About moderation

[Agent327]

Through this thread, we've established:

A) You have a complaint.

B) You've decided to not voice your complaint.

You seem to have a bit of a problem with reading a text. I voiced my complaint. I expect something will be done about it. If not, this will go further than a public thread about inappropriate behaviour.

As I already said.

In case someone misunderstood, I'm quite upset. But I like to keep that anger alive until something is done. And unless something is done, I assure you that anger will stay alive.

 

[Syno]

What's the purpose of this quote:

Alright. Sorry about all that. I've decided that, after all. it's just not worth the trouble.

... if not to say that you've chosen to do nothing?

 

[Agent327]

Check the thread title. I don't think the problem is 'one moderator'.

The administrators, and then ultimately thunderfall.

Is there any sort of record being kept of moderator actions? Or is it simply left to the discretion of the individual moderators? Because if that is the case, admin/supermod will only know about a problem if someone launches an official complaint against a moderator.

I mention this, because I know of at least one case where there is no trace of a moderator visible. When I questioned the moderator about this, the reply was along the lines of 'that happens all the time'. As in, 'that's perfectly normal'. Really, it's not normal at all. Nor should it be.

 

[Birdjaguar]

Moderator actions with members or member posts that involve awarding points are automatically logged (or were with the old form) in a staff subforum. Those actions also showed up in the members record. If a moderator edits a post with mod tags, that only shows up in that post. If a post is reported, the post and report are logged in a staff subforum where the report can be discussed. there is a huge amount of data that is kept on who does what including all the conversations about what should or could be done in response to member posts. When I was a moderator, I could do lots of things, but deleting my actions (covering my tracks) was pretty limited to editing posts. I'm sure though that the admins could follow that trail if they choose.

Do you know the post or event in question such that you could go to it in the forums?

Under the old software, admins had the capabilities to undo or change just about anything they wanted in any way they liked with any post. Moderators did not have access to the admin forum areas.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

When I was a moderator, I could do lots of things, but deleting my actions (covering my tracks) was pretty limited to editing posts. I'm sure though that the admins could follow that trail if they choose.

There's a difference between deleting actions which higher-tier moderators can follow anyway and deleting actions which regular members can find. It's basically impossible to compose a coherent appeal if a relevant post has been soft-deleted or the infraction has been given through the back door (aka profile infraction, which doesn't have a link to the post in question).

 

[Camikaze]

If a user is given an infraction/warning, they're always provided with a copy of the post for which they've been infracted/warned.

The forum upgrade has changed things a little in terms of paper trail. Infractions/warnings are no longer automatically logged in the staff forums. However, they are still logged in a user's profile, and on the post to which they pertain. Post edits by moderators no longer indicate which moderator performed the edit. However, there is a moderation log for each thread so that other moderators can see who has performed edits. There is also now the option of automatically notifying a user (via an alert) when one of their posts is edited or deleted. This is currently not being used all the time, but it is being used some of the time.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

If a user is given an infraction/warning, they're always provided with a copy of the post for which they've been infracted/warned.

Why don't we have access to our own infraction records anymore? It's a bit rich for the staff to say "Oh, we have access to everything you've ever posted" when there is no way for a regular member to see that him/herself. I keep all my PMs, and I don't have a week to search through them to find the ones that pertain to infractions, warnings, reversed infractions/warnings, and so on.

The forum upgrade has changed things a little in terms of paper trail. Infractions/warnings are no longer automatically logged in the staff forums. However, they are still logged in a user's profile, and on the post to which they pertain. Post edits by moderators no longer indicate which moderator performed the edit. However, there is a moderation log for each thread so that other moderators can see who has performed edits. There is also now the option of automatically notifying a user (via an alert) when one of their posts is edited or deleted. This is currently not being used all the time, but it is being used some of the time.

This sounds like major changes, not "little" changes. When a moderator edits a post, why don't you manually add your names in to indicate who did it? It's not fair, and it's certainly not courteous to make people guess which moderator to PM if they want to follow up on it with questions or explanations.

The way to build more trust between moderators and members is more transparency, not less. Don't just use the excuse that "Oh, that's not XenForo's default way of doing things." It's possible to manually edit posts, so moderators should be leaving their names on the posts they edit.

So where, in my profile, will I find my infraction record? It seems to have disappeared. It's really not right that we can't review our own records anymore.

