Moderation in the Irish Water thread?

KERSPLAT!

Going Forward wrote: »

Did you not look at the screenshot?

The guy walked all over the mods, the charter and everyone else too.

You cannot claim to be displaying a non biased attitude now simply on the basis of handing a few cards out to everyone because everyone wasnt behaving that way.

What colour card did he get? Or is he a moderator now?

Did you know that a Moderator asked me in the Irish Water thread if I was retarded?

He wasn't a moderator at the time but was made one about a week after.

So maybe the guy doing all the baiting is one now too, I genuinely don't know.

No one on the "anti water charges side" yes, there is one, reports anything because they know that they're not taken seriously.

You ruin your genuine feedback with this bull****.

Stheno

Decent Skin wrote: »

In fairness Stheno I mentioned above that I was VERY slow to report in the thread having previously being falsely accused of exactly what Taltos mentioned; while the 2+ posts that GF highlighted were bad enough for me to act, the past experience of ironically being the recipient of the action made me very slow to report the other borderline ones, in fear of a repeat.

Reporting someone for repeatedly dragging it off-topic or minor irritations has become negligible, as outlined in the level of reports from that thread, for the above reason; the effect is then that the offenders escalate their attack, knowing they'll probably get away with it, with the results that we saw over the weekend.

In contrast, a minor ballhop - which could often lighten a discussion that gets out of hand - is reported by the "other side", and slaps on the wrist ensue. In fairness here I will point out that there are maybe 2 pros who can take that in true "Politics Cafe" spirit, but others interject to do their best to ensure that it escalates, or that their opponent gets carded.

Double-standards are par for the course too, as per the outright accusations of lying vs someone ducking and spoofing having been called on their own "turn of phrase".

There is a difference between reporting ten to twenty posts per day and reporting genuine issues.

Once something is reported, repeat reporting by the same poster for the same issue is against the charter in case you are not aware of that. Posters cannot report the same poster as in some cases we have where one poster will post another five times in an hour, posters need to realise that it takes time for mods to respond, particularly if they have to query the reported post with other mods. On a busy day in the cafe, we can get up to thirty plus reported posts, each of which takes time, and in some cases discussion as to action required. That's a lot of mod resource required and due to the nature of the cafe, there are a limited amount of people volunteering to mod there.

And as for your double standards issue, I've already clarified that both sides were actioned for that. You yourself apologised for missing that.

Decent Skin

Stheno wrote: »

There is a difference between reporting ten to twenty posts per day and reporting genuine issues.

Once something is reported, repeat reporting by the same poster for the same issue is against the charter in case you are not aware of that. Posters cannot report the same poster as in some cases we have where one poster will post another five times in an hour, posters need to realise that it takes time for mods to respond, particularly if they have to query the reported post with ohter mods.

I wasn't aware of that and didn't see it in the charter.

However it does beg the question as to what to do with a repeat offender. It might explain a lot, though; someone knows the above and is not actioned on it, then they know they can get their "opponent" in trouble. It may explain a lot.

And as for your double standards issue, I've already clarified that both sides were actioned for that. You yourself apologised for missing that.

You're misinterpreting me again. I am talking about the pro posters' double-standards, not the mods' in this case. They chuck in digs and half-insults (often full-on insults) and then report the most minor indiscretion or interpretation, adding to the above-highlighted issue of a fear of reporting.

Taltos

OK guys - can we all step away for the night?
We seem to be moving to a good resolution here with lessons to be learnt on both sides.

Kersplat! while I appreciate the sentiment here there's no need to use that tone, the same message could have been provided in a much more civil way which may have been received openly, but with that tone that just won't happen. If you don't have anything constructive to add then I am going to ask you to not post just as others have been asked.

Again, let's call time for tonight and if the OP or Decent skin or the mods/cmods wish to revisit tomorrow let's do so.

Stheno

Decent Skin wrote: »

I wasn't aware of that and didn't see it in the charter.

However it does beg the question as to what to do with a repeat offender. It might explain a lot, though; someone knows the above and is not actioned on it, then they know they can get their "opponent" in trouble. It may explain a lot.

From the charter :

Use the Report function sensibly. Do not report posts just because they vary from your personal viewpoint. Abuse of the Report post function may result in moderator action.

You're misinterpreting me again. I am talking about the pro posters' double-standards, not the mods' in this case. They chuck in digs and half-insults (often full-on insults) and then report the most minor indiscretion or interpretation, adding to the above-highlighted issue of a fear of reporting.

In fairness both the pro and anti side are fairly proficient in the IW thread at this sort of behaviour, one side digs, the other responds.

As I said earlier, a bit more judicious use of the ignore button by posters, and a bit more relevant reporting would go a long way to making that thread anything other than a timesink for mods.

Both sides are far too entrenched in their views, and at the present time, there is no middle ground to be reached.

