Anyone else feel like a particular Mod picks on them?

[BenTrovato]

I have never agreed with any warning I have been moderated on. Mainly because the other user posted a comment that was more (or equally) harsh to begin with & yet did not get modded. At the end of the day, it's a just a human making a (poor) decision. These guys aren't being paid so don't expect too much. Some mods are actually good and make great comments and allow things to be discussed. I like those mods. Other mods are just happy to put the mod hat on at every turn and issue warnings. This place is no different than any corner of the world - has some good people and some not so good people.

Although when threads like this get created and you get enough people commenting, there's probably something to be looked into.

 

[Doctor Q]

If you don't agree with your moderation, please don't "talk it out" with that moderator. That bypasses our review system. We've asked the moderators to direct you to the Contact form in such cases, because the administrators, not the moderators, are in charge of reviewing, explaining, or reversing moderation actions.

 

[Septembersrain]

If you don't agree with your moderation, please don't "talk it out" with that moderator. That bypasses our review system. We've asked the moderators to direct you to the Contact form in such cases, because the administrators, not the moderators, are in charge of reviewing, explaining, or reversing moderation actions.

Sorry, I apologize for my post. I just thought that if two people are in a disagreement, talking it out is logical. However, I understand procedure now.

 

[Doctor Q]

No need to apologize. Your idea makes sense. We just happen to have this (less intuitive?) procedure for resolving disputes. It's because having moderators defend their decisions individually would be much more likely to produce the types of situations that we want to avoid: people treating moderation as a personal affront, moderators getting to decide cases without the rest of the team being involved, or making it seem like we have a blanket "moderation is always correct" attitude, instead of giving us a chance to review cases where there is disagreement.

 

[OllyW]

No need to apologize. Your idea makes sense. We just happen to have this (less intuitive?) procedure for resolving disputes. It's because having moderators defend their decisions individually would be much more likely to produce the types of situations that we want to avoid: people treating moderation as a personal affront, moderators getting to decide cases without the rest of the team being involved, or making it seem like we have a blanket "moderation is always correct" attitude, instead of giving us a chance to review cases where there is disagreement.

We also have few helpful Moderation FAQ pages which address a lot of the points bought up in this thread.

Where do I post comments about moderation?
What if I disagree with moderation of my posts?
How are moderation errors handled?

 

[ericgtr12]

I have never agreed with any warning I have been moderated on. Mainly because the other user posted a comment that was more (or equally) harsh to begin with & yet did not get modded. At the end of the day, it's a just a human making a (poor) decision. These guys aren't being paid so don't expect too much. Some mods are actually good and make great comments and allow things to be discussed. I like those mods. Other mods are just happy to put the mod hat on at every turn and issue warnings. This place is no different than any corner of the world - has some good people and some not so good people.

Although when threads like this get created and you get enough people commenting, there's probably something to be looked into.

While the staff here may disagree with me on this point, it has happened over and over. They claim the entire discussion is looked at but even an objective view of others (where you're just observing) shows otherwise and with regularity.

If you don't agree with your moderation, please don't "talk it out" with that moderator. That bypasses our review system. We've asked the moderators to direct you to the Contact form in such cases, because the administrators, not the moderators, are in charge of reviewing, explaining, or reversing moderation actions.

One has to wonder if any decisions have been reversed or modified in any way as a result of the contact form? In my experience every single one has been final.

 

[OllyW]

One has to wonder if any decisions have been reversed or modified in any way as a result of the contact form? In my experience every single one has been final.

We have reversed or altered many moderation decisions over the years though we find most of them stand up to close scrutiny when reviewed by the whole team.

 

[HexMonkey]

I have never agreed with any warning I have been moderated on. Mainly because the other user posted a comment that was more (or equally) harsh to begin with & yet did not get modded.

While the staff here may disagree with me on this point, it has happened over and over. They claim the entire discussion is looked at but even an objective view of others (where you're just observing) shows otherwise and with regularity.

A relevant FAQ from Rulebreaking Top 10:

"Somebody insulted me so I insulted them back."

Each member is responsible for following the rules in their own posts, no matter what anyone else posts. If another user breaks the forum rules, click the "Report Post" icon next to their post and report it to the moderators so they can take care of it. You can ignore an insulting post made by another user or even reply to it if you stay within the rules yourself, but rule-breaking by other users does not give you license to break the rules as well.

It's also important to note that much of the moderation we do is private, so it's quite possible that in many of these cases the other user was moderated but not in a way that was visible to other members.

We do look at context when moderating, but often only enough to be able to effectively evaluate the post in question. It's not always feasible to review entire discussions when a single post is reported. If a reported post is in direct response to a post that taunted or insulted the poster, we're likely to review both posts (but you can report it to be safe, as we may not be looking at the quoted post as closely since we're not evaluating it in response to a reported violation). In some other cases, we may miss other violations in a thread, and if you feel this is the case then please report them to bring them to our attention.