 

[Camikaze]

Why don't we have access to our own infraction records anymore? It's a bit rich for the staff to say "Oh, we have access to everything you've ever posted" when there is no way for a regular member to see that him/herself. I keep all my PMs, and I don't have a week to search through them to find the ones that pertain to infractions, warnings, reversed infractions/warnings, and so on.

We're still working on that one. It's definitely intended that you should be able to see a 'warnings' tab in your profile.

This sounds like major changes, not "little" changes. When a moderator edits a post, why don't you manually add your names in to indicate who did it? It's not fair, and it's certainly not courteous to make people guess which moderator to PM if they want to follow up on it with questions or explanations.

The way to build more trust between moderators and members is more transparency, not less. Don't just use the excuse that "Oh, that's not XenForo's default way of doing things." It's possible to manually edit posts, so moderators should be leaving their names on the posts they edit.

My previous post was not attempting to provide excuses for anything. It was simply describing some of the changes that have been experienced.

In terms of editing posts, we largely have been putting our names on those edits, so that people can see which moderator has made an edit. However, as we haven't fully codified how we're dealing with the new changes, this practice may not yet be comprehensive. It's also an issue we'd like to rectify simply from a moderation perspective - we'd rather users were able to ask the correct moderator a question, rather than asking us when we don't really know anything about the particular situation.

 

[Agent327]

I appreciate the expansive reply. My concern obviously is, as Valka mentioned, transparency to members - as well as within staff internally.

The reason I mentioned my example is that, although there was a moderator action, there is no visible trace of it. I only know myself of it, as the moderator informed me privately. People who haven't (or haven't actively) been following the thread would never noticed anything was changed. For clarity: I do not object to the action itself, but to there being no signature or anything indicating a change was made.

Furthermore, since there was no infraction (but a warning). there's nothing to formally object against.

So, I do hope this will be worked out satisfactorily.

(EDIT: I edited the tread title.)

 

[Agent327]

I can't say transparency has improved much since last November. I posted a comment early this morning, which I mentioned to a friend. He claimed there was no comment. Logging in later today I found the entire post had been removed, anonymously.

Nobody knows, nobody is the wiser?

 

[Syno]

Must have been a pretty bad post to have been completely removed.

 

[ori]

there are all sorts of reasons why a post might be gone not having to do with moderation - specifically (accidental) deletion by self or inadvertend loss while posting appear to be quite real possibilities on this new system - absent an idea about which post and/or thread it might have been (best through private message or whatever it is called nowadays) its not easy to even ascertain that this is about a moderator action.

Edit: ah it was yesterday not today - well you *should* have received a message about that - atleast there is a log entry regarding a moderator action that should have triggered a message to you, if not this is not how the system is supposed to work.

 

[ainwood]

I can't say transparency has improved much since last November. I posted a comment early this morning, which I mentioned to a friend. He claimed there was no comment. Logging in later today I found the entire post had been removed, anonymously.

The post in question was warned for trolling then deleted by Leif.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

So is it now the practice to just delete infracted posts? That doesn't help the situation if an infracted member wants to appeal, because not everyone keeps PMs (conversations), or has figured out how they even work in XenForo.

At one point I noticed an exclamation mark within a circle that appeared to indicate that a post had been infracted. Is that how it is now, or was that just a temporary experiment?

At any rate, the staff owes it to the membership to sign their names to whatever public actions they take. We shouldn't have to play guessing games as to which moderator to contact, particularly since some of them seem to be... less than active. It's pointless to PM someone when they haven't been around and wouldn't have a clue what it was all about.

As for the deleted post referenced above, staff should be able to see it anyway, unless it's the XenForo way to only allow hard deletions.

None of the questions or points I've raised above are "rhetorical" so I would appreciate pertinent answers, please, that address the questions and points directly.

 

[Flying Pig]

On the first point, the record isn't lost - if you lose the PM, you can't see the warning yourself, but moderators can see the deleted posts and can retrieve the warning message for you via your warning record. I think work is underway to make everyone able to view their own record, which would help further.

The exclamation mark is optional when issuing a warning and does what the red/yellow card used to do - however, it's not particularly obvious, so we usually try to use mod text as well/instead.

If you don't know who made a certain moderator action, any of the moderators from the forum in question should be able to point you in the right direction: odds are, there will be a note in the staff forum, but there will certainly be a record in the edit/delete log of the post. If you PM someone and don't get a reply, try another staff member who seems more active. Signing things does, of course, make things dramatically easier for everybody.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

On the first point, the record isn't lost - if you lose the PM, you can't see the warning yourself, but moderators can see the deleted posts and can retrieve the warning message for you via your warning record. I think work is underway to make everyone able to view their own record, which would help further.

