About moderation

[ori]

We have not even in the past kept every single infracted post - there are reasons that make deletion necessary or at least the better choice, in such circumstances even before there was no public flag of any action at all since th epost in question was gone. The poster pretty much always received or should have received a warning/infraction with an acompanying message as is the case now as well - so to anything remotely akin to what was discussed here your comments are off-point its already known to at least the user affected what happened and not less so than in previous situations.

Regarding access to the infraction history: you are right. It should be accessible to the user, that its not appears to be a software limitation that right now cannot be remedied as it would require customization that is not readily available in a supported manner and as such would require someone to actively develop and maintain a customization. It should definitely be something to implement again when possible though. I doubt it will ever be a problem should someone ask for a copy of their infraction history to receive at least screenshots though and be given more detailed information for specific infractions.

Mod text is probably the best way to mark a non-deleted moderated post right now (and actually were better in vbulletin too). Exclamation marks I need to even notice - but not having actually issued warnings outside spam deletions on the new system yet I appear to have missed them, certainly not noticed while reading the forums. Mod text also allows for signing - which neither the carding system in the vbulletin nor any exclamation marks now allow for.

Soft deletion is what happens mostly and deleted posts are found - however in the search results for a posts by a specific poster they are not flagged as deleted as they were previously but rather not displayed - in order to find these you either need to know the thread or go through any warnings issued which is why I did not find anything in the first pass. Atleast that is the case given my forum permissions, admins might have more they can see. This is decidedly not a good forum behaviour in cases like this.

Reporting is neither moot nor will it always lead to action and we do not and have not in the past logged reported but not deemed actionable in public. As for actions: they should as I agree generally be accompanied by a moderator message but I actually believe they mostly are now and have been previously.

 

[ori]

the above was crossposted and a reply to Valka.

@Agent327: Point is you received a warning which included who acted and as such your claim that it was done anonimously is incorrect. That they are called warnings now instead of infractions is a change in the software but they still are signed so you know who to contact and knew beforehand so take this specific issue up with the moderator in question. Also of course you know the appeals process and yes the change in title does not void that. The rules should be updated though as I think they still excempt warnings from the appeals process as they were previously merely 0 point infractions which had no impact on user priviliges but now everything is a warning.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

We have not even in the past kept every single infracted post - there are reasons that make deletion necessary or at least the better choice, in such circumstances even before there was no public flag of any action at all since th epost in question was gone. The poster pretty much always received or should have received a warning/infraction with an acompanying message as is the case now as well - so to anything remotely akin to what was discussed here your comments are off-point its already known to at least the user affected what happened and not less so than in previous situations.

To whom is the bolded part addressed - Agent327 or me?

EDIT: I see it was addressed to me. So, ori, please answer this: In what way are my comments "off-point"? I have no idea what Agent327 posted, where he posted it, or why it was deleted. I have no idea what the moderator in question said or didn't say to him. I'm not publicly advocating for or against Agent327, because his specific post (to the best of my knowledge) has nothing to do with me, and note, please, that I am not asking to be told.

I'm speaking in general terms here. The question of deleted posts is one I found of interest, since we're still getting used to this new type of forum and I like to know how things work.

Regarding access to the infraction history: you are right. It should be accessible to the user, that its not appears to be a software limitation that right now cannot be remedied as it would require customization that is not readily available in a supported manner and as such would require someone to actively develop and maintain a customization. It should definitely be something to implement again when possible though. I doubt it will ever be a problem should someone ask for a copy of their infraction history to receive at least screenshots though and be given more detailed information for specific infractions.

I'm glad to know that the staff consider this something that needs resolving, because it really is unacceptable that we don't have access to these records.

As for asking for a copy of their infraction history, it's something... but unless the entire history is given, it would be impossible for the member to decide which infractions were relevant to whatever issue they wanted to bring up. And considering that some infractions were given via the "back door" (aka "Profile Infraction"), it's even harder since those don't contain a link to the offending(?) post and the accompanying PM(s) may no longer exist.

Mod text is probably the best way to mark a non-deleted moderated post right now (and actually were better in vbulletin too). Exclamation marks I need to even notice - but not having actually issued warnings outside spam deletions on the new system yet I appear to have missed them, certainly not noticed while reading the forums. Mod text also allows for signing - which neither the carding system in the vbulletin nor any exclamation marks now allow for.

Red exclamation marks on a grey background show up fine for me - not that I actually like this color scheme we've got right now (too hard on the eyes for very long). As for signing, I think the vBulletin system allowed for identifying the moderator via the "Post edited by _____" feature.

The carding system did allow for an indirect signature. Anyone who wanted to know which moderator issued the card only had to click the card and would be taken to a screen that detailed what the infraction was, how many points it received, when it would expire, and which moderator issued it. Public knowledge, but it appears that not that many people were aware of this part of how vBulletin works.

