BMMJ

[MEZZANINE]

On a side note I am curious how we find out what has happened after a report has been made.

I tried to make 2 reports in the last couple of weeks, both said 'post already reported' so I guess others beat me to reporting them.

1) Was an inappropriate picture, a porn picture with naughty bits edited out but still clear what it was, and in faint writing on the picture a webaddress for a porn site

2) Vulgar swear words filtered or masked in a very rude post

How do I find out if the people I tried to report received warnings ?

You can find out by asking the person that made the post. Whether they tell you or not is up to them. There is no such "rite" to users knowing who has and who hasn't received warnings.

BTW the reason I question if they were warned is because they are both DDE members

*sigh*

You can sign all you like, the fact warnings are given ( or not given ) behind closed doors accounts for a lot of the speculation about mod bias.

If all warnings were in one public thread stating not only the user & offense but also which mod issued the warning then any patterns / exception / bias would be plain to see, or easy to disprove.

I believe this kind of open accountability would eliminate bias and either end or support the accusations you mods so hate to hear.

[Mordack]

On a side note I am curious how we find out what has happened after a report has been made.

I tried to make 2 reports in the last couple of weeks, both said 'post already reported' so I guess others beat me to reporting them.

1) Was an inappropriate picture, a porn picture with naughty bits edited out but still clear what it was, and in faint writing on the picture a webaddress for a porn site

2) Vulgar swear words filtered or masked in a very rude post

How do I find out if the people I tried to report received warnings ?

You can find out by asking the person that made the post. Whether they tell you or not is up to them. There is no such "rite" to users knowing who has and who hasn't received warnings.

BTW the reason I question if they were warned is because they are both DDE members

*sigh*

You can sign all you like, the fact warnings are given ( or not given ) behind closed doors accounts for a lot of the speculation about mod bias.

If all warnings were in one public thread stating not only the user & offense but also which mod issued the warning then any patterns / exception / bias would be plain to see, or easy to disprove.

I believe this kind of open accountability would eliminate bias and either end or support the accusations you mods so hate to hear.

Ultimately, I don't think anything short of the second coming will end accusations of moderator bias. It just happens. Comes with the territory. Like beekeepers getting stung, or something.

However, I have to admit I sort of like your idea. Transparency and accountability are generally good things. Your idea about trackeble reports won't work, I don't think, unless it was somehow hard coded into the forum. Regrettably, we don't have the manpower to maintain a permanent thread or individually PM the people who make reports. You can thank the boys who cry wolf for that one.

The warnings thing is interesting, although it might be a bit of a blunt instrument. I consider verbal warnings, and user notes, to be just as valuable as warnings in terms of empirical evidence for or against mod conduct. Maybe they could be worked in something. Hmm. As I say, interesting.

[Psyko]

You can sign all you like, the fact warnings are given ( or not given ) behind closed doors accounts for a lot of the speculation about mod bias.

If all warnings were in one public thread stating not only the user & offense but also which mod issued the warning then any patterns / exception / bias would be plain to see, or easy to disprove.

I believe this kind of open accountability would eliminate bias and either end or support the accusations you mods so hate to hear.

Ultimately, I don't think anything short of the second coming will end accusations of moderator bias. It just happens. Comes with the territory. Like beekeepers getting stung, or something.

However, I have to admit I sort of like your idea. Transparency and accountability are generally good things. Your idea about trackeble reports won't work, I don't think, unless it was somehow hard coded into the forum. Regrettably, we don't have the manpower to maintain a permanent thread or individually PM the people who make reports. You can thank the boys who cry wolf for that one.

The warnings thing is interesting, although it might be a bit of a blunt instrument. I consider verbal warnings, and user notes, to be just as valuable as warnings in terms of empirical evidence for or against mod conduct. Maybe they could be worked in something. Hmm. As I say, interesting.

I agree that the warning thing is interesting, but it might also create more problems than solutions.

BTW the reason I question if they were warned is because they are both DDE members

There are people in alliances on this forum? I hadn't noticed.
(No, really, when I warn people, I don't notice what alliance they happen to be a part of. As such, I can't recall any of the alliances of anyone I have warned.)

[MEZZANINE]

You can sign all you like, the fact warnings are given ( or not given ) behind closed doors accounts for a lot of the speculation about mod bias.

If all warnings were in one public thread stating not only the user & offense but also which mod issued the warning then any patterns / exception / bias would be plain to see, or easy to disprove.