One has to wonder if any decisions have been reversed or modified in any way as a result of the contact form? In my experience every single one has been final.

As I stated in my previous post, yes, decisions are sometimes reversed. In most cases they're not, because in the vast majority of the cases we moderate in consistent ways, but there are often grey areas or cases where different people interpret posts in different ways. Personally, when I review moderation, I try to first read the user's take on what happened, then review their posts, then finally review the moderation that was done and any discussion around it amongst the team. This means that any initial opinions I form are often biased towards the user's point of view, and only change once I see contradictory information in their posts or in the moderation record.

 

[BenTrovato]

A relevant FAQ from Rulebreaking Top 10:


It's also important to note that much of the moderation we do is private, so it's quite possible that in many of these cases the other user was moderated but not in a way that was visible to other members.

We do look at context when moderating, but often only enough to be able to effectively evaluate the post in question. It's not always feasible to review entire discussions when a single post is reported. If a reported post is in direct response to a post that taunted or insulted the poster, we're likely to review both posts (but you can report it to be safe, as we may not be looking at the quoted post as closely since we're not evaluating it in response to a reported violation). In some other cases, we may miss other violations in a thread, and if you feel this is the case then please report them to bring them to our attention.



As I stated in my previous post, yes, decisions are sometimes reversed. In most cases they're not, because in the vast majority of the cases we moderate in consistent ways, but there are often grey areas or cases where different people interpret posts in different ways. Personally, when I review moderation, I try to first read the user's take on what happened, then review their posts, then finally review the moderation that was done and any discussion around it amongst the team. This means that any initial opinions I form are often biased towards the user's point of view, and only change once I see contradictory information in their posts or in the moderation record.

I think replies like this are part of the issue. This is a feedback thread from the community to the staff members. It's an opportunity to learn how other members feel. Perhaps the moderation process is working well but how it is being communicated to members does not work which is clearly evident by the comments people are making.

In any organization or community these are wonderful opportunities to gather feedback. Say thanks to those who voiced their concerns and perhaps take a look at the processes to make this a better experience for the users. Scrutinizing the messages and posting links to FAQ's indicates more of an attitude of being right and there is nothing to be improved upon. Even though that may not be your intent, it does come across that way. Members just want their concerns to be heard.

 

[samiwas]

I could care less at this point if my account get permanently banned, I am already locked out of the political threads here and don't really miss it.

I'm pretty sure almost everyone who was in PRSI three years ago has been banned form it.

 

[ericgtr12]

I'm pretty sure almost everyone who was in PRSI three years ago has been banned form it.

Yeah, to be honest I miss some of those who used to post in there. Sure we had disagreements and heated debates from time to time but it's a political forum and in the end we're adults and can usually work things out if given the chance.

I think one of the fundamental issues is the ongoing encouragement to use the report button, yes it has it's use and serves a purpose but it's used to nitpick spats that would likely otherwise get resolved on their own. You get the feeling there are mods just laying in wait for someone to say something just the wrong way and BAM, got 'em. Maybe a bit of an exaggeration but I can tell you most who remain in there are keenly aware of every word we post for this very reason. In the end I'll be who I am and likely end up banned/removed from that forum as well, as I've said before it's just how they choose to run it here and we do choose whether or not to post here so that part is on us.

Note to staff: Props for letting the users air out our grievances here, it's cool of you.

 

[TheAppleFairy]

I'm pretty sure almost everyone who was in PRSI three years ago has been banned form it.

The funny thing about it is who the hell has such thin skin that you can’t say something that is a slight joke or a little sarcastic without being warned or banned. I have even gotten a couple of warning for trolling when I wasn’t trolling. Just stating an opinion. I have had some people say awful things to me and I just either gave it back or ignored them.

Kid gloves in this forum, can’t jest or say anything that might make a 3 year old cry.
[doublepost=1520552131][/doublepost]

I'm pretty sure almost everyone who was in PRSI three years ago has been banned form it.

That being said I don't really care for your post in PRSI, but I don't see the need for all the censoring. I wouldn't wish for anyone who isn't blantantly rude or be banned. The more opinions the better....even if you're wrong.

 

[JeffyTheQuik]

I know that the mod that picks on me the most is the one that discovers that I’m doing something against the ToS.

 

[Doctor Q]

If you want to discuss a specific moderation action, use the Contact form. We've already explained why here.

 

[rockitdog]

We actually feel that the opposite is true. We strive for a shared perspective, and don't want how moderation is done to be up to a single moderator's perspective on the rules. Users' posting and moderation histories are always considered when moderation is done, so it's important that moderators can see how users post in more than specific forum sections.

