reported post not acted upon

Stheno

KERSPLAT! wrote: »

Ah yeah, we've nothing better to be doing with our lives. Mods put enough time into the site as it is without spending hours responding to reported posts. There's no point in a reporter receiving acknowledgement of a report being opened either, I open loads and don't action them for one reason or another. It could be left another hour or 5 before it's looked at properly.

A complete non runner and the expectation of mods to do this is off the wall.
t.

Agreed , in the politics cafe we can get up to five reported posts in an hour, usually about fifty a day.

It's not practical to expect responses to each one

uck51js9zml2yt

I appreciate that mods give a lot of their time to moderating. I do it on other sites , so know what's involved. We don't have this in place ourselves, but generally everyone does play nice.
But from what I'm seeing there is an attitude of no transparency and that's how we like it.

An automatic acknowledgement of a report at least let's the reporter know , that his effort and time in reporting a post is acknowledged irrespective of the outcome.
Granted individual responses is probably to much but a monthly/ weekly stats report would be a start. Number of posts reported v number actioned. I'm sure an SQL command could be run to pull the information off the forum.

Stheno

Ayla Big Gate wrote: »

An automatic acknowledgement of a report at least let's the reporter know , that his effort and time in reporting a post is acknowledged irrespective of the outcome.
Granted individual responses is probably to much but a monthly/ weekly stats report would be a start. Number of posts reported v number actioned. I'm sure an SQL command could be run to pull the information off the forum.

There is no linkage that I am aware of that would provide such a report, it's not the case that all reported posts are updated with decisions to action or not

KERSPLAT!

Way too many outside influences. If a poster is reported 5 times in a thread I'll most likely take note of the first 4 and action the fifth, if action is required. Stats are already completely skewed due to one single instance. I understand what you're saying, and if possible some sort of implementation of that may work, but right now I'm drawing a blank. There's not a hope it could be done manually, I'm not sure if you've noticed the workload the office is under and to ask volunteers to do so wouldrbe madness and completely rejected I would assume.

Zaph

Ayla Big Gate wrote: »

An automatic acknowledgement of a report at least let's the reporter know , that his effort and time in reporting a post is acknowledged irrespective of the outcome.
Granted individual responses is probably to much but a monthly/ weekly stats report would be a start. Number of posts reported v number actioned. I'm sure an SQL command could be run to pull the information off the forum.

An automated acknowledgement that a reported post has been opened serves no useful purpose because quite a few mods respond to the RP having received an automated e-mail advising them that there is one. So they may not actually open the reported post itself, but will action it based on the e-mail they receive. You would probably also run into problems if yours isn't the first report of a post, as frequently happens.

The other issue is that there's nothing that specifically indicates RPs actioned, so I'm afraid there's no SQL command in the world could pull up information that doesn't exist.

uck51js9zml2yt

KERSPLAT! wrote: »

Way too many outside influences. If a poster is reported 5 times in a thread I'll most likely take note of the first 4 and action the fifth, if action is required. Stats are already completely skewed due to one single instance. I understand what you're saying, and if possible some sort of implementation of that may work, but right now I'm drawing a blank. There's not a hope it could be done manually, I'm not sure if you've noticed the workload the office is under and to ask volunteers to do so wouldrbe madness and completely rejected I would assume.

Glad I'm not mad in suggesting it.
Should be simple enough to do.
Id assume there's a reported column in the database. And also columns for yellow, reds, and bans.
Someone should be able to come up with an SQL command to pull them together and give a total.
I know they're busy in the office but there are a few coding gurus around the site that I'm sure could do it in their coffee break.:)

Chorus_suck

This post has been deleted.

Stheno

Ayla Big Gate wrote: »

Glad I'm not mad in suggesting it.
Should be simple enough to do.
Id assume there's a reported column in the database. And also columns for yellow, reds, and bans.
Someone should be able to come up with an SQL command to pull them together and give a total.
I know they're busy in the office but there are a few coding gurus around the site that I'm sure could do it in their coffee break.:)

Not all cards /bans are as a result of reported posts however?