I believe this kind of open accountability would eliminate bias and either end or support the accusations you mods so hate to hear.

Ultimately, I don't think anything short of the second coming will end accusations of moderator bias. It just happens. Comes with the territory. Like beekeepers getting stung, or something.

However, I have to admit I sort of like your idea. Transparency and accountability are generally good things. Your idea about trackeble reports won't work, I don't think, unless it was somehow hard coded into the forum. Regrettably, we don't have the manpower to maintain a permanent thread or individually PM the people who make reports. You can thank the boys who cry wolf for that one.

The warnings thing is interesting, although it might be a bit of a blunt instrument. I consider verbal warnings, and user notes, to be just as valuable as warnings in terms of empirical evidence for or against mod conduct. Maybe they could be worked in something. Hmm. As I say, interesting.

I agree that the warning thing is interesting, but it might also create more problems than solutions.

It would certainly show if one mod was targeting specific people, and allow people who reports problems to see if their reports have been actioned ( warnings given )

BTW the reason I question if they were warned is because they are both DDE members

There are people in alliances on this forum? I hadn't noticed.
(No, really, when I warn people, I don't notice what alliance they happen to be a part of. As such, I can't recall any of the alliances of anyone I have warned.)

Point is 1 member of Titans and 1 member of FS have recently been banned.

I personally tried to put in 2 reports of serious misconduct by a user in DDE only to find that someone else had already reported both posts but have no idea if the user was even warned.

If my suggestion above is viable and gets put into practice everyone would be able to see the results of reporting a post, and if all incidents are treated equally regardless of alliance or friends on the mod team. If the mods are treating everyone equally they will be able to prove it, if the mods are not treating everyone equally it will be clear for everyone to see. I see no downside to it.

[Empy]

The downside is that the majority of the time, people will disagree just to disagree. They won't see things the same as the Mods, that is how it's always been and will be. So making visible the warnings people are given, and the results of reports made, would just give more ammunition/things to complain about to the people who complain just because they want anarchy (no Mods, to be able to do what they want).

You report a post, it's not any of your business whether or not action is taken against the individual whose post you reported. That is between them and the Mods.

You're right 1 member of TITANS and 1 member of DDE were banned... that's because 1 member of TITANS and 1 member of DDE broke the rules multiple times, and were punished for it by multiple people, resulting in them being banned for 2 weeks.

[Clarkey]

Being transparent is sometimes good, but also sometimes bad.

If there was to be a warnings thread then do you expect us to post every single verbal and official warning that we have given?

Also, quite often a rule breaking post will either be "modded" or dumped in private dump. So for example, if someone broke a rule, it got reported by someone, the mod of said section dumped the post, placed a copy of the rule breaking text in the user notes, issued a verbal or official warning, then posted in the warning thread that person A was issued a verbal/official warning for (rule number), by Mod A.

If you take the example above, you will see whether there was a official warning or not, which rule was broken, and the mod that dealt with it, but you will not see the offending post. So you still cannot judge for yourself whether the warning should have been given in your mind. All you are doing is satisfying your curiosity as to whether someone got a warning.

As i said, being transparent has it's merits, but for obvious reasons, the warnings section cannot ever be fully transparent.

[Zeratul]

With such system it will eventually come to the classic "they're warned less than we are" complaint. We've seen it many times here, and we'll see it again.

Mods could not care less about what alliances the rule offenders belong to. They're rule offenders.

[Clarkey]

I couldn't give a smeg what alliances people are in. You break the rules, you get treated the same from me.

[MEZZANINE]

Being transparent is sometimes good, but also sometimes bad.

If there was to be a warnings thread then do you expect us to post every single verbal and official warning that we have given?

Also, quite often a rule breaking post will either be "modded" or dumped in private dump. So for example, if someone broke a rule, it got reported by someone, the mod of said section dumped the post, placed a copy of the rule breaking text in the user notes, issued a verbal or official warning, then posted in the warning thread that person A was issued a verbal/official warning for (rule number), by Mod A.

If you take the example above, you will see whether there was a official warning or not, which rule was broken, and the mod that dealt with it, but you will not see the offending post. So you still cannot judge for yourself whether the warning should have been given in your mind. All you are doing is satisfying your curiosity as to whether someone got a warning.

As i said, being transparent has it's merits, but for obvious reasons, the warnings section cannot ever be fully transparent.

Inconsistency in actions taken when dealing with reports of rule breaches or rule breaches mods just find by themselves is the whole issue.