Decent Skin

Stheno wrote: »

From the charter :

Apologies Taltos but I need to respond here; there's nothing in that paragraph re not "reporting the same poster for the same issue", which is what you said earlier:

Sthenos wrote:

Once something is reported, repeat reporting by the same poster for the same issue is against the charter in case you are not aware of that

.....and I have never merely reported someone for disagreeing with me.

Anyway, as per Taltos' request, I'll leave it there.

Stheno

Decent Skin wrote: »

Apologies Taltos but I need to respond here; there's nothing in that paragraph re not "reporting the same poster for the same issue", which is what you said earlier, and I have never merely reported someone for disagreeing with me.

Anyway, as per Taltos' request, I'll leave it there.

What do you not understand about "use the report function sensibly"? I.e. do not repeatedly report the same user?

Do we need to spell out that mods need to be given time to respond and that multiple reporting for the same issue is not appropriate?

Going Forward

Stheno wrote: »

I'd refer you to Taltos's post above tbh, it explains most of your claims fairly lucidly

Plenty of the anti water charges side report posts, I get to read every one of the reports.
This past weekend, there were very few as Taltos post refers to.

Spurious reporting is against the charter, but genuine reporting again as Taltos's post refers to are actioned the vast majority of the time.

I read Taltos' post.

I have been asked to do some work.

I have to pick out 3 posts which I find particularly troublesome and then report them.

Even after all of this, not one mod is going to lift a finger unless they are spoon fed the information with a link to this thread so they know it's not just one of the Irish Water boys playing up again.

And I could send it all to K-9 the Category mod, who took a gentle little swipe at me recently in the Irish Water thread.

Totally out of the blue, at a time when not one person was discussing the previous closure of the Cafe and the unknown future of the water threads.

But for some reason it appeared to be fair game and on topic for the Category Moderator to bring it up.

And you want me to believe it'll be taken seriously.

You asked about moderator bias.

Have a look at some moderator bias:







This was after that moderator began picking on someone, even after that weekend, someone who is "not on their side".

Professing to be even-handed, this Moderator, even after previously asking me if I was retarded, then after completely ignoring what happened over the weekend, (citing difficulties caused by being a moderator in a different forum) starts on someone else.

You ask about bias?

You couldn't make it up it's so blatant!

Going Forward

KERSPLAT! wrote: »

You ruin your genuine feedback with this bull****.

I'm sorry you feel I've ruined my genuine feedback with that remark-

Someone who asked me if I was retarded (in an Irish Water thread, coincidentally enough) was made a Moderator a week later.

And that's not bull****.

Taltos

OK Going Forward.
I had really hoped we could try to work here together to begin to foster a sense of collaboration as I get some of where you are coming from but if we're going to go down this rabbit hole we're close to calling it a day here.

The mods and cmods (yes K-9 is a cmod of SOC) are capable of contributing as posters, being a mod does NOT mean they cannot offer their own opinion. They are instead expected and encouraged to post and yes that might mean for some they hold ideas that are contrary to others. As to your quotes above I might be missing something but I don't see anything amiss and in fact both cards you quote were issued by mods other than K-9.
Finally this is the second time in this thread you've referred to being called retarded by a mod, we spoke at the time and that issue was addressed. You mightn't like or agree with my decision at the time but that matter has been dealt with and I consider it closed. Pulling it up again won't change that, it will though force the closure of this thread so I would ask you to keep on topic to your current issue, dragging in older slights are diluting your message.

In terms of your initial complaint - we've taken your feedback on board as well as reviewed some of the screenshots you've posted and I've asked the cmod team to work with the mods. Stheno has already been active on this thread so I'm fairly confident she's already been working through the thread.
In terms of "work", again that thread is huge, as you had screenshots I stupidly assumed it would be easy for you to help the mods hone in on a few of the more odious posts. But if you don't want to do that then you don't want to do that. We have one reported post from Decent skin, so the team will work with that instead.
Remember, your claims of bias here in regards to that poster on closer inspection revealed instead a distinct lack of reported posts, in fact most of the reports were in relation to your posts, so being actioned isn't that surprising. Had more of those posts been reported or that one reported post been caught and actioned I don't think we'd be here but once more the mods aren't omniscient they need your help to spot trouble. Let's be clear here, that will mean and does mean that they won't agree with what is being reported, and again that's expected. However, by not reporting posts or contacting the mods and instead jumping straight to here to air your issues is a small bit rich, I'd fairly sure had the mods and then the cmods received the screenshots above we'd have seen a PM thanking you and a request as I have to report such posts in future without feeling obliged to backseat mod. That's not wishful thinking, it's what I've done myself when I was in the cmod role and received similar PMs.

Out of consideration for Decent skin and the mod/cmod team I'll leave this thread open for a while longer, but more off topic or dragging up older issues will result in me or one of the other admins closing this.

