I also agree that there is a certain bias in PRSI when it comes to uniformly reminding/ disciplining/ reprimanding the users that participate in the forum.
There are two potential sources of bias:
1. Post reporting bias. If most users favor one point of view while arguing with a user with an opposing opinion, it's much more likely that rules violations by that user will be reported simply because they get more attention and because some users purposely target them.
We know that this happens and we keep it in mind. If a user didn't break the rules, no action is taken, despite their opponents submitting lots of post reports. However, if the targeted user did indeed break the rules, they are held responsible. Being post-report targeted for having a minority opinion isn't an excuse. And if rules violations by other users are never reported, they probably won't come to the attention of the moderators. We've seen cases where a minority-opinion user fails to report posts because they assume that moderation is applied unfairly, and this attitude is actually a cause of an unequal outcome.
2. Moderation bias. This would occur if individual moderators used their own opinions to guide their handling of post reports, rather than the rules as stated and the moderation guidelines we use.
We stop this by using a team approach to moderation (every moderator sees what every other moderator does), by using a team with various political views (we get accused of favoring both major political parties!), by having a tiered review system with administrators (who report to arn) overseeing moderators, and by investigating any moderation action that's questioned.
If, instead, we're promoting or suppressing certain political views, it would have to be a conspiracy among the whole staff, including unpaid volunteers who would have no reason to be so dishonest.
I just want to know why management allows this and after repeated post reports does nothing about it.
There are four primary reasons why we sometimes seem to "do nothing" about a rules violation or post report:
- It wasn't reported. A lot of users assume that somebody else reported a problem and don't report it themselves.
- We didn't finish handling it yet. Some reports require discussion among the moderators. How many moderators are around at any given time is highly variable across time zones.
- The moderators don't agree that a rule was broken. The moderators are practiced at interpreting the rules and applying them consistently. Post reporters are sometimes right on the money, but sometimes completely wrong about what's against the rules.
- We acted but you can't see it. Many warnings are handled privately with PMs or infractions, not visible time-outs or bans. We believe in giving users second chances when we can. That's not the same as allowing rules violations.
We ignored a post report or allowed a rules violation that we heard about. <--- This never happens.
Someday I'll put this information in an FAQ so I don't have to explain it as often!
