Mods

Beasty

@_Kaiser_

You seem particularly focussed on lack of consistency when modding. Are you suggesting this across the site, or in specific forums?

You have been on this site a very long time. I presume you will accept that moderation and in particular moderator consistency is better now than it has been over those 18 years or so?

You are also claiming we make promises but do not deliver. Can I remind you that one of the outcomes of the AH thread I referenced above was a concerted effort across all levels to get more consistency, while recognising there is no one size fits all across such diverse topics, and indeed the fact we apply different rules which are often very forum-specific.

However we did do some things following that discussion, and we fed that back to the userbase. We introduced a mod handbook. We set up a dummy forum for mods to practice their new-found powers (or indeed in some cases long held but rarely used powers). We de-modded a large number of inactive mods. On that one I started a similar process a few weeks ago, but have not yet progressed it very far. I will do so though

Then we see accusations of circling the wagons. mods thanking mods etc. Do you not think there is a reason that mods may agree with their fellow-mods on certain things (and equally "regular" users also thank such posts). Maybe the mods are actually quite a lot closer to some of the points being made by other mods and they see points being made they actually agree with. Maybe even the mods are being consistent in their approach. Whatever interpretation you wish to place on all of this, I totally refute your accusations/allegations, and indeed you have completely failed to identify issues we have not reviewed, and, where we consider appropriate, taken forward

One final point. Your feedback is appreciated, but you are one of thousands of regular users on the site. I am equally only one of those users. Do you not think though that sometimes you may actually be in the minority? Maybe there are large swathes of the userbase that are reasonably content with how things operate? Such users are not typically going to come to Feedback to express their content (although some do). Equally we may think some suggestions will not be for the betterment of the site. That does not mean we have not considered them.

Boards.ie: Mark

I imagine there will always be some degree of inconsistency. In previous feedback threads, it was pointed out, for example, that there may be times where newbies shouldn't receive the same sanction as someone more experienced and who should know better, for example. Meanwhile, there are forums (and perhaps even threads within a forum!) which require a different approach to others.

The charter can't necessarily cover every scenario and context, so there is some grey area, judgement calls, and a requirement for mod discretion. At the same time, steps have been taken to improve consistency and Mods have taken some of the points raised in previous Feedback threads on board.

The analogy of a ref is quite apt at times. There are some people who would like a more heavy handed approach, others who want threads to be allowed to run; the exact same as we see in sport with some crying out for the good old days of the hard men vs those that want every jersey pull to be penalised. It was mentioned above that community refs don't have the same technology at their disposal, but even with this technology, there are calls that come under scrutiny and there are downright incorrect decisions. Just look at the United game last night for an example of one of those (which one someone assigns it to may depend on their team loyalty )

That is why we have a number of ways for someone to appeal a decision that they believe has been taken incorrectly against them, starting with contact with the Mod themselves in the hopes that the two can come to a reasonable understanding. There is also the Dispute Resolution Process where the appeal can be bumped up to the Admins. Likewise, we give the community tools to alert Mods of posts that run afoul of site or forum rules such as the report post function. But again, someone could approach the Mods or CMods (reasonably) about issues that they see. If a charter is out of date, for example, this would be worth dropping a PM to the Mods with suggestions as to how it could be bettered.

johnnyskeleton

Just to add, the dispute resolution system can be used to bring consistency to a forum.

pleas advice

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Just to add, the dispute resolution system can be used to bring consistency to a forum.

often you'd see posters pointing out unactioned posts, similar to their own. only to be told 'other users posts are not up for discussion'

dudara

pleas advice wrote: »

often you'd see posters pointing out unactioned posts, similar to their own. only to be told 'other users posts are not up for discussion'

That’s correct. They are not up for discussion. To use an analogy, if you were charged and bought to court, you don’t use the defense “others were doing it” and you don’t ask the judge to go find all the other people and bring them into court too.

The DRP is an individual based process and, shocker, we are all responsible for our own actions.

pleas advice

dudara wrote: »

That’s correct. They are not up for discussion. To use an analogy, if you were charged and bought to court, you don’t use the defense “others were doing it” and you don’t ask the judge to go find all the other people and bring them into court too.

The DRP is an individual based process and, shocker, we are all responsible for our own actions.

how can DRP be used to bring consistency to a forum so? if you can't point out inconsistencies, or are told they are not relevant when you do?

Mortelaro

dudara wrote: »

That’s correct. They are not up for discussion. To use an analogy, if you were charged and bought to court, you don’t use the defense “others were doing it” and you don’t ask the judge to go find all the other people and bring them into court too.

.