Soft deletion is what happens mostly and deleted posts are found - however in the search results for a posts by a specific poster they are not flagged as deleted as they were previously but rather not displayed - in order to find these you either need to know the thread or go through any warnings issued which is why I did not find anything in the first pass. Atleast that is the case given my forum permissions, admins might have more they can see. This is decidedly not a good forum behaviour in cases like this.

Let me see if I understand this correctly - soft deletions are still a part of how deletions are done, and they're still visible to staff, but not in a general search of the user's posts (if the search is done by staff; I wouldn't expect deleted posts to turn up in a user-initiated search)?

I agree that the search functions on this forum aren't particularly helpful, no matter where you're trying to search. I tried it once and found it a headache.

Reporting is neither moot nor will it always lead to action and we do not and have not in the past logged reported but not deemed actionable in public. As for actions: they should as I agree generally be accompanied by a moderator message but I actually believe they mostly are now and have been previously.

I hope the "mostly" will be changed to "always." Accountability is important, as it helps foster trust.

 

[ori]

Valka: you chimed in in this thread jsut after a very specific thing was posted and expanded this to all sorts of other things so in this vein these points are not about the problem posted just above yours and in my reply which in part prompted yours or atleast you appeared to base your points on.

As for deletions: you are right, I can see a deleted post if I find it and this actually looks very similar to what vbulletin did. What is changed is that if I search for a post even knowing its content I will not see it in the search results or in the posts by user results and as such need to know where to look at - a warning still is linked to the warned post which is how I found it - but lets assume a situation were a moderator deletes a bunch of posts (generally a chain that needs deletion) and then either warns the last of the chain or drops a separate post with something like flaming deleted - then I do not know how I would find the deleted posts unless I am told what thread they were in. This is decidedly a much worse search implementation than before (though in other ways its improved actually).

Regarding mod text: mostly means just that and will always be just that - it should happen and happens as a matter of course but always is not going to happen unless there is an automatic way to do so as it gets forgotten, fails to post, moderator acts using a mobile system that fails to do what moderator wants (more of a problem in vbulletin actually) or the mod text gets deleted along with other things in larger problematic chains etc. There will always be instances in which you will not find a mod text about an action though they should be rare.

You are right one could see the moderator in the cards or the edited by line - but the cards were a rather obscure feature (you could actually publicly see a lot of information also on deleted items if you knew how) and most people I suspect never clicked on them - the edited by line was fine unless the action happened very soon after posting as it was not included within the first minutes (I have no idea how long it was) after posting and it was also removed if the poster edited the post afterwards. So it was not perfect for signing either. I typically end any mod text not in my own post with "- ori".

 

[Valka D'Ur]

Valka: you chimed in in this thread jsut after a very specific thing was posted and expanded this to all sorts of other things so in this vein these points are not about the problem posted just above yours and in my reply which in part prompted yours or atleast you appeared to base your points on.

You said I was "off-point" and I'm not clear what you mean by that. As I said, I'm not involved in Agent327's issue, and have no idea at all what it's about. I posted because some of what he said did raise some concerns that are valid in a general way. I like to know how/why things work, so I asked.

As for deletions: you are right, I can see a deleted post if I find it and this actually looks very similar to what vbulletin did. What is changed is that if I search for a post even knowing its content I will not see it in the search results or in the posts by user results and as such need to know where to look at - a warning still is linked to the warned post which is how I found it - but lets assume a situation were a moderator deletes a bunch of posts (generally a chain that needs deletion) and then either warns the last of the chain or drops a separate post with something like flaming deleted - then I do not know how I would find the deleted posts unless I am told what thread they were in. This is decidedly a much worse search implementation than before (though in other ways its improved actually).

How is it improved? It actually sounds a bit confusing.

Regarding mod text: mostly means just that and will always be just that - it should happen and happens as a matter of course but always is not going to happen unless there is an automatic way to do so as it gets forgotten, fails to post, moderator acts using a mobile system that fails to do what moderator wants (more of a problem in vbulletin actually) or the mod text gets deleted along with other things in larger problematic chains etc. There will always be instances in which you will not find a mod text about an action though they should be rare.

Maybe it might help to have an "Always sign your mod-text messages even if you have to do it manually" rule for staff.

You are right one could see the moderator in the cards or the edited by line - but the cards were a rather obscure feature (you could actually publicly see a lot of information also on deleted items if you knew how) and most people I suspect never clicked on them - the edited by line was fine unless the action happened very soon after posting as it was not included within the first minutes (I have no idea how long it was) after posting and it was also removed if the poster edited the post afterwards. So it was not perfect for signing either. I typically end any mod text not in my own post with "- ori".

