Feedback on all reported posts

[Hurricane]

I have done a 180 on this issue. At first I put myself in the mods shoes - namely I would not want guys complaining when they received feedback that no action had been taken on their reported post. My initial thought is that a non response is better for managing emotions of people who have reported posts.

However - I have the following proposal which could work.
Issue each reported post with a ticket number. Post a web page where you can check the status of your ticket number.
Statuses would be "Infraction given" or "Complaint noted for the record"

I think if people know that their complaint has at least gone on file against the perpetrator they won't bitch and complain that no action was taken.

Windie has a complaint that his reported post wasn't dealt with - maybe it was he will never know. With a feedback system he would know what happened.

If mods are worried about posting an open web page in case people run stats on it then just email us back with the status.

 

[Flem274*]

I don't see James being keen on setting up a new webpage with tickets and all that jazz, but he will read this and take note. I don't think it is feasible myself, and if we were to implement a feedback system it would likely be emails or PM. It would be the easiest route I suspect.

Without revealing which camp I'm in on this issue, the anti-feedback argument would be people could still use this system as fuel for their fires. If we send them "was put on record" members could still rail against our decision just as easily as if we had a public thread here on the forum.

 

[HeathDavisSpeed]

I've been thinking about this greatly:

Just make the infract sign that appears on a post public FFS. The only concerns raised publically about making infractions public, that I recall, have been:

1. People might bait people who are close to a ban - Then, um, infract those people
2. People might use the lack of an infraction sign to whinge about posts not getting infracted - As opposed to using the lack of any info at all whinge about posts not getting infracted

 

[GIMH]

Absolutely fantastic post from Heath. Really well put.

 

[HeathDavisSpeed]

Absolutely fantastic post from Heath. Really well put.

Strangely, it seems to read better if you say it in a scouse accent and slag off John Barnes with the last breath.

 

[Adamc]

The main issue for me is that some posters are publicly reprimanded for certain offences, whereas posts by other posters containing the same offences don't attract moderator comment, even when it is clear that it has been read by moderators. I can give specific examples, but it's irrelevant to the general principle. Even if those posts are later infracted, it does create confusion as to what is or isn't acceptable. Heath's suggestion is sensible. Since a lot of infracted posts don't seem to be deleted, making it transparent to everyone else which posts were awarded infractions would clear up any confusion.

 

[GIMH]

The alternative is that we just use my 'Post in here if you have ZERO infraction points' thread as a guide and bitch about the rest

 

[HeathDavisSpeed]

Heath's suggestion is sensible.

Thank you, Adamski.

 

[honestbharani]

The alternative is that we just use my 'Post in here if you have ZERO infraction points' thread as a guide and bitch about the rest

Is there anyone who can even start that thread? Forget being able to post in that...

 

[sledger]

Yeah, not in favour of mandatory report post feedback, you can always email the mods if you want to know what's been done about a report you've sent if you're really bothered about something. Shouldn't be a duty on their part to give feedback on every report etc...

Heath's suggestion a good one imo.

 

[Dan]

Yeah, not in favour of mandatory report post feedback, you can always email the mods if you want to know what's been done about a report you've sent if you're really bothered about something. Shouldn't be a duty on their part to give feedback on every report etc...

Heath's suggestion a good one imo.

Agreed. Only a handful of posts that get reported would need to be followed up anyway - a random report of a spambot, for example, would hardly require the effort of a mandatory response system - particularly if multiple people report it.

If someone's really worried about a report not being followed up, they should contact the mods.

 

[Spark]

Absolutely fantastic post from Heath. Really well put.

---

Personally I wouldn't say no to the ubiquitous "USER HAS BEEN INFRACTED FOR THIS POST" type message (or indeed make the yellow/red cards visible). What we wouldn't want to see, though, is threads get derailed after people see that and feel the need to comment publicly in the thread on the message.

It would also be kinda sucky if people started looking for excuses to attack us and took post infractions out of context - our patience is limited on that front and we'd probably just look for other ways to deal with things instead.

 

[smash84]

I've been thinking about this greatly:

Just make the infract sign that appears on a post public FFS. The only concerns raised publically about making infractions public, that I recall, have been:

1. People might bait people who are close to a ban - Then, um, infract those people
2. People might use the lack of an infraction sign to whinge about posts not getting infracted - As opposed to using the lack of any info at all whinge about posts not getting infracted

The main issue for me is that some posters are publicly reprimanded for certain offences, whereas posts by other posters containing the same offences don't attract moderator comment, even when it is clear that it has been read by moderators. I can give specific examples, but it's irrelevant to the general principle. Even if those posts are later infracted, it does create confusion as to what is or isn't acceptable. Heath's suggestion is sensible. Since a lot of infracted posts don't seem to be deleted, making it transparent to everyone else which posts were awarded infractions would clear up any confusion.

awta. Seems like blatant favoritism at times

 

[Prince EWS]

The main issue for me is that some posters are publicly reprimanded for certain offences, whereas posts by other posters containing the same offences don't attract moderator comment, even when it is clear that it has been read by moderators. I can give specific examples, but it's irrelevant to the general principle. Even if those posts are later infracted, it does create confusion as to what is or isn't acceptable. Heath's suggestion is sensible. Since a lot of infracted posts don't seem to be deleted, making it transparent to everyone else which posts were awarded infractions would clear up any confusion.

Public reprimands are given when we feel we need to get a thread away from a particular line of discussion. Infractions usually take a while to materialise because we discuss them all as a group first, so the public warnings are issued with immediacy in mind. Whether a post gets once or not isn't really dictated to by the seriousness of the offence or how bad the post is, but whether or not it's become cancerous to the thread.

But, in a way your post does illustrate (IMO) why across-the-board report feedback or visible infractions would be a bad idea. People are going to disagree with mods sometimes. We spend enough of our time getting into tedious debates over email with people as about their own infractions as it is without having to argue with them about infractions we didn't give other people, and it'd just fuel the endless out-of-context poor comparisons we get when people claim inconsistency. The last thing I want as a moderator is to get an email from someone linking to a six month old post that received an infraction and asking it why it was different from another post they reported, and participate in the tedious argument that would follow.

The report post function is there to alert moderators of potentially rule-breaking posts; not to engage in debate. We actually do contact people about their reports sometimes when they've reported a post that crossed a personal barrier to inform them of the action taken, but largely I don't think it'd be a good idea.

 

[GIMH]

Just add something to the infractable offence list around discussing infracted posts in the midst of a thread.

Transparency is better than smoke and mirrors FFS

 

[Prince EWS]

And in regards to this:

I think if people know that their complaint has at least gone on file against the perpetrator they won't bitch and complain that no action was taken.

Every report goes on file "against the perpetrator", even if we as moderators don't feel there was any malice in the slightest. Without getting too technical.. when you report a post, it creates a thread in the moderators forum. We merge that thread with any reported posts against the member in question, and discuss possible action in that thread. We feel that system gives us context when dealing with each report.

 

[GIMH]

And at the end of each quarter the member with the longest thread gets 40 infraction points

 

[Fusion]

And at the end of each quarter the member with the longest thread gets 40 infraction points

Be careful what you wish for mate!

 

[uvelocity]

my thread is entitled uvelocity WAC in case you were wondering

 

[vic_orthdox]

Just picking up on what Cribb said, another factor is timeliness. If a moderator is online while an argument/ordinary post is made, its more likely to get a public rebuke to stop any reactions / retaliations.