Moderation transparency

[HazletonEagle]

I think I am the first recipient of the angry emoticon.

[wussbasket]

Why is there no Moderator69? Quite an oversight and travesty. What do the mods have against odd numbers?

[Procus]

2 minutes ago, HazletonEagle said:

I think I am the first recipient of the angry emoticon.

No - that would be Mod 12.  See below DUM inspired screenshot

 

 

[Moderator6]

10 minutes ago, Procus said:

Just face it that you're having more fun with this thread than any other time during your 3 years moderating these boards.

Well, it is the most popular RnR topic in years.  

But I'm going on vacation after this ish.    Make @Moderator4 work again

[Moderator6]

2 minutes ago, wussbasket said:

Why is there no Moderator69? Quite an oversight and travesty. What do the mods have against odd numbers?

Coming soon:  Moderator00

[mikemack8]

18 minutes ago, HazletonEagle said:

I think I am the first recipient of the angry emoticon.

Wrong

[Alpha_TATEr]

can we type P now, or is that another thread for another time ? 

[DrPhilly]

 

[EaglePhan1986]

1 hour ago, Moderator6 said:

Since the main problem posters are gone now, I want to be clear:  you no longer have them as an excuse. If you claimed you were just reacting to them and got sucked in (although yes people on "the other side" did get warnings as well) then now you don't have that to hide behind. 

Everyone is responsible for their own posts and replies to posts.  Read the pinned guidelines.  Respect each other.  Recognize if you're crossing a line and step back.  

It’s @Godfather’s fault that I’m so immature and it’s definitely his fault that @hputenis keeps pm’ing you nudes and offering free blowies at every tailgate behind the porto potties in lot c 

[Arthur Jackson]

2 hours ago, wussbasket said:

Why is there no Moderator69?

There is, but he changed his handle to Moderator 96... apparently, because of inflation, the price of eating out increased.

[Moderator4]

4 hours ago, Moderator6 said:

Well, it is the most popular RnR topic in years.  

But I'm going on vacation after this ish.    Make @Moderator4 work again

Wait, what?

 

[Moderator12]

1 hour ago, Moderator4 said:

Wait, what?

 

He means when he goes on vacation you're getting my coffee and pastries.   

[BigEFly]

11 hours ago, Moderator6 said:

1. It's in the pinned guidelines:

Yes we're aware and it's obvious when someone is just overly reporting someone so we do give warnings to those people.  It doesn't happen that often.  A lot of the reports that we end up just closing without action are usually such minor things or petty or nitpicking.  I roll my eyes, close it and move on.  If someone like that is abusing the report function then they will get warned and I tell them to grow up it's the internet.  

2. The guidelines also talk about using the ignore feature as well - (it's almost like this stuff has been published and pinned for years yet people clearly don't read and follow)

And even without the actual ignore function, if you simply ignore by not replying to someone (and don't mention them with others just literally ignore and don't talk about them), it often goes away.  If you're doing your part to avoid the conflict and the other person isn't, they will get the warnings if they continue.  If both are going at it, both will get the warnings.  It's really not that difficult for most people.

3. The confused emoji could be removed, and then posters that want to find the one that most conveys a negative or mocking reaction will choose sad, if we remove sad posters that want to mock or troll others will find another way.  At one point people were replying with giant obnoxious emoji gifs to every post of someone they were mocking.  They post memes, they will do something else. I mean it's the internet and people are going to trash talk each other.

Like I said before, how much effort and change is needed just because of a few people?  

 

1.  I appreciate the reference to the guidelines.  But let me ask, have you given overreporters warnings? Is there a definition of overreporting?  What you described DUM doing sure seems to go way past overreporting.  
 

2. I think you missed my point about ignore.  I asked about using it as a form of moderation. VA and another poster got where I was going with my discussion so it has been addressed. 

3.  I see your point about the confused emoji.  Veejer long ago gave us but as opposed to the way the confused button was used, it takes effort to reply and locate. And no one ever took offense to getting a . That said, 4for4 figured out that his button responses are seen by posters that had him on ignore and tried to use them as a tool to bully them.   That said, it is reasonably easy to ignore.  Frankly, I always felt sorry for him being so easily confused. 

Thanks for the response.  I also appreciate VA’s response and @brkmsn’s.

[mattwill]

On 3/28/2023 at 10:15 AM, HazletonEagle said:

By the way,  this is proof even the EMB mods can make a mistake. 

Part of the complaints from a bunch of us is that there's no appeal process. 

If I had received a suspension for you believing I called him retarded, I'd be out for 2 weeks. If I came back and said anything negative about that situation where I was wrongly suspended,  I'd get more points for criticizing mods.

And those points stay on your record for a year or 2.

There should be some appeal process for the occasion of the wrongly accused poster to have another mod take a second look at it.

