9 wrote: »

The politics cafe would use that approach Kb, pm's, on thread warnings, cards, a private forum, short bans, C-mod warnings and then lengthier bans, Category bans and the inevitable permaban. Quite the list isn't it? For all I know somebody on reddit or wherever could still be moaning/trolling after all that.

I don't think we could be accused of being dismissive with yourself Kb to give an example.

Well, the dismissive thing I mentioned was something different, unrelated to mod action - my previous post was more about an example of mod action causing perfectly avoidable problems, and how that and similar stuff, likely is what leads to Boards reputation for overzealous moderating.

I very nearly discussed a few aspects of mods and myself there, relating to DRP and my ban, that I felt were dismissive (though while acknowledging all the time spent on it), but just-about remembered in time, that this would have led to me getting banned from Feedback for breaching the charter.

K-9

Ah yeah, I'm just pointing out we generally do give a fair few warnings before a red card or a ban, the site has moved a long way from even 5 or 6 years ago. Maybe pm's could be used more these days, like on thread warnings and thread bans came in to help posters avoid cards and forum bans.

Those things came in from user and mod feedback so we do listen.

Of course though, it has to be a 2 way street, if somebody doesn't take a blind bit of notice of these things mods use to give poster's a chance, not much we can do.

oscarBravo

K-9 wrote: »

Maybe pm's could be used more these days...

Like any suggestion, there are pros and cons. Pro: posters not getting as upset about being called out in public. Con: less transparency, and less opportunity for others to learn what is and isn't acceptable behaviour.

MadDog76

K-9 wrote: »

Maybe pm's could be used more these days, like on thread warnings and thread bans came in to help posters avoid cards and forum bans.

oscarBravo wrote: »

Like any suggestion, there are pros and cons. Pro: posters not getting as upset about being called out in public. Con: less transparency, and less opportunity for others to learn what is and isn't acceptable behaviour.

I'm all for transparency myself, if and when needed, from both sides of the fence ............ however, a lot of bravado can be taken out of the equation if PM's are used, ie. the Mods and/or Posters don't feel like they're losing respect by being publicly humiliated so more inclined to be reasonable and logical about an issue.

oscarBravo

MadDog76 wrote: »

I'm all for transparency myself, if and when needed, from both sides of the fence ............ however, a lot of bravado can be taken out of the equation if PM's are used, ie. the Mods and/or Posters don't feel like they're losing respect by being publicly humiliated so more inclined to be reasonable and logical about an issue.

Well, yes. But that's just looking at the pros, and ignoring the cons.

Sure: if poster A posts something that crosses a line, the moderator could send them a polite PM. But the public message is that no line was crossed, and other posters feel emboldened to cross the same line. Either the moderator has to constantly send PMs about the line that was crossed (leading to a "how was I supposed to know?" situation), or the moderator can publicly point out where the line is.

I'd venture to suggest that an equally positive outcome could be achieved by posters being less defensive about having their transgressions pointed out to them.

K-9

oscarBravo wrote: »

Like any suggestion, there are pros and cons. Pro: posters not getting as upset about being called out in public. Con: less transparency, and less opportunity for others to learn what is and isn't acceptable behaviour.

You could put a note in the post saying the user was pm'd. It's just another tool to use, the cafe team use it a fair bit. How successful it is depends on the poster though, and when it comes to DRP mods could tell the C-Mod that a user was pm'd.

So user was pm'd 2 weeks ago, 3 on thread warnings, 4 cards leading to a ban. Works well in the cafe because with light touch moderation you've a record if it comes time to say enough is enough.

K-9

That's true Oscar, some people don't want any contact at all from mods, more will take it in the spirit intended though. Reddit does suit some people more than boards.

MadDog76

oscarBravo wrote: »

Well, yes. But that's just looking at the pros, and ignoring the cons.

Sure: if poster A posts something that crosses a line, the moderator could send them a polite PM. But the public message is that no line was crossed, and other posters feel emboldened to cross the same line. Either the moderator has to constantly send PMs about the line that was crossed (leading to a "how was I supposed to know?" situation), or the moderator can publicly point out where the line is.

Well that's the problem we have now, which I pointed out earlier in the thread .......... Poster B looks at Poster A's post and posts in a similar tone only to be then Infracted/Banned leaving Poster B assuming that there is bias in Mod's actions.
I'd agree with K-9 that an on-thread Warning, and a PM to Poster A if necessary, would prevent Poster B from receiving an Infraction/Ban ........ or at least Poster B can't say "Why did Poster A get away with it!!".
This approach would also go a long way to seeing off the "Boards is overly Moderated by power-hungry Nazi Mods!!" attitude that is widespread on, and off, Boards.

oscarBravo wrote: »

I'd venture to suggest that an equally positive outcome could be achieved by posters being less defensive about having their transgressions pointed out to them.

Some Mods can be extremely defensive about their actions being questioned publicly also so PM's could help there too .......... a lot of appeals may never need to go to DRP if PM's were used by both Poster and Mod.

MadDog76

K-9 wrote: »

That's true Oscar, some people don't want any contact at all from mods, more will take it in the spirit intended though. Reddit does suit some people more than boards.

The same is true of some Mods ......... I've PM'd Mods and never received a reply at all ......... I can only assume, in those cases, that the Mod is not interested in engaging in a discussion with a Poster?