I would argue that moderation is as consistent as it is because the moderators actively follow more than an assigned section and discuss as extensively as they do.

My whole point to this was that for me its always the same one who takes issues with my posts. If there was truly a "shared perspective" then wouldn't all of them take issues with my posts? Why is it always the same one? The answer is that either one of the mods has something against me or he's not in step with the rest of the mods. I don't know how the answer could be anything else. I appreciate so many of the discussions that the mods participate in because they are actually interacting with users and having great discussions, not just flexing their web muscles.

 

[Doctor Q]

The answer is that either one of the mods has something against me or he's not in step with the rest of the mods.

Neither of these is the case. Depending on the time zone, reports of your posts are likely to be handled by the same person day to day. We're a small crew.

We have no reason to single out any particular user, so we don't. And if, for some reason, a moderator started showing bias by picking on someone, the rest of us would see it and put a stop to it. We do keep the whole team "in step."

 

[rockitdog]

WHY WAS MY POST JUST DELETED? Why is open discussion not allowed? Mods please explain.

 

[BigMcGuire]

WHY WAS MY POST JUST DELETED? Why is open discussion not allowed? Mods please explain.

Cuz it had moderation on it was my guess? (I saw the post before it was removed). Was going to post: Removed in 3...2...1 Sorry to make light of a serious issue. I just had a cookie and I'm happy.

 

[Doctor Q]

We've removed posts from this thread where a forum member has asked about specific cases of moderation, because we aren't allowed to answer them in a public thread under the Privacy Policy. However, a user can waive his or her right to moderation privacy (see details), in which case we can discuss the specific case as well as their overall moderation history.

 

[MacDawg]

WHY WAS MY POST JUST DELETED? Why is open discussion not allowed? Mods please explain.

Several times in this thread it has been stated that if you want to discuss specific moderation, you should use the Contact Us form
You didn't

Kinda easy to see why you get moderated a lot since you can't follow simple instructions

 

[rockitdog]

Several times in this thread it has been stated that if you want to discuss specific moderation, you should use the Contact Us form
You didn't

Kinda easy to see why you get moderated a lot since you can't follow simple instructions

Actually I wasn't specifically discussing specific moderation but since you know it all I'll let you run with it.
[doublepost=1520631051][/doublepost]

Cuz it had moderation on it was my guess? (I saw the post before it was removed). Was going to post: Removed in 3...2...1 Sorry to make light of a serious issue. I just had a cookie and I'm happy.

So since you saw it, do I have a point?

 

[ericgtr12]

We've removed posts from this thread where a forum member has asked about specific cases of moderation, because we aren't allowed to answer them in a public thread under the Privacy Policy. However, a user can waive his or her right to moderation privacy (see details), in which case we can discuss the specific case as well as their overall moderation history.

First, about that rule in point #2 wow, that's sort of cool actually.

Secondly, it seems fair from my perspective to have this rule in place and I've been able to state my piece in here while being careful not to point to a specific incident, whether my own or someone else's. The other side of that is if a mod feels like they have a solid case against a specific user, they could voice that too but their hands are also tied. I've been on that side of it before and believe me, you want to be able to say "but let me just quote what you said to show everyone why we took this action". I may not agree with the way things are always handled but I certainly appreciate the position they're in.

 

[BigMcGuire]

So since you saw it, do I have a point?

I didn't see your posts that were removed, only the moderation that was done by a particular forum moderator in your screenshots. This moderator has removed some of my posts in the past too - I think out of all of them that have removed my post, he/she has been the most active.

So I can't say if it's right cuz I didn't see what you posted and had removed. Your pictures did show one moderator doing the majority of action on your account - if that's what you're asking.

I know in my case, my posts that were removed were deserved cuz they were off topic. I have also had a heated debate with someone in this thread and they were suspended because of it - I know I was at fault as well and felt horrible because of what happened (I did not report - but I guess others did?) even though we ended the night on a real positive note.

Moderation is a no win scenario in some cases. Out of a lot of forums I've visited, this place I call home - these guys / gals are doing a good job. PRSI would be a **** hole if it wasn't moderated like it was I guess.

 

[TheAppleFairy]

So since you saw it, do I have a point?

I saw it in my email. Mine looks very similar to yours, as for you having a point, I have no comment. I don’t need someone trying to take me out in my sleep. I say just set up some rodent traps.


Nothing is going to change, I do enjoy that it’s being brought up but it’s wasted effort.

 

[Doctor Q]

Ironically, we'd have more moderators, and therefore more of a variety from whom a user might get reminders, and therefore fewer assumptions that a particular moderator is making it personal, if we weren't so picky about choosing moderators who won't do exactly that! You can read about moderator selection here.