I can’t speak for this current board, but when I got suspended on the old board, I had direct communication from the Mods about the reason for my banning.  I had plenty of opportunity to appeal/dispute the suspension, but since my criticism of the Board format/operation was so clear and so public and so tenacious, there really wasn’t any grounds for appeal, even though the Mods agreed with the substance of my complaints. I can’t imagine the same opportunity wouldn’t be afforded by the Mods here.  In your case you weren’t suspended, but you seem obsessed with the possibility that it could have happened.  Here’s a rhetorical question for you, how do you appeal something that never happened?

[mattwill]

On 3/28/2023 at 10:42 AM, HazletonEagle said:

I dont know why you keep asking this. Youve been an active blog poster/reader for as long or longer than I have. You know eveyrthing that has happened, and reported a bunch of it by your own admission.

Ill humor you.

SkippyX, justwin, and to some extend Utebird- though Im not sure he defended RTK as much as he just preferred to argue with 4for4 and DUM about whatever he could.

There may have been a few others. Those are off the top of my head who were the most involved.

 

Thank you for humoring him.  I had the same question.

[mattwill]

On 3/28/2023 at 10:45 AM, HazletonEagle said:

any time I have been suspended I was never even able to access anything at all on the EMB. No way to PM. 

That wasn’t my experience.

[mattwill]

On 3/28/2023 at 11:35 AM, HazletonEagle said:

Toronto was just recently banned, like yesterday. Any breakdown over 4for4 isnt what did it.

You could fool me.  He was like a tsunami.  What happened at the end was simply the wave hitting the shore.  The suspension(s) were the earthquake that spawned the tsunami.

JMO

[mattwill]

On 3/28/2023 at 2:56 PM, ManuManu said:

He went off the deep end and stopped being a good poster a long time ago. It was the 4for4 effect. 

I agree with this assessment.

[mattwill]

11 hours ago, Moderator6 said:

 

 

Thank you @mattwill (assuming based on the above it was you).  @just relax is back today.

My pleasure, but @BigEFly and HE deserve the credit.  They crafted compelling messages.  I was just the conduit,

[Moderator12]

6 hours ago, mattwill said:

I can’t speak for this current board, but when I got suspended on the old board, I had direct communication from the Mods about the reason for my banning.  I had plenty of opportunity to appeal/dispute the suspension, but since my criticism of the Board format/operation was so clear and so public and so tenacious, there really wasn’t any grounds for appeal, even though the Mods agreed with the substance of my complaints. I can’t imagine the same opportunity wouldn’t be afforded by the Mods here.  In your case you weren’t suspended, but you seem obsessed with the possibility that it could have happened.  Here’s a rhetorical question for you, how do you appeal something that never happened?

Just to confirm, you were able to PM the mods during your suspension or you received a PM as to why you received it?  

[Moderator6]

12 hours ago, BigEFly said:

1.  I appreciate the reference to the guidelines.  But let me ask, have you given overreporters warnings? Is there a definition of overreporting?  What you described DUM doing sure seems to go way past overreporting.  
 

Yes we have given points for that, which I described at least once in this topic.  I don't think you can define it, like you can't just say if you submit X number of reports it's too many or something.  We are not trying to add more list of rules and do's and don'ts and expand definitions, we're trying to be more relaxed and let people post and enjoy and sometimes you just make a judgement when something has gone too far.  Yes, DUM was far more than over reporting and he's gone now.

[Moderator6]

8 hours ago, mattwill said:

I can’t speak for this current board, but when I got suspended on the old board, I had direct communication from the Mods about the reason for my banning.  I had plenty of opportunity to appeal/dispute the suspension, but since my criticism of the Board format/operation was so clear and so public and so tenacious, there really wasn’t any grounds for appeal, even though the Mods agreed with the substance of my complaints. I can’t imagine the same opportunity wouldn’t be afforded by the Mods here.  In your case you weren’t suspended, but you seem obsessed with the possibility that it could have happened.  Here’s a rhetorical question for you, how do you appeal something that never happened?

When giving warning points of any kind we write the reason and explain to the poster.  We will put the quote of the post or just reference it or explain.  The poster knows why they got the points.  We do not just give points with no explanation.  They get the notification and can read the reason.  

Posters know why they are warned, what things led to suspension or banning.  They just lie about it in the forums to play victim and make the mods look bad. This is why I wanted to put the truth out there in this topic to stop that nonsense.

[Moderator6]

Also think about it when you want mods to publicly state the reason someone got a warning or suspension.  Some say "we need to know!"  If it were you, and you said something offensive (racist or whatever) and we gave you a warning and hid the post so no one could see it, not everyone would want the entire board to know what they did.  Maybe they feel bad about it, maybe they had a bad day, lapse in judgement.  Then everyone knows what you did anyway and that's your reputation.

So not sharing reasons or specific details might be to protect our posters and the community, while some are demanding transparency. These are the types of things we have to weigh.  Can't make everyone happy.

[Moderator4]

17 hours ago, Moderator12 said:

He means when he goes on vacation you're getting my coffee and pastries.   

This.  This is why there's an angry react!  

[Moderator12]

10 minutes ago, Moderator4 said:

This.  This is why there's an angry react!  

Wrong

 

  @LeanMeanGM is the mastermind, I brought it into existence, you get the donuts.