As a former mod here of several fora in a previous life on boards,I can fully understand that analogy and approach
Sometimes too much is expected
I will say though since looking from the outside in,I've become somewhat disillusioned with the lack of consistency of modding across the site
I just avoid fora now where I see it
I suppose when you've more than a 1000 mods, all volunteers it's going to have to be that way
But that it doesn't add to the user experience ,would be the kindest way I'd have of putting it

That being said,one thing readers don't know is that often something is done when a post is reported,its not always visible on thread
Some Posters do tend to have a need for vindication when they report but look it's only the internet guys,nothing major
In a lot of minor cases,people need to find the ignore function

There used be a Super ignore function available to DeV whereby a certain troll could post away,his posts appeared in the thread but only to the troll
Noone else could see them
Pretty neat functionality:p

Beasty

pleas advice wrote: »

how can DRP be used to bring consistency to a forum so? if you can't point out inconsistencies, or are told they are not relevant when you do?

I disagree with johnny's statement above. The PM exchange part of the DRP can be used to highlight potential inconsistencies, but the main way of doing so is within the various mod forums, where CMods and Admins can also contribute to discussions.

If someone believes there is inconsistency their first avenue is to discuss with local mods. If not satisfied then approach a CMod, and if those avenues are exhausted start a thread in the Help Desk, where you will usually have the ear of CMods and/or Admins, and indeed relevant mods can make their own cases if they wish

Beasty

Mortelaro wrote: »

I suppose when you've more than a 1000 mods

Just done a quick scan of the forums and I reckon it's about 391 (or was 20 seconds or so ago):pac:

Mortelaro

Beasty wrote: »

Just done a quick scan of the forums and I reckon it's about 391 (or was 20 seconds or so ago):pac:

Jesus,was there voluntary redundancy:D
(There was probably way over a 1000 over the lifetime of boards though)

Dravokivich

pleas advice wrote: »

often you'd see posters pointing out unactioned posts, similar to their own. only to be told 'other users posts are not up for discussion'

So what if someone else did it? Is someone using that arguement trying to minimise their involvement, or make sure other people get stung for it too?

To be honest, it's easy to miss a few things when theres a lot of noise. Reported Posts would be referenced. And could form a basis for desicions.

Even as a poster I've given up on threads here that don't have a clear topic, because I find them a lot of work to figure out what's going on in them. It'll be difficult to moderate them also. Especially when someone goes into it and isn't aligned to everyone else.

pleas advice

Dravokivich wrote: »

So what if someone else did it? Is someone using that arguement trying to minimise their involvement,

they'd be pointing out that theres a track record of whatever they were infracted for going unactioned by mods

or make sure other people get stung for it too?

I don't know, but I'd say in the vast majority of cases not

Sleeper12

_Kaiser_ wrote:

How about we start by you identifying which Mod you are (I'm assuming it's yet another rename.. funny though how such upset is caused by re-reg's though!)

In fairness they are dealing with some members with several accounts & rereg accounts. The mods don't always know who they are talking to either. I was on a thread in the last few days where the same person seemed to be using two for sure and maybe three new rereg accounts.

Dravokivich

pleas advice wrote: »

they'd be pointing out that theres a track record of whatever they were infracted for going unactioned by mods



I don't know, but I'd say in the vast majority of cases not

And? What of the rest of my post.

rgossip30

dudara wrote: »

That’s correct. They are not up for discussion. To use an analogy, if you were charged and bought to court, you don’t use the defense “others were doing it” and you don’t ask the judge to go find all the other people and bring them into court too.

The DRP is an individual based process and, shocker, we are all responsible for our own actions.

Previous cases and the sentence are certainly mentioned in a court.

Dravokivich

rgossip30 wrote: »

Previous cases and the sentence are certainly mentioned in a court.

But that's not possible for the ones who got away. Otherwise no one would be convicted of murder with Jack the ripper not having been caught.

Steve

rgossip30 wrote: »

Previous cases and the sentence are certainly mentioned in a court.

The actions of other users do not determine your guilt or innocence.

Your previous history and forum precedent do, however, influence the sanction.

Same in an actual court.

rgossip30

Dravokivich wrote: »

But that's not possible for the ones who got away. Otherwise no one would be convicted of murder with Jack the ripper not having been caught.

. Murder carries a mandatory sentence if found guilty..

Steve wrote: »

The actions of other users do not determine your guilt or innocence.

Your previous history and forum precedent do, however, influence the sanction.

Same in an actual court.

No problem with that just double standards do happen on forums based on a mods like or dislike of a poster and it's hidden.

gozunda

Steve wrote: »

The actions of other users do not determine your guilt or innocence.

Your previous history and forum precedent do, however, influence the sanction.

Same in an actual court.

Not quite so ... I reckon you might be thinking of Judge Judy there tbh ..

From:

Criminal Justice (Spent Convictions and Certain Disclosures) Act 2016

(a) no evidence shall be admissible to show that a person, who has a conviction which is, in accordance with this Part, regarded as a spent conviction, has committed or been charged with or prosecuted for or convicted of or sentenced in respect of an offence which is the subject of the spent conviction, and

(b) no question shall be asked in any such proceedings and if asked, the person shall not be required to answer, any question relating to his or her past which cannot be answered without disclosing the spent conviction or the circumstances ancillary to that conviction.

I do find the slapping of sanctions onto those who use dispute resolution after being carded but before any resolution of said dispute to be rather bizarre tbh.

Does it pays not to engage In dispute resolution? ...

