Question annk.
If the moderation team expects members to "waive" their rights can members expect moderators to "waive" their uber secrecy ?
If you're asking moderators to stop protecting members' privacy, then no, that's not going to happen. Only members can allow moderators to discuss them. I think it's a really good policy. Members need to know we won't discuss issues involving them with anyone other than them, unless they explicitly request that we do so.
Personally I'd say to people TO'd etc. And I've seen both sides , to give up the arguments. It's useless and a waste of precious bandwidth.
Since you were indeed on the other side for a short time, it surprises me that you say this. Moderation does indeed get reversed or overturned. Mods can make mistakes. Luckily, since we discuss so much, it doesn't happen often. The discussion allows us to self-correct, and we're not shy about telling each other when we disagree.
Or maybe that's what you mean - that we're consistent enough that moderation is not often overturned? I would say it's definitely worth contacting us if someone disagrees with moderation. More often than not, a more in-depth of why we did what we did results in a satisfied member.
Maybe no moderation you did during your tenure was overturned, but in my 3+ years as a mod/admin, I've had moderation I've done overturned! Not often, but it has happened.
Furthermore this poll needs to be re-written because there is more than posts being deleted.
I agree completely. It should be called "Have you been moderated on MacRumors?" We don't censor, but we do reserve the right to delete posts or comments that are in violation of the rules.
Sure, I waive my right to moderation privacy, you can discuss it here, it doesn't bother me a bit.
Ok. With one exception, I'll do this exactly as I would answer a contact on this issue.
The moderation records show that prior to your temporary suspension, you were warned twice for insults. The comment you made in PRSI that resulted in a week's suspension was part of a conversation where moderation was being discussed. Your comment was off-topic to the thread subject, as well as a comment on specific moderation.
The records also note an insulting comment you posted on the same day you made the comment that caused the temporary suspension, but no further action was taken because your account was already suspended, and because the suspension was longer than what would've been usual in another situation. Since you didn't receive any notification of that comment, I don't think it's appropriate to discuss it in any more detail here. You're welcome to PM me if you'd like to know which comment it was.
A side note, that might be interesting since we're discussing moderation: you received warnings right off the bat and not reminders. I haven't checked the dates, but I suspect this is because the first violations occurred before we went over from the infraction/warning system to the milder reminder/warning system. If you had had your first violation today (in the post in question, you called another member a "douche lord"), in most cases you would have only received a reminder. The second violation, also an insult, would have escalated to a warning. (However, it should be noted that when the violation falls under "instantly bannable offenses", a moderator may choose to issue a warning immediately).
Normal escalation after two warnings would have been a short time-out, not a week. However, your violation was in PRSI, a forum we know from experience gets much worse immediately before and after major political events (in this case, the US election). For that reason the moderation right then was stricter than usual. When you contacted us about it, however, we discussed it, and agreed that while there was no reason to reverse it, it was reasonable to reduce it to two days. Since it had already been in effect for two days, it was lifted.
So as far as I can see, the contact system worked perfectly. You felt the moderation was too extreme, you used the system correctly to state your case, and we agreed.
I guess my main concern is there is no outlet to discuss moderation outside of those contact forms after the fact.
You can bring any issue up in general terms in Site and Forum Feedback, or you can continue to discuss with us via the Contact system if you're not satisfied with the answers you get. That's the system. You may not like it, but you accepted it when you registered. You can make suggestions for change to the system - lots of things here have been changed due to member feedback - but giving us feedback by breaking rules isn't the way to do it.
Even here your last post was essentially a warning I was breaking the rules, when we're having a civil discussion about what's occurred.
It wasn't a warning, I was stating a fact. Since you recently had your account suspended for discussing specific moderation in a thread, and since you specifically asked about how to discuss moderation in your contact message and received an answer, it seems clear that you knew your comment here was also a rules violation. I hear that you're calling part of a civil discussion, but as we see it, you were knowingly breaking the rule - again.
The users also have no way to provide feedback on particular instances of moderation without getting infractions for it.
Yes, they do. Again - a member can use the contact form if they want to be specific, or bring the issue up in general terms in SFF. Almost any specific case can be discussed in general terms. You could for example start a thread stating you suspect that members aren't moderated in the same way for the same violations, and ask us if that's true and if so, why it's that way.
...define a specific criteria for trolling. I realize it's difficult, but where suspensions are concerned, it should not be left to interpretation.
We agree completely with you on this. We are absolutely open to suggestions as to how to define trolling. We discuss it constantly, and would love (fictitious!) examples from members that we could discuss
with members. I think that would really help the behind-the-scenes discussion as well.
Finally, in response to Moyank24's comment, which was made while I was writing this post, I can say that moderators do not take sides. Moderation is transparent to all other mods and admins, and everything is documented. Taking sides would be seen immediately, and any side-taking would be dealt with very quickly.
I understand the desire for fairness, and appreciate the time and energy members are putting into this discussion. I would however feel better about it if there were just a bit more balance (= if more members were able to say "yes, I did break the rule, sorry about that). To be frank, I see more placing of responsibility on others, than the taking of responsibility for one's own actions. I'm not saying that we shouldn't be held accountable for how moderation is done. I'm just saying that forum participation is a two-way street.
So I'll throw that out there as food for thought. *insert thoughtful smiley here*