Additionally reported posts can result in on thread warnings to calm things down.

There is no direct competition between reported posts and cards/bans

KERSPLAT!

Chorus_suck wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Genuinely, it would depend on the circumstances.

KERSPLAT!

Ayla Big Gate wrote: »

Glad I'm not mad in suggesting it.
Should be simple enough to do.
Id assume there's a reported column in the database. And also columns for yellow, reds, and bans.
Someone should be able to come up with an SQL command to pull them together and give a total.
I know they're busy in the office but there are a few coding gurus around the site that I'm sure could do it in their coffee break.:)

I think you completely missed the rest of my post...

Stheno

KERSPLAT! wrote: »

Genuinely, it would depend on the circumstances.

Same here in the politics cafe, long running chat threads can result in people being more personal than in more formal forums so there is a lot more latitude than in other forums

uck51js9zml2yt

KERSPLAT! wrote: »

I think you completely missed the rest of my post...

No... definitely read it all.:)

Commands can be set to discount repeated instances of reports on the same post.

Letting randomers into your database would be another issue but then as some of the gurus are mods and have proven their coding ability and commitment to the community in creating programs for the likes of Argos, the untrustworthyness element is removed.

As StHeno said, some actions aren't the result of reports but they are a different issue and not the subject of this thread.

Wibbs

Ayla Big Gate wrote: »

But from what I'm seeing there is an attitude of no transparency and that's how we like it.

Frankly that's bollocks. I can think of no other web forum where moderators and moderator actions have so much scrutiny, interest and recourse to appeal. The vast majority of websites that have mods are almost entirely opaque in how they do business. A goodly amount of the time the community neither knows nor cares who's a mod or not. Look at Reddit as an example. As I said earlier Boards suffers from its own success in this and moderation is far too much a factor on every level here.

KERSPLAT!

Wibbs wrote: »

Frankly that's bollocks. I can think of no other web forum where moderators and moderator actions have so much scrutiny, interest and recourse to appeal. The vast majority of websites that have mods are almost entirely opaque in how they do business. A goodly amount of the time the community neither knows nor cares who's a mod or not. Look at Reddit as an example. As I said earlier Boards suffers from its own success in this and moderation is far too much a factor on every level here.

Pretty sure he's saying there's no transparency on the forum he mods as opposed to boards

Maybe not. I dunno

Second Toughest in_the Freshers

There's plenty of transparency, but there's no consistency. Apart from being consistently inconsistent. And there's no transparency to the inconsistencies, but at least that's consistent too...

KERSPLAT!

Second Toughest in_the Freshers wrote: »

There's plenty of transparency, but there's no consistency. Apart from being consistently inconsistent. And there's no transparency to the inconsistencies, but at least that's consistent too...

So... What's the issue!?

Steve

Second Toughest in_the Freshers wrote: »

There's plenty of transparency, but there's no consistency. Apart from being consistently inconsistent. And there's no transparency to the inconsistencies, but at least that's consistent too...

Do you write speeches for an Taoiseach by any chance?

Boards has become way too democratic for its own good.

Turtyturd

dudara wrote: »

In the recent Soccer feedback thread I mentioned how Mods have been admonished in the past for not living up to the standards expected. So please stop trying that tired argument. There is also a huge amount of background discussion going on between the mods at all times so don't assume that a poster is getting away unnoticed. It could happen, but it's unlikely.

I somewhat agree with Wibbs here. There is too much attention on moderating from users, and in direct feedback to that, from the moderators themselves. This rules lawyering and soapboxing is eating up valuable time from all involved. And to what benefit?? Other than further entrenching this detrimental and negative view of them vs us. To be frank, I believe this type of time wasting is damaging to the community spirit of Boards.

IMO, moderating will always have an element of judgement call to it. If it was purely by the rule book, then we'd probably have a lot more infractions and bans than we have now. I've also thought about the request to have mods respond to RPs, but I believe that will drag us down the wasting time rabbit hole even more.