Steve

gozunda wrote: »

Not quite so ... I reckon you might be thinking of Judge Judy there tbh ..

From:

Criminal Justice (Spent Convictions and Certain Disclosures) Act 2016



I do find the slapping of sanctions onto those who use dispute resolution after being carded but before any resolution of said dispute to be rather bizarre tbh.

Does it pays not to engage In dispute resolution? ...

I'm not quite sure what your point is there.

What has Garda vetting got to do with DRP?

CRIMINAL JUSTICE (SPENT CONVICTIONS AND CERTAIN DISCLOSURES) ACT 2016

An Act to make provision for the limitation of the effect of certain criminal convictions in certain circumstances and after certain periods of time; to amend the National Vetting Bureau (Children and Vulnerable Persons) Act 2012 and the Garda Sh Act 2005 ; and to provide for related matters.

pleas advice

Steve wrote: »

I'm not quite sure what your point is there.

What has Garda vetting got to do with DRP?

What has the justice system in general got to do with DRP, (although judges do look at precedent when handing down punishments)?

Steve

pleas advice wrote: »

What has the justice system in general got to do with DRP, (although judges do look at precedent when handing down punishments)?

You answered your own question there I think.

For me DRP is:

1. Was there in fact a rule breach?

2. Was the sanction appropriate? (or, more importantly, inappropriate enough to overturn it).

rgossip30

This forum is overloaded with mods who provoke more especially when biased. There are times when heated posts just burn out naturally .

gozunda

Steve wrote: »

I'm not quite sure what your point is there.
What has Garda vetting got to do with DRP?

I think you missed what I was saying tbh. With regard to the act I quoted

CRIMINAL JUSTICE (SPENT CONVICTIONS AND CERTAIN DISCLOSURES) ACT 2016

Section 7 includes the disclosure of a persons record of spent convictions in relation to court proceedings and not just garda vetting btw.

See http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/2016/act/4/section/7/enacted/en/html#sec7

But yeah looking at garda vetting previous spent convictions are largely irrelevant to a person's record going forward. However we seem to have a system here where a record of infractions which have been sanctioned never expires

Is there any little point in beating someone with the same stick twice? As above even in criminal trials - juries are not allowed to hear evidence relating to previous spent convictions and therefore that information is not included in the juries determination of guilty or otherwise. So no it's not the 'same (as) in an actual court' court unless you are only considering actual sentencing presuming that a person is found guilty.

Fr_Dougal

Actually since DRP was mentioned, I see one poster had a post of theirs moderated/infracted. Then a non-mod of the forum came in and gave a more severe infraction for the same post.

Now if this was a rereg, spot on. But it was an Admin jumping in when really the original mod action should have stood. The mods should be allowed to get on with it.

2c

Kivaro

Pter is unsuitable to be an AH mod.
Banning posters, or as he likes to state: "take a break for a day", whom has opposing views to him (as a poster on the same thread) is appalling.
It smacks of Political Cafe of old.

And being hostile on that thread and at the same time banning a poster telling him to calm down is odd. That particular poster was banned simply because he thanked a post questioning the mod's partiality.

Also, did we not discuss in the Feedback thread of mods who partake in a discussion and being a mod on that same thread did not make sense? Bans handed out by mods who are also involved in a thread discussion as a poster have the appearance of bias ............ irrespective of that being the truth or not.

Baggly

Kivaro, do me a favour there and show me where i gave my opinion on the matter. As far as i can see i have 10 posts in the thread, 2 or 3 of which are asking other users about their opinions, and the remainder are mod notifications.

I think you have a bit of a false narrative made up about me.

I should also add i hadnt noticed he had thanked your earlier post, but i dont see how anyone thanking your post absolves them from following the rules.

Steve

Fr_Dougal wrote: »

Actually since DRP was mentioned, I see one poster had a post of theirs moderated/infracted. Then a non-mod of the forum came in and gave a more severe infraction for the same post.

Now if this was a rereg, spot on. But it was an Admin jumping in when really the original mod action should have stood. The mods should be allowed to get on with it.

2c

Don't normally get in to discussing specific actions here, but to clear up what happened there. It was a technical issue in that the mod made an error in the original card. The only way to rectify that is to ask an Admin to change it - which he did.

Nobody 'jumped in'.

Esel

Newly-minted mods sometimes go on a bit of a power trip.

givyjoe

Kivaro wrote: »

Pter is unsuitable to be an AH mod.
Banning posters, or as he likes to state: "take a break for a day", whom has opposing views to him (as a poster on the same thread) is appalling.
It smacks of Political Cafe of old.

And being hostile on that thread and at the same time banning a poster telling him to calm down is odd. That particular poster was banned simply because he thanked a post questioning the mod's partiality.

Also, did we not discuss in the Feedback thread of mods who partake in a discussion and being a mod on that same thread did not make sense? Bans handed out by mods who are also involved in a thread discussion as a poster have the appearance of bias ............ irrespective of that being the truth or not.

Mods should be like referees. Forgettable once a thread is over/run its course.