Thank you. I think it's essential that everyone have full access to ALL of their infraction/warning record, because there are times when other infractions/warnings can turn out to be relevant when composing an appeal. And besides, it's just the open, transparent, FAIR thing to do.

The exclamation mark is optional when issuing a warning and does what the red/yellow card used to do - however, it's not particularly obvious, so we usually try to use mod text as well/instead.

It's obvious enough that I noticed it right away. What isn't obvious with mod text-only is whether or not a post is infracted, because mod text doesn't indicate that. All it does indicate is that the mod is lecturing someone. So the exclamation mark is a good thing, and if you could use that consistently to indicate an infracted post, that would be beneficial - it shows that a problem post was dealt with and rated more than a "scolding." This would likely make a dent in the perception of some here that there's no point in reporting a post because nothing gets done about it.

I have seen some non-red mod text, and that's good. I approve of that, because it's an indicator of a moderator giving information or issuing a "simmer down/play nice" message that is not accompanied by an infraction.

If you don't know who made a certain moderator action, any of the moderators from the forum in question should be able to point you in the right direction: odds are, there will be a note in the staff forum, but there will certainly be a record in the edit/delete log of the post. If you PM someone and don't get a reply, try another staff member who seems more active. Signing things does, of course, make things dramatically easier for everybody.

Yes, I appreciate the times when you do sign your mod actions. I wish all of the staff would do this.

 

[leif erikson]

I can't say transparency has improved much since last November. I posted a comment early this morning, which I mentioned to a friend. He claimed there was no comment. Logging in later today I found the entire post had been removed, anonymously.

Nobody knows, nobody is the wiser?

I removed your post because it was entirely inappropriate. In addition, you were sent a notification. I have it in my inbox. All the appropriate steps were taken, please take it up with me via Conversation if you have an issue with it.

 

[ainwood]

None of the questions or points I've raised above are "rhetorical" so I would appreciate pertinent answers, please, that address the questions and points directly.

The point for me is that I think Agent327 probably knew exactly what happened to his post, given that he was sent a message about it, yet chose to come an complain about it here.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

The point for me is that I think Agent327 probably knew exactly what happened to his post, given that he was sent a message about it, yet chose to come an complain about it here.

I'm trying to fathom why you would post this in response to my post. It doesn't answer any of my questions.

I'm here asking questions and making comments on my own behalf, and as I said, I don't do this for any "rhetorical" reason.

 

[Agent327]

I removed your post because it was entirely inappropriate. In addition, you were sent a notification. I have it in my inbox. All the appropriate steps were taken, please take it up with me via Conversation if you have an issue with it.

Removing a post means it's gone. Secondly, there was no infraction, but a suggestion of trolling. It follows then that there's nothing to appeal, because there literally is nothing.

The point for me is that I think Agent327 probably knew exactly what happened to his post, given that he was sent a message about it, yet chose to come an complain about it here.

I guessed you missed the bit about it being deleted anonymously. Who should I appeal to? The entire moderation team? And why the defensive tone? Nobody is being attacked here.

Secondly, and more importantly, I'm merely pointing out a fact. The fact happens to be a (slight) oversight on a moderator's part. This fits in with my earlier comment about moderators (possibly) acting less than appropriately. It's not the individual post I care about, but the pattern that seems to be emerging. To give a further example, I noticed a thread being closed 'because the question is now answered'. There wasn't even a discussion going on. Is it now the task of moderators to close threads were questions have been answered?

Thirdly, the reason for posting on this thread (rather than launching individual complaints against individual moderators) is that I consider this an ongoing issue. Let me make a comparison. if CFC moderation were a judicial system, it appears to work as follows. Judges appoint new judges, and former judges judge whether the judges judge judiciously. Now that may appear perfectly OK for an old boys network, but for moderation not so much. I have on purpose not posted anything here since November, assuming this problem was under consideration. I'm now not under the impression that this is actually the case. Again, this goes to transparency. If the issue is or was under consideration, members have heard or seen nothing of it, so they can only guess.

Lastly, I don't understand the defensive tone some moderators immediately apply when there is a question. Anyone can make a mistake, but addressing a question thus suggests there is a wider issue at stake. It's this wider issue that I am interested in, not the actions of individual moderators.