Decent Skin

Stheno wrote: »

What do you not understand about "use the report function sensibly"? I.e. do not repeatedly report the same user?

Because it does not say that.

Using a report function "sensibly" may well involve reporting someone multiple times for a repeated type of offence, so that the mods are aware that is a recurring issue.

Your earlier post indicated that that is explicitly against the charter (which it isn't) and now you're saying that it's an interpretation; I'm pointing out the distinction and looking for guidance on this from Taltos or similar.

Do we need to spell out that mods need to be given time to respond and that multiple reporting for the same issue is not appropriate?

The first part of that has nothing to do with what I said. as I acknowledged this earlier; but your tone and phrasing on the second part implies that I'm not being heard.

If it's the same issue then it would be because it is a repeat of the same issue, indicating a repeat offender. Reporting that would highlight this, and would have over the weekend had someone reported the baiting and confession; if we take your interpretation of the charter and avoid multiple reports of the same thing then a mod could have to read through a whole thread to determine appropriate sanctions by checking whether they are a repeat offender.

I'm not arguing the point of what boards might want - I'm merely pointing out that it is not as clear as you seem to believe; "sensible reporting" is open to interpretation, and it's relevant in this case as the low level of reporting - partly due to my being actioned for that previously and therefore being slow to even report the two worst ones - was highlighted as part of the reason this was "missed".

As a result it's too important to leave open to an interpretation, or misinterpretation, as these happen far too easily and have happened a number of times between you and I already in this thread.

And while boards may decide that your interpretation is correct and warrants actual inclusion in the charter, I would request that guidance is included as to how to deal with repeat offenders who "test the water" with a borderline dig and then - when not sanctioned for this - escalate it in the knowledge that the victim is wary of getting a "troublemaker / whinger" label - the latter one which the pros in that thread are happy to chuck in, along with "sponger", with little or no sanction for repeat offenders.

Taltos

Thanks Decent skin.
Let me wrap this up with the following then.

Abusing report posts. This falls under common sense realistically. The site FAQ asks posters to report posts to help the site, we didn't think we needed to call out not to abuse it but let me take that back to HQ to discuss. I'm not too sure on adding that in though as the more we place rules around what is and is not permitted the more the rules lawyers will have fun (and there are a good few of them out there) and the more this all seems like a job. Personally I'd just love to see all charters reduced back to "here's the FAQ" and have fun but don't be a d1ck.
I prefer instead to encourage mod discretion balanced with common sense. Behind that we have the checks and balances of DRF, Help Desk and Feedback all supported by the cmods and admin teams.

Generally where posters have an issue I'd love to see them try to discuss it with the mods first before then escalating to the cmods and then to one of the other forums as appropriate. I think you'd be genuinely surprised to see how often that works with no HQ intervention. Only last week I saw a permanent ban reduced to a one month ban for a user who chose that route.

Going forward, one last point. In terms of your last set of posts on mod bias let me close the door on that one firmly, and I'm going to ask a final time to draw a line under your old complaint there, in fact quoting someone earlier it's muddied the water somewhat here especially as it had been reviewed at the time.
Aido is NOT a mod of the cafe - as such they are treated just like any other poster there and have the freedom to post whatever they like just like you do and if that results in a card or a ban then that's what will happen.
In fact in your shots they did earn a card as you've shown which again proves there is no mod bias. The fact that this card was a warning and not the infraction you received is more a reflection of the relative level of mod intervention they've needed in the Cafe up to this point. Had Aido a larger savings of warnings then the mods may have felt that the warnings were no longer working and so issued an infraction. It's really that simple sometimes. Some posters seem to think that once a mod has the mod label that they are the mod everywhere, that's unrealistic and isn't the case, a mod outside of their own forum is just a poster and has as much rights to enjoy other forums as everyone else.

If though you have a genuine issue with Aido due to your history with each other then all I can suggest is really to put them on ignore so you won't feel obliged to respond or get yourself into hot water. However, if you post in the forum they moderate then using that feature is definitely not advised.

Anyway, thank you all for your candid feedback and for your openness. I'll leave the reported posts with the Cafe mod team and SOC cmod team now, but I will pose the question on adding an addendum to reported posts re abuse - either volume/language.

Cheers.
Taltos

Taltos

Post update:
The mods have taken action on that poster. Action is not visible on thread. Have to hold my hands up here, I didn't tie a ban that had been applied back to this dispute but the mod who actioned confirmed it's the case this am.

Mod levels are also being reviewed by the team.
Mods are reviewing quoting offending posts with a mod note of ban, or similar to avoid a perception of no action where bans are implemented but cannot be seen.

Again thanks all, and remember we do rely on reported posts but where threads are heated/fast moving maybe step away before being drawn into responding in a manner that breaches the charter.