If 2 forums users break the same rule, one gets a formal warning and one gets his post dumped but no formal warning, and those two players happen to be in warring alliances ( which being a war game is quite likely ) then of obviously the forum user who got the warning ( and his/her allies ) will think he/she has been the victim of mod bias.

Two things are actually needed

1) A clear definition of what forum offenses / rule breaches warrant a forum warning

2) Transparency so everyone can see that rules are applied to all in a consistent even manor


Actually if a mod can split this off into a separate topic I would appreciate it, looks like we have strayed way past 'off topic' in this one.




@ Roket, dont spam here, this is a serious suggestion and discussion. Go watch Red Dwarf.

[Clarkey]

My point is what of rule breakages that warrant the whole post being moved to private dump. You can't see it, and the private dump will never be made public because it contains unedited posts which would be wrong to make it viewable by all.

So if someone breaks a rule and it is quickly dealt with and sent to private dump and you didn't see what it was for then you'd be in the same situation as now. if we posted saying a warning was given you'd have no other choice but to accept that without knowing what the post was. As i said not everything can be transparent.

[MEZZANINE]

My point is what of rule breakages that warrant the whole post being moved to private dump. You can't see it, and the private dump will never be made public because it contains unedited posts which would be wrong to make it viewable by all.

So if someone breaks a rule and it is quickly dealt with and sent to private dump and you didn't see what it was for then you'd be in the same situation as now. if we posted saying a warning was given you'd have no other choice but to accept that without knowing what the post was. As i said not everything can be transparent.

OK I see your point, but surely thats where the ombudsman would have a role. Reviewing posts that cant be made public if the person warned thought the warning was not warranted.

My suggestion is not for disputed warnings, just so people can see that all are dealt with equally. All it would need is a listing saying,

Forum User -
Rule Broken -
Date/Time of rule broken -
Topic link -
Action Taken - Dumped / Edited / Verbal Warning / Formal Warning / Ban
Action taken by - Mod Name

This will show any mod bias, will also show which mods are most active in enforcing rules.


EDIT

Out of curiosity, how much work would this actually be ? How many warnings are issued in an average week ?

[Clarkey]

My point is what of rule breakages that warrant the whole post being moved to private dump. You can't see it, and the private dump will never be made public because it contains unedited posts which would be wrong to make it viewable by all.

So if someone breaks a rule and it is quickly dealt with and sent to private dump and you didn't see what it was for then you'd be in the same situation as now. if we posted saying a warning was given you'd have no other choice but to accept that without knowing what the post was. As i said not everything can be transparent.

OK I see your point, but surely thats where the ombudsman would have a role. Reviewing posts that cant be made public if the person warned thought the warning was not warranted.

My suggestion is not for disputed warnings, just so people can see that all are dealt with equally. All it would need is a listing saying,

Forum User -
Rule Broken -
Date/Time of rule broken -
Topic link -
Action Taken - Dumped / Edited / Verbal Warning / Formal Warning / Ban
Action taken by - Mod Name

This will show any mod bias, will also show which mods are most active in enforcing rules.


EDIT

Out of curiosity, how much work would this actually be ? How many warnings are issued in an average week ?

Some users report as much as 100+ per month. Sometimes a Mod will pop in to the MCP and see 25 reports. In certain areas it would be a lot of work.

[MEZZANINE]

My point is what of rule breakages that warrant the whole post being moved to private dump. You can't see it, and the private dump will never be made public because it contains unedited posts which would be wrong to make it viewable by all.

So if someone breaks a rule and it is quickly dealt with and sent to private dump and you didn't see what it was for then you'd be in the same situation as now. if we posted saying a warning was given you'd have no other choice but to accept that without knowing what the post was. As i said not everything can be transparent.

OK I see your point, but surely thats where the ombudsman would have a role. Reviewing posts that cant be made public if the person warned thought the warning was not warranted.

My suggestion is not for disputed warnings, just so people can see that all are dealt with equally. All it would need is a listing saying,

Forum User -
Rule Broken -
Date/Time of rule broken -
Topic link -
Action Taken - Dumped / Edited / Verbal Warning / Formal Warning / Ban
Action taken by - Mod Name

This will show any mod bias, will also show which mods are most active in enforcing rules.


EDIT

Out of curiosity, how much work would this actually be ? How many warnings are issued in an average week ?

