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?

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

What mechanism is there for moderating the moderators?

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

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

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".

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.

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.

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.

We need to work faster. Faster! Faaaaaaaaaaaaaster!

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.

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?

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

Fuck yeah.

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

That's your opinion.

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

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

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.

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.

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

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.

No.

That's the conclusion you're drawing. But hey, I expected that when I entered the thread.

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.

I already answered your question. We don't work from a list. But we are all aware of what we're discussing. It's a special talent we have.

I doubt the mods are the only ones who think you needed a warning for being inflammatory and baiting arguments. This thread is case in point. We answered your questions and yet you continue harp on the same point over and over again like you were in CGL #6. It's is pretty clear that you are looking for an argument not answers.

My question was - finally - answered in a PM.

I do maintain that any warning should have the posts it is issued for attached. Do you disagree with that?

Also, cussing at people in PMs - and worse - is not exactly what one does expect from moderators. Even if it is done in german.

No, Method, I think that Fuchs is completely correct in his assessment of this situation.

If you're going to go "Naughty, Naughty, mustn't do!" Then you had better say WHY you're giving a warning. Otherwise you're sending the wrong message to people.

As Fuchs said, his question has been answered. Every warning message comes via PM and/ or an email-adress, so the offender can contact the moderator team.

Though not every PM they get from a moderator if they do that is informative, or even civil. But as we heard here, mods are allowed to cuss posters out in PMs.

Maybe we're humans too.

Fuchs, you are correct and you should have been provided with examples of the infractions reported against you. Every report comes into the moderators inboxes and it gets posted up on a mod forum where we ALL decide whether it is worthy of a warning or not. Of course, we are not all sitting at a computer 24/7 so we do not all immediately chime in for or against each issue, hence the delay. Of course, this does not excuse you being denied the information you should have gotten as it was definitely available the moment it hit the forums. We will either be reading the forums and report it ourselves or it will be reported by a fellow user. Either way, the data is part of the process from the beginning and honestly, I believe it should be available to all parties until the end because the accused has a right to know what they are doing. Again, this was an unfortunate oversight.

As for overruling the moderators? That is why we have everything go through discussion in the first place, so we do not have a moderator go off half-cocked and throw the ban hammer around for a personal vendetta or a bad day. If something happens and someone is banned, it is the result of a group decision. This can add to the time it can take for action to be dealt out, unfortunately, but I believe a fair justice system is a little more attractive to the populace than a hair-trigger one.

And as Grinder said, we are human. We have our own quirks, flaws, and ideas on how things should be. Should you have been cussed out via PM? Definitely not. In fact, I would expect you to report that PM because moderator abuse is worse than regular user abuse.

Can I report a PM even though I was explicitely told by the mod in question that giving away info from a PM is against the ToS?

If a PM is inflammatory and abusive, report it and reference it. There is a great difference between sharing personal information sent via PM onto the public forums and reporting an abuse case via PM. I am a relatively new mod, but I strongly believe that the rules need to apply to everyone including the mods. Hiding behind the ban hammer does not excuse anyone from the guidelines we try to adhere to on the forums.

I am not indicating that this is the case, but if there is ever counter evidence in such cases, that is going to be welcome from both sides and evaluated.

Dude, I meant the list with that. Thought I was clear about that. Next time, I'll try better.

By the by, would it be possible to put a 'confirm' step on the report button? There might be one already, I'm not going to test it, but I recall being quite embarassed having accidentally reported myself for 'inappropriate content' (fortunately, no moderator warnings came of it but, you know... it could have.)

I thought you were god-like creatures... oh man...

Probably not worth the cost for the benefit.

It's better for the moderators to receive more reports from the community since that kind of direct feedback is what better enables us to respond to community concerns. If we never hear about things then no action can be taken in situations that benefit from it.

Shhh.... That's what we call "a secret".

Grinder, youre my hero

I mean to say, I've clicked the 'report' button while in a drunken stupor and trying to click on the 'top' button, as they're right next to each other. An "undo" would be nice, so I stop accidentally reporting whoever posted last in a thread.

It reports that specific post regardless of where it is in the thread.

Can I be a moderator too? I wanna cuss out total douchebaa.....um...valued and *cough cough* respectable members of the forums.

I know, but the point is, I don't push the 'top' button when I'm already at the top of the thread. When I'm at the bottom, I try to push the 'top' button, but hit 'report' on accident sometimes.

Actually, it will drop you to a screen where you are able to enter notes before the report is submitted. At that point, just hit the 'back' button and continue along your merry way.

Where is the report button for PMs?

Just remember one thing: Whatever you do, don't say people are full of shit (even when they are). If you leave out the S and H, it's probably okay, though. Because, you know, naughty words are apparently against the ToS. Sometimes. Or something. I haven't quite figured it out as of yet. But I'm working on it.

Really? Man, things have gone downhill around here.

~J