I assume you're talking about staff being able to do that, because when something is deleted - whether soft or hard - to non-staff or moderators without access in that particular forum, it's as though the post never happened. It's completely invisible.

Or so it was with vBulletin. I have no idea with XenForo. But it's interesting to know, in case anyone ever says to me on one of my own forums that they think switching would be a great idea. At this point, my answer would likely be "NO!" in the biggest font possible.

Funny thing about one kind of invisible post, though. If someone who is on your ignore list is arguing with someone who is not on your ignore list, it can sometimes lead to a rather amusing spectacle of watching someone apparently arguing by shouting into the wind. It's that efficient with XenForo, as we discovered on the Star Trek forum I belong to (the switch there happened nearly a year ago).

 

[Rob (R8XFT)]

Hi Valka; is there anything that you've come across on the Star Trek forum that we could adopt in terms of XenForo? Is there anything we're saying we don't know how to do here (or even saying we can't do) that clearly they do actually do on the Star Trek forum?

I do apologise, Agent327, as that is veering away from your initial intention for the thread...although if, for example, we discover that infraction history is viewable on the Star Trek forum, then one would think it would be the same here.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

Hi Valka; is there anything that you've come across on the Star Trek forum that we could adopt in terms of XenForo? Is there anything we're saying we don't know how to do here (or even saying we can't do) that clearly they do actually do on the Star Trek forum?

Can I PM you on this? I'd have to go quite a bit off-topic and I don't want to derail Agent327's thread.

 

[Rob (R8XFT)]

Can I PM you on this? I'd have to go quite a bit off-topic and I don't want to derail Agent327's thread.

Of course.

 

[Agent327]

@Agent327: Point is you received a warning which included who acted and as such your claim that it was done anonimously is incorrect. That they are called warnings now instead of infractions is a change in the software but they still are signed so you know who to contact and knew beforehand so take this specific issue up with the moderator in question. Also of course you know the appeals process and yes the change in title does not void that. The rules should be updated though as I think they still excempt warnings from the appeals process as they were previously merely 0 point infractions which had no impact on user priviliges but now everything is a warning.

There was no warning. I noticed, while going over listed replies an unsigned comment that the post was deleted 'for trolling'. Once again, there was no signature. I don't make things up simply to annoy moderators. Really.

Secondly, since the entire post was simply deleted there really is nothing to appeal against. Both of which struck me as somewhat inappropriate mod behaviour. (Since I now know who deleted the post, I could now appeal - but that was never my point anyway,) What I would like to appeal against is the deleting of posts because a moderator considers it inappropriate and wants CFC to look 'clean'..

 

[Agent327]

Right. My first experiment in objecting against a supposed infraction went exactly as expected.

calling another user a child and ascribing such traits as being whiny, anti-male, anti-sex

There's no evidence of this. In fact, it's wilful interpretation. I tried to explain this to the moderator in question, but this itself was interpreted as 'insulting'. I don't see any point in objecting to such moderation. So, I shall refrain from that in future.

But that's not my issue. I was interested in the procedure for objections. Supposedly an objection goes to a supermod. But instead of this supermod then reviewing the process followed, there follows another discussion between (super)mods, resulting in agreement with the original objection. At no point during this process are the objections voiced even considered. Not by the supermod, nor in the following review. I'm puzzled as to the point of such a process. It seems a complete waste of time.

The only positive point I can see that such a discussion is now transparent to all viewers. I guess that, at least, is something. Other than that it is a sham of a judicial procedure.

Moderator Action: Public discussion of moderator action is strictly prohibited on this site. In particular, infraction review threads are not publicly posted so that they can be argued further - Camikaze
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[Agent327]

I don't see any 'public discussion of moderator actions'. I do see a comment on the objection procedure ('review'). I'd appreciate a response on that - and not in the form of a moderator action or PM.

Thank you.

By the way, I will keep my original objection, since it wasn't 'reviewed'. The only thing that's been reviewed is the moderator action - upon which I obviously won't comment - as I indeed haven't done above. The issue is not whether moderators think I want to insult, infract, or break house rules, but whether I actually do. Accusing someone of theft doesn't get proven because the police want there to be proof, but because the judges see proof of that. In short, there must be evidence. If I insult a person there should be two things present:

1. an insult
2. a person being addressed.

I see no evidence of either, and I would like this to be taken seriously. It is of little interest (other than transparency) to learn whether most moderators agree with one another or not. It is of interest, however, to learn whether there is a proper procedure to ascertain the occasion of an infraction. If there is such a procedure, I do not see it.

Please note, I am currently not objecting to anything. I am making note of a defect in the moderation procedure. A rather serious defect, at that. Since moderators seem unaware of that. I am posting that defect on a public thread, dedicated to moderation (see OP).