Is there any proof or examples of this?

Steve

Turtyturd wrote: »

Is there any proof or examples of this?

It's there for all to see in the moderator flogging forum.

Do you not have access yet?

:eek:

dudara

Turtyturd wrote: »

Is there any proof or examples of this?

Many of the moderators have remained active posters on Boards. I don't see how it's fair to highlight them in public. Others have chosen to leave Boards, but again I fail to see the point in naming them. There is a nasty tendancy evolving on websites to gang up on other posters and I think it's best to preserve anonymity.

uck51js9zml2yt

Wibbs wrote: »

Frankly that's bollocks. I can think of no other web forum where moderators and moderator actions have so much scrutiny, interest and recourse to appeal. The vast majority of websites that have mods are almost entirely opaque in how they do business. A goodly amount of the time the community neither knows nor cares who's a mod or not. Look at Reddit as an example. As I said earlier Boards suffers from its own success in this and moderation is far too much a factor on every level here.

It's not really when it's been acknowledged here that the "punishment" of an offender is down to such vague reasonings as to whether he is a new poster, someone who generally doesn't cause a problem and as a result gets away with it and someone who infringed at some point and is given no leeway. Next thing we'll be told is that it's down to if the offender stirs his coffee clockwise or counterclockwise ( i jest)

I'm not for rigidness but I would like consistency, even if its just the "generally OK guy" getting a warning on thread so he knows instead of a mod turning a blind eye.


Out of interest, how many hours a week do most mods spend modding?

KERSPLAT!

There are hundreds of mods. I'm sure it varies from 10 minutes a week to 10 hours+ a week. Politics, soccer and AH being the most demanding IMO, though I'm sure there are others I don't frequent that take up a lot of time

Steve

Ayla Big Gate wrote: »

It's not really when it's been acknowledged here that the "punishment" of an offender is down to such vague reasonings as to whether he is a new poster, someone who generally doesn't cause a problem and as a result gets away with it and someone who infringed at some point and is given no leeway. Next thing we'll be told is that it's down to if the offender stirs his coffee clockwise or counterclockwise ( i jest)

I'm not for rigidness but I would like consistency, even if its just the "generally OK guy" getting a warning on thread so he knows instead of a mod turning a blind eye.


Out of interest, how many hours a week do most mods spend modding?

There is a popular misconception that just because a mod fails to post on thread what they did then it means they did nothing.

Where you work (if you do) is there a daily or hourly update on employee disciplinary actions? Do you complain vigourously about the lack of it?

Just because it doesn't happen in public - etc..

Stheno

Ayla Big Gate wrote: »

Out of interest, how many hours a week do most mods spend modding?

Across my forums, around 12 hours a week, 8 in politics cafe, 2-3 in work and jobs and an hour in the rest

Elliott S

osarusan wrote: »

I've reported some posts that never seemed to have anything done about them.

I just assumed that the mods had decided they didn't cross any line. Never until today did I realise it was all a conspiracy against me.

Aye, when I've reported posts on fora (not on boards.ie), the note I write to accompany it is usually along the lines of; "Aaaah, I think this post crossed the line because <give reason>, see what you think". Some have been actioned, some haven't and that's fine. Just because one reports a post doesn't mean it will be actioned. Especially as anyone can report a post in the heat of the moment.

MadDog76

KERSPLAT! wrote: »

Ah yeah, we've nothing better to be doing with our lives. Mods put enough time into the site as it is without spending hours responding to reported posts. There's no point in a reporter receiving acknowledgement of a report being opened either, I open loads and don't action them for one reason or another. It could be left another hour or 5 before it's looked at properly.

A complete non runner and the expectation of mods to do this is off the wall.

As for your third point. Charters need to be non specific in some cases or you'll get dickheads and their rules lawyering for every second card or ban handed out.