Some users report as much as 100+ per month. Sometimes a Mod will pop in to the MCP and see 25 reports. In certain areas it would be a lot of work.

100 reports from one user ???? Or 100 per month total. If one user reports that much get them psychiatric help. If 100 per month total thats not so much, thats less than 25 per week split between the whole mod team.

[Psyko]

You can sign all you like, the fact warnings are given ( or not given ) behind closed doors accounts for a lot of the speculation about mod bias.

If all warnings were in one public thread stating not only the user & offense but also which mod issued the warning then any patterns / exception / bias would be plain to see, or easy to disprove.

I believe this kind of open accountability would eliminate bias and either end or support the accusations you mods so hate to hear.

Ultimately, I don't think anything short of the second coming will end accusations of moderator bias. It just happens. Comes with the territory. Like beekeepers getting stung, or something.

However, I have to admit I sort of like your idea. Transparency and accountability are generally good things. Your idea about trackeble reports won't work, I don't think, unless it was somehow hard coded into the forum. Regrettably, we don't have the manpower to maintain a permanent thread or individually PM the people who make reports. You can thank the boys who cry wolf for that one.

The warnings thing is interesting, although it might be a bit of a blunt instrument. I consider verbal warnings, and user notes, to be just as valuable as warnings in terms of empirical evidence for or against mod conduct. Maybe they could be worked in something. Hmm. As I say, interesting.

I agree that the warning thing is interesting, but it might also create more problems than solutions.

It would certainly show if one mod was targeting specific people, and allow people who reports problems to see if their reports have been actioned ( warnings given )

I disagree.
Example: I have warned one user 3 times, and I have not issued multiple warnings to any other users. This doesn't mean that I am bias against that user, it means that they broke the rules 3 times in my section and I happened to be the one handling the warning each time. It's not my fault they broke the rules so often.

BTW the reason I question if they were warned is because they are both DDE members

There are people in alliances on this forum? I hadn't noticed.
(No, really, when I warn people, I don't notice what alliance they happen to be a part of. As such, I can't recall any of the alliances of anyone I have warned.)

Point is 1 member of Titans and 1 member of FS have recently been banned.

I personally tried to put in 2 reports of serious misconduct by a user in DDE only to find that someone else had already reported both posts but have no idea if the user was even warned.

If my suggestion above is viable and gets put into practice everyone would be able to see the results of reporting a post, and if all incidents are treated equally regardless of alliance or friends on the mod team. If the mods are treating everyone equally they will be able to prove it, if the mods are not treating everyone equally it will be clear for everyone to see. I see no downside to it.

Point is 2 users were banned for having 3 warnings.

Did those reported posts get edited/deleted/moved/etc? Sometimes a report might sit for a while because a Mod for the section may not be on, or the Mods who are online don't touch it because it involves an issue they may be a part of (like avoiding war threads). I'm not saying this is the case, but sometimes a user might see serious misconduct in a post where the Mod does not. In such cases, we take the action we feel is necessary (sometimes a polite PM to the poster, sometimes a verbal, sometimes a warning) and we don't need to explain ourselves to the person reporting the post.

Inconsistency in actions taken when dealing with reports of rule breaches or rule breaches mods just find by themselves is the whole issue.

If 2 forums users break the same rule, one gets a formal warning and one gets his post dumped but no formal warning, and those two players happen to be in warring alliances ( which being a war game is quite likely ) then of obviously the forum user who got the warning ( and his/her allies ) will think he/she has been the victim of mod bias.

Think of it this way. 2 forum users break the same rule. 1 user has a verbal warning for the same rule from 3 months back. The other user has never been warned for said rule before and has no user notes pertaining to said rule. I am going to warn the first and issue a verbal to the second. It might be inconsistent, but isn't that more fair to the user?

Unless we include user background when publicly posting our actions against a user, it is impossible for anyone to know why we made the choices we did and they will see it as inconsistent and bias. And sending a PM to a user who has reported a message where we detail what actions we took could illicit disagreements or arguments about whether the post breaks a rule or not. I have seen reports where the reporter thought the post was too sexual in nature, only to find minor innuendo involved. Didn't break forum rules, I didn't warn, and I didn't need to get in a debate with the reporting user over what constitutes as too sexual and what doesn't (there is no clear line and another Mod may have had a different opinion than me). "inconsistency" allows for gray areas in the rules which allow for more fairness for the users.

[RoKeT]

It's really easy to find out if said person got a warning...

all you have to do is look at the users warning count before you report and then after...