Moderator Action: Claiming that you are not seeking to comment on moderator actions does not magically absolve your clear commentary on a) the infraction in the preceding post, and b) the moderator review which has been undertaken in relation to a recent infraction which you received. You are entitled to post about the review system in general, but what you are doing here is simply complaining about your particular review, and the manner in which you feel it was carried out. This constitutes public discussion of moderator action (PDMA). PDMA is strictly prohibited on these forums. Please express your grievances in a manner consistent with the forum rules - Camikaze
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[Ryika]

I know I'll get an infraction for this too, but these two warnings are ridiculous.

He clearly did not object to the decision itself (the "moderator action"), but about how that action was chosen to be upheld - the process of reviewing. That's a discussion about a possible flaw in the system, why would he have to make it a philosophical discussion about "the review system in general", when the perfect example to show what he thinks is wrong with the process is publicly available? I mean, if referring to specific examples to make a case about the process is prohibited, then what are the infraction reviews even public for? So we can see what might be wrong with the system, but cannot comment on it?

Agent327's initial objection to the infraction that was given out is basically: "You misunderstood my post.", and he later explained his intentions in the conversation with the moderator: "I merely replaced feminism with another term, showing how silly the ' argument' here is. Such a thread title shouldn't even be allowed the pre-fix RD." But even though that statement is clearly there, most of the infraction review process then focuses on whether "calling another user a child and ascribing such traits as being whiny, anti-male, anti-sex"... like... what? Did that moderator even read the PNs that he put together, and if so, how did he manage to miss Agent327's argument? Agent327's defense is that he didn't actually call the user in question a child?

Even more baffling, other moderators follow up with the exact same thing, until yet another mod then finally makes an objection, and theorizes that Agent327 might actually have meant that in a different way, then comes to a conclusion - one that exactly matches what Agent327 had explained to the mod who gave out the infraction, in that PM-log that should have already been available for everybody. Then a mod who had already given his opinion on the matter(!) comes in and says that he's making a good point, so he too clearly has not read through the PN-log either.

So was the PN-log not available at that point, or were the mods just too lazy to read through them? I mean, has anyone read through the logs at any point?

Regardless of the decision that was ultimately made, it is clear that there's a problem when the mods who are supposed to make an informed judgement either don't have the full context available to them, or simply didn't take their time to look at the things that Agent327 said in his defense.

That may not actually matter for whether an infraction for that post stands or not, after all, it is true that he is indeed responsible for how his post is received, but it does matter for the reason that he is being given an infraction, and possibly the amount of points "earned". Because if he didn't actually intent to insult somebody but phrased things badly and thus his post ended up sounding like an insult, then the reason for his post is clearly negligence, not an intent to insult. Yet the infraction still states: "Infracted for quote rewriting and trolling.", and the mod text below his post still reads: "Rewriting quotes to insult another member is unacceptable. Two point infraction." - that's the "accusation" that is being made against him, not "You are responsible for how what you write is interpreted and this one can be interpreted as an insult.". Whether it is reasonable to assume that Agent327 actually meant to be insulting is only tackled once in that thread, by a moderator who then concludes that Agent327 probably did not mean to be insulting and is then followed up by a moderator who agrees that the post could be read that way.

That issue, the main objection Agent327 had when he responded to the moderator who gave out that infraction, is then never talked about again, and in the end it is decided that the decision should be upheld, by two of the people for entirely different reasons from the ones that the moderator who infracted him stated as the reason for that infraction, and most of the other votes coming from people who didn't actually read or understand what he had to say in his defense against the specific accusation that was made against him. So in my opinion he is entirely correct in saying that the review process didn't actually tackle his objection, it only tackled whether that post violates <some> rule.

Moderator Action: Please do not deliberately break the forum rules. It's certainly not going to be an effective way of convincing the forum staff that you're right.

For the abundance of clarity, please note 'Moderator Action' to which the 'Public Discussion' rule relates, does not just refer to the end result of a particular series of exchanges between a member and staff. It includes all the steps along the way, such as the conduct of a specific review. Publicly discussing a specific moderator action is prohibited. The conduct of a specific infraction review constitutes a specific moderator action. Therefore, discussion of a specific infraction review amounts to PDMA. Again, discussion of the general process of reviews, which does not refer to a specific review (including implicit reference by feigning an eerily familiar hypothetical), is welcomed. Discussing things in the abstract is not difficult, and if you really need to discuss a specific instance, you may still do so by sending a private message to staff.

For further guidance, please see this post, made when the infraction review system was implemented - Camikaze
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[Spider-Man]

You'd think that posting a comment regarding an infraction review is not the same as discussing a moderator action. But apparently these rules are made up as they go. Sad!

Moderator Action: Ban evasion is against the rules. This account has been permanently banned. - Vincour
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889