You know what. Don't be a dîck and you most likely won't have an issue on the site. Act the bollox and you will. Simple as that.

If that were true then we wouldn't be having this discussion ..............

MadDog76

Steve wrote: »

There is a popular misconception that just because a mod fails to post on thread what they did then it means they did nothing.

Where you work (if you do) is there a daily or hourly update on employee disciplinary actions? Do you complain vigourously about the lack of it?

Just because it doesn't happen in public - etc..

If I made a formal complaint about a colleague in work then I would expect to be kept informed as to the outcome of my complaint ......... actually I would demand to know how my complaint was handled, the eventual outcome and the reasons behind any lack of disciplinary actions.

K-9

Ayla Big Gate wrote: »

It's not really when it's been acknowledged here that the "punishment" of an offender is down to such vague reasonings as to whether he is a new poster, someone who generally doesn't cause a problem and as a result gets away with it and someone who infringed at some point and is given no leeway. Next thing we'll be told is that it's down to if the offender stirs his coffee clockwise or counterclockwise ( i jest)

I'm not for rigidness but I would like consistency, even if its just the "generally OK guy" getting a warning on thread so he knows instead of a mod turning a blind eye.


Out of interest, how many hours a week do most mods spend modding?

A troll will be acted on differently to a normal poster. Inconsistent yes, but common sense.

The recent feedback thread was mostly looking for less moderation so that has to be borne in mind. I give out far more in thread warnings than cards or bans and I don't care who is involved if a thread is a mess.

I've warned, carded, banned and permabanned mods so they definitely aren't immune from modding. Told an admin to cop on a couple of times as well.

K-9

MadDog76 wrote: »

If I made a formal complaint about a colleague in work then I would expect to be kept informed as to the outcome of my complaint ......... actually I would demand to know how my complaint was handled, the eventual outcome and the reasons behind any lack of disciplinary actions.

Yeah, but this is the internet, you are making a complaint about a poster on an internet site, and as pointed out boards goes beyond other sites for transparency. There's a line between what some expect and what can reasonably be delivered by volunteer mods.

Things are getting way too serious business around here, unrealistic expectations by a few posters and mods losing track of the fun part of the site. Both are linked, it should be fun to mod a site like this, not a chore.

Gatling

Kinda funny thread that led to the op making his complaint about lack of mod action has been locked for reviews 2-3 times in last 2 days due to disruptive posters

MadDog76

Steve wrote: »

There is a popular misconception that just because a mod fails to post on thread what they did then it means they did nothing.

Where you work (if you do) is there a daily or hourly update on employee disciplinary actions? Do you complain vigourously about the lack of it?

Just because it doesn't happen in public - etc..

MadDog76 wrote: »

If I made a formal complaint about a colleague in work then I would expect to be kept informed as to the outcome of my complaint ......... actually I would demand to know how my complaint was handled, the eventual outcome and the reasons behind any lack of disciplinary actions.

K-9 wrote: »

Yeah, but this is the internet, you are making a complaint about a poster on an internet site, and as pointed out boards goes beyond other sites for transparency. There's a line between what some expect and what can reasonably be delivered by volunteer mods.

Things are getting way too serious business around here, unrealistic expectations by a few posters and mods losing track of the fun part of the site. Both are linked, it should be fun to mod a site like this, not a chore.

It was Steve who made the comparison with a real-life working environment, I was simply asking him to follow through with his comparison ..........

MadDog76

Gatling wrote: »

Kinda funny thread that led to the op making his complaint about lack of mod action has been locked for reviews 2-3 times in last 2 days due to disruptive posters

I think we can all agree that the discussion has evolved into the inconsistencies around Mod actions as opposed to a call for more moderation .......... I personally feel that every Poster should be accountable to the Rules of Boards or we should all be allowed a little more leeway ........... if it were up to me, there would be a lot less moderation ......... for every Poster.

Pawwed Rig

MadDog76 wrote: »

I personally feel that every Poster should be accountable to the Rules of Boards

And every poster is despite what you believe. I can't see how else to explain it to you.

