Moderator Complaints Options Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic Download this topic Subscribe to this forum Display Modes Switch to: Outline Standard Switch to: Linear+

[Fuchs]

When you issue a warning, I do expect that the warning contains at least a link to the post(s) that were deemed violating the ToS, not some vague reference to a thread that is hitting over 21 pages at the time of the warning. How is anyone expected to behave if no one tells him what exactly was deemed to be violating the ToS?

When I send a PM back to ask for such a link/explanation, I'd expect an answer - after all, to issue a warning you must have decided which post(s) violated ToS, so it shoud not take long to answer either. And no, I do not care if there are many other threads to look at, if you take two days to decide to warn me, then I do think you'll have the reasons for the warning ready, and clearly picked out.

When I discuss such with another moderator I do not expect to be cussed at with four letter words.

What is going on with the moderating here?

[DireRadiant]

The response to your original request is being reviewed by the Moderating Team before it is forwarded to you.

[KCKitsune]

When I discuss such with another moderator I do not expect to be cussed at with four letter words.

What is going on with the moderating here?

What mechanism is there for moderating the moderators?

Do they have god-like power or can their decision be overruled?

[pbangarth]

This isn't a democracy, and the food chain ends somewhere.

[Fuchs]

If a warning was issued, then some post(s) were deemed to be against the ToS. What's to review there? All I am asking is: Which post(s) did violate the ToS?

How can it be that you have to "review the response" after I got a warning? How could you issue a warning without already having determinded what violated the ToS, and why can't you simply tell me right with the warning?

This does look very weird to me. If you know what I did wrong you could simply send the link(s) to me, and there would not be any need for "reviewing by the moderators".

[Grinder]

Do they have god-like power or can their decision be overruled?

God-like. It's a bit hard to be an omnipotent God when you're not the only one, but each one of us tries his best to kick the others out. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/rotfl.gif)

[Method]

In many cases such as this we get reports on multiple posts from different members. Rather than issue warnings for each infraction we will often issue a single warning in the hopes that the individual will change thier tone. To clarify, the "original request" DR referred to is your request for a list of specific posts that were considered in our decision. DR has compiled such a list and should PM it to you in the coming days. If you have further questions feel free to PM us. We will try to answer them as soon as possible, but we get a lot of PMs, as I'm sure you are aware.

[Fuchs]

I fail to understand why, if this list existed before the warning was issued, why it was not forwarded with the warning. can you explain that?

[Method]

I fail to understand why, if this list existed before the warning was issued, why it was not forwarded with the warning. can you explain that?

Short answer: Invision software. Each report generates an automated message that contains a bunch of text besides the relevant link to the post (things like "hello so and so has reported the following thread:" and other junk that is not germane to this discussion). We each follow each link and we start threads (sometimes multiple sometimes grouped) to discuss the validity of each report. We often read through the threads for context, which sometimes involves posts not directly reported but which are then also discussed. The long and short of it is that it takes some doing to compile an actual list, but DR is doing this per your request.

[Grinder]

We need to work faster. Faster! Faaaaaaaaaaaaaster! (IMG:style_emoticons/default/rotfl.gif)

[Fuchs]

My question is: Why was I warned without such a list already existing? What else other than such a list would form the base of the warning? It does not fill me with confidence in the moderating procedure here that a warning is given without a link (or list of links) existing already.

[Fuchs]

And my other complaint remained unanswered: Is it ok to get cussed at in a PM? By a moderator no less, answering a question about moderation?

[Grinder]

My question is: Why was I warned without such a list already existing? What else other than such a list would form the base of the warning? It does not fill me with confidence in the moderating procedure here that a warning is given without a link (or list of links) existing already.

Each reported post includes a link to the post, so we had and have a list when we discuss actions.

[Grinder]

And my other complaint remained unanswered: Is it ok to get cussed at in a PM? By a moderator no less, answering a question about moderation?

Fuck yeah. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/rotfl.gif)

[Fuchs]

Fuck yeah. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/rotfl.gif)

How mature, and nice, and "non-inflammatory".

[Grinder]

That's your opinion.

[Fuchs]

It's actually sarcasm. But it's good to know what mods can get away with on Dumpshock.

[Grinder]

If you have any complaints, please use the report function. The moderating team will review the post and thread and take action if needed.

[Fuchs]

Each reported post includes a link to the post, so we had and have a list when we discuss actions.

If you had a list, why do you (the mods) need days to gather it now? That's not logical.

[Grinder]

If you had a list, why do you (the mods) need days to gather it now? That's not logical.

Dude, you're not the only one who got reported in the last days. And since we want that most moderators chime in with their opinion, it takes time. And we never claimed that you'll receive the list o links within 24 hours or something.

[Fuchs]

If you do not have the list with the posts ready you should not send out a warning since a warning should at least link to and state what was done wrong, so people know what not to do in the future. And if you send out warnings without such a link list you make it seem as if you issue warnings without knowing exactly what for. That procedure does not instill much confidence in the moderation here.

Of course, neither does the cussing and gloating. It comes close to preaching water and drinking wine.

[Grinder]

How did I know that you would come to that conclusions?

[Fuchs]

I think everyone would expect that at the time a moderator issues a warning they are able to tell what exactly the warning is for. That would mean they can point, at the time the warning is issued, to the post(s) that gave cause for it.

Are you honestly telling me that you (the mods) issue warnings without actually being able to tell what for? When all it takes is a few copy and paste clicks? After two days of "letting everyone give their input"?

That does either not sound very convincing, or not like a good procedure.

[Grinder]

Are you honestly telling me that you (the mods) issue warnings without actually being able to tell what for?

No.

That's the conclusion you're drawing. But hey, I expected that when I entered the thread. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/rotfl.gif)

[Fuchs]

Then why, if you already had the list, do you need a few days to send it? No one so far has been able to answer that question.

Why do you claim to need a few days to compile the list of posts that violate the ToS if you already have that list? If you have no list, how would you know what posts violate the ToS?

I doubt I am the only one who thinks this is strange, claiming one knows exactly what a warning is for, but still needing days to actually list it.