K-9

MadDog76 wrote: »

Well that's the problem we have now, which I pointed out earlier in the thread .......... Poster B looks at Poster A's post and posts in a similar tone only to be then Infracted/Banned leaving Poster B assuming that there is bias in Mod's actions.
I'd agree with K-9 that an on-thread Warning, and a PM to Poster A if necessary, would prevent Poster B from receiving an Infraction/Ban ........ or at least Poster B can't say "Why did Poster A get away with it!!".
This approach would also go a long way to seeing off the "Boards is overly Moderated by power-hungry Nazi Mods!!" attitude that is widespread on, and off, Boards.

It doesn't do much with "why did he get away with it" or "Boards is heavily moderated" because, as mentioned earlier by Kb I think, some see a simple friendly, advisory pm as heavy moderation, so some see a pm the same. We'll always have posters like that and nothing mods do or posters suggest will change that. Mods will always be accused of bias, it's part of the job, and reddit or politics.ie still get that! We can't change the human nature some people have.

However what it does do is give the 99.9% of normal users a heads up. Bit like on thread warnings do or thread bans. Thread bans are great to stop a good user going over board on a thread and give them time to cool down.

Speaking of which something like a 24 hour period after a card or ban, before it can go to DRP makes sense. Gives time for a mod to reply to a pm and a cooling off period if a poster is a bit pissed off.

MadDog76

K-9 wrote: »

It doesn't do much with "why did he get away with it" or "Boards is heavily moderated" because, as mentioned earlier by Kb I think, some see a simple friendly, advisory pm as heavy moderation, so some see a pm the same. We'll always have posters like that and nothing mods do or posters suggest will change that. Mods will always be accused of bias, it's part of the job, and reddit or politics.ie still get that! We can't change the human nature some people have.

However what it does do is give the 99.9% of normal users a heads up. Bit like on thread warnings do or thread bans. Thread bans are great to stop a good user going over board on a thread and give them time to cool down.

Speaking of which something like a 24 hour period after a card or ban, before it can go to DRP makes sense. Gives time for a mod to reply to a pm and a cooling off period if a poster is a bit pissed off.

In that case, I'd just ignore the 0.01%.

darced

This post has been deleted.

intheclouds

darced wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Good example. I agree.

This nonsense of "establishing the facts" that always comes off like an interrogation where if the poster doesn't lick up and say things the mod likes, the ban/warning gets upheld. It's pointless. It always appears like a deliberate attempt to make a user publicly grovel.

MadDog76

intheclouds wrote: »

Good example. I agree.

This nonsense of "establishing the facts" that always comes off like an interrogation where if the poster doesn't lick up and say things the mod likes, the ban/warning gets upheld. It's pointless. It always appears like a deliberate attempt to make a user publicly grovel.

Isn't the aggrieved party also a Mod himself though?

recylingbin

intheclouds wrote: »

Good example. I agree.

This nonsense of "establishing the facts" that always comes off like an interrogation where if the poster doesn't lick up and say things the mod likes, the ban/warning gets upheld. It's pointless. It always appears like a deliberate attempt to make a user publicly grovel.

I will.comment on this post if you confirm you have read the charter and swear upon the lives of all you hold dear that you will change your posting style and become another boring poster.

intheclouds

MadDog76 wrote: »

Isn't the aggrieved party also a Mod himself though?

So? The example still holds. Presumably they posted "without mod hat on"?

MadDog76

intheclouds wrote: »

So? The example still holds. Presumably they posted "without mod hat on"?

I agree that it does feel like the Mods enjoy making Posters grovel a bit in the appeals process (particularly in the Prison Forum) and that the DRP tends to favour the Mods original Ban/Infraction of a Poster ......... but to use the recent appeal in DRP as an example was not the best example to use because it debunks the notion that "Mods look after their own".

weisses

intheclouds wrote: »

Good example. I agree.

This nonsense of "establishing the facts" that always comes off like an interrogation where if the poster doesn't lick up and say things the mod likes, the ban/warning gets upheld. It's pointless. It always appears like a deliberate attempt to make a user publicly grovel.

Facts hmm

User is accused of sexism/trolling for making a joke when he said

"bleeding women, can't trust them"

But its okay to say

pickarooney wrote: »

Let's just be honest. It was all grand until women appeared on the internet.

Also jokingly stated of course

Im still confused.. Is sexism forum dependent now ?

looksee

intheclouds wrote: »

Good example. I agree.

This nonsense of "establishing the facts" that always comes off like an interrogation where if the poster doesn't lick up and say things the mod likes, the ban/warning gets upheld. It's pointless. It always appears like a deliberate attempt to make a user publicly grovel.

What would you prefer to 'establishing the facts'? An arbitrary decision depending on the mood of the person trying to sort it? Or if it is just the phrase you don't like, what would you prefer?

On weiss's point, a great deal of work has been put into removing sexism, racism and other bigotry from the site, and it is a great improvement. Many people still do not exactly understand why it matters, but they will have to either figure it out or accept that those days are gone.

At the same time I personally had no problem with either of the phrases used above, I could see the difference between sexism and a joke. We can't have a vote on every decision of that sort though, so it is up to the Cmods and Admins to decide. Their reward is to be abused by both sides for being too strict or not strict enough, sometimes on the same decision.

Of course the problem could be resolved by doing as many sites do, moderation in the background. No questions, no appeal, no face on the decisions. Would that improve the situation?

intheclouds

Way to miss the point.

How is the poster being interrogated as to whether or not they agree with the moderation of a forum "establishing the facts"?

As you seem to have spectacularly missed, I used "establishing the facts" sarcastically, because from what I can see, it is not an establishment of facts, but a demeaning of the poster.