Wasn't getting personal earlier. Just giving you a chance to thrash out any issues you had if you wanted.

dudara

MadDog76 wrote: »

I personally feel that every Poster should be accountable to the Rules of Boards

This may come as a surprise but ALL posters are accountable to the Boards Terms of Use.

or we should all be allowed a little more leeway

Trust me when I say that mods pretty much always prefer to allow as much leeway as possible. That way mods don't have to spend time defending decisions to posters via PMs, Feedback or DRF.

if it were up to me, there would be a lot less moderation ......... for every Poster.

I think you've made your position clearly felt.

uck51js9zml2yt

dudara wrote: »

This may come as a surprise but ALL posters are accountable to the Boards Terms of Use.



Trust me when I say that mods pretty much always prefer to allow as much leeway as possible. That way mods don't have to spend time defending decisions to posters via PMs, Feedback or DRF.



I think you've made your position clearly felt.

I think Mad Dog wants anarchy.....or a thread he can point back to "where the mods/admin said .…." when all goes bad elsewhere.

Chorus_suck

This post has been deleted.

Pawwed Rig

Chorus_suck wrote: »

That is simply not true.

Have you seen the link I posted above where a mod accused a poster of acting like a whiney bollix? The rules about personal abuse didn't seem to apply there.

It is different rules for different people around here.

Yes I responded to you on it????

Chorus_suck

This post has been deleted.

Pawwed Rig

Chorus_suck wrote: »

Well then how can you claim that the rules apply equally to everyone? .

Did you ask the forum mods like I suggested?
I only speak for my own fora.

dudara

@Chorus_suck - you have already received a warning in this thread for being deliberately provocactive here. Please do not continue in this vein as your repetitive soapboxing is not bringing any merit to this discussion.

dudara

Chorus_suck

This post has been deleted.

Chorus_suck

This post has been deleted.

Insect Overlord

Chorus_suck wrote: »

Ok then ... you said it would depend on the circumstances. This is a genuine question ... Can you please tell me under what circumstances you would allow a poster to accuse another of being a whiney bollix?

He didn't call anyone "a whiney bollix". He said that their behaviour (i.e. "acting like") could be compared to one. It's a subtle difference, but significant enough as to make it a comment on a person's actions rather than their character. And in fairness, if you consider that poster's choice of username, it's not something to be taken absolutely and 100% seriously.

dudara

Not you are not. You have consistently used Feedback to grind your axe, both on this account and older accounts. No more. You are a timesink.

I am reluctant to remove anyone's Feedback access but you are banned for one month.

dudara

Wibbs

Chorus_suck wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Either you're on a wind up, or you've gone full rainman here. Or I suspect a little from column A and a little from column B. And now you'll get the thread locked and you'll be rocking back and forth hugging yourself, all happy for being proved "right".

Pawwed Rig wrote:

Yes I responded to you on it????

Look P, as I said earlier, you're on a road to nowhere here.

Me. Earlier. wrote: »

You simply cannot satisfy someone whose existence and worldview is predicated on being unsatisfied and it is foolish to try.

LoLth

well this one percolated overnight.

look the OP was about reported posts not being actioned. The reasons for this were given and time was allowed for follow up questions or clarifications.

At this stage its going in circles with the same demands being made as those that were previously responded to and with different mods/cmods/admins responding with the same basic message just with variance in language or phrase.

The basic take away from this should be:
Dont be a dick and all will be good.

Mods are there to help discussion along, not stomp all over opinions and they are well aware of this.

This is a discussion site where posters should come to enjoy a bit of discussion with peers of differing opinion. Do that. Dont try to point score or play the rules.

We used to have another basic rule of "grow a thicker skin". Its the internet. Not everyone is going to be polite and kind, some emotive topics are going to provoke a less-than-courteous response especially if its coming from a poster with a strong opinion on the matter.

closing this thread as its gone past the point where it has any productive value for boards or its users.