Moderation

[RedheadDane]

At a guess, the admin looked at the post, it broke the rules and was reported and that's what the admin ruled on.

As to other stuff being allowed, I'll refer back to what @red_flanders said here and I and other mods have said countless times. It's not that other things are allowed, it's that moderation is largely done based on reports. Sure, mods will see some things and take action or let it slide, but it's reports that drive attention. If things aren't report but others are, it can seem like some people get away with things others don't, but I can tell you when I was a mod that would never have been intentional.

But if admins are sometimes forced to go in and auto-ban posters behind any reported post, then that sort also proves my point; that maybe we should think twice before reporting.

 

[fmk_RoI]

But if admins are sometimes forced to go in and auto-ban posters behind any reported post, then that sort also proves my point; that maybe we should think twice before reporting.

That creates an odd sort of rules system though. People we like, we give more leeway to than we should least we get them banned even when they've clearly broken the rules. People we don't like, f' em, report everything that looks like even a minor transgression and hope to get them a permaban.

Less a community of like-minded people, and more a clique of clubby mates. Half a reality TV show where popularity rules and half a dystopian Black Mirror storyline.

 

[RedheadDane]

That creates an odd sort of rules system though. People we like, we give more leeway to than we should least we get them banned even when they've clearly broken the rules. People we don't like, f' em, report everything that looks like even a minor transgression and hope to get them a permaban.

That's my point; we should just stick to only reporting obvious spam, and the rare case where someone clearly breaks a major rule.
After all, wouldn't you consider reporting someone for writing "I don't like your post" reporting for a minor transgression?

 

[fmk_RoI]

After all, wouldn't you consider reporting someone for writing "I don't like your post" reporting for a minor transgression?

Depends on whether I like them or not, doesn't it?

Personally, I have deliberately engaged at least once with what I clearly knew to be a spambot (not a nedlessly rude response like the example cited here) and was almost impressed by the quality of the response it came back with.

Generally speaking, given the spam problem the forum has, I think a "Don't feed that spambots" rule is fair and transgressions should get a proportionate ban. A day in the sinbin is more like your ma telling you she's disappointed in you that her giving you a clatter round the ear.

 

[RedheadDane]

Generally speaking, given the spam problem the forum has, I think a "Don't feed that spambots" rule is fair and transgressions should get a proportionate ban. A day in the sinbin is more like your ma telling you she's disappointed in you that her giving you a clatter round the ear.

Or it should just result in a quick warning; "Don't feed the spambots." And I really don't see why it couldn't happen in public, especially since other users could benefit from it as well. Of course in the specific spam threads it probably wouldn't work, after all replied to a spam thread to tell people not to reply to the spam thread would still push the spam thread towards the top.

But if we aren't talking about spam bots, I'm a bit worried that general banter might be reported because another user misunderstands it, and then it results in an auto-ban, even if there were no hard feelings between the people involved. After all, if [person A] and [person B] has some banter going on, and [A] writes something to [B ] that could be misunderstood, but [B ] is okay with, and then [person C] comes in an reports it, shouldn't the fact that [B ] was fine with it weigh higher?

For the record: If someone was to write "I don't like your post" in reply to anything I wrote, please no not report that user! I literally can't think of a situation where that would be necessary.

 

[King Boonen]

But if admins are sometimes forced to go in and auto-ban posters behind any reported post, then that sort also proves my point; that maybe we should think twice before reporting.

No, they won't auto-ban people just because a post is reported, they will ban people whose posts break the rules. They may not have the background knowlegde or the time to look into context, so the judgement may be made solely on the reported post rather than how the mods would handle things. This is becoming circular to be honest, to a point where it's not going to be resolved.

If the mods keep on top of the reports, the admins will very rarely be involved. If the mods can't keep on top of reports, the admins are more likely to deal with things. My opinion is that if the second becomes more common, something needs to be done to address this, and I think that's probably what most people would want.

 

[Lequack]

Exactly, I'm also wondering why this specific member is now banned, and for how long. And I had the same with others in the past.

I was certain that "the one who shall not be named" would be unbanned by now, it's been weeks. But yes as someone said a timer would be nice, could be a rough estimation in weeks etc. It's more to let the community know.

 

[RedheadDane]

I was certain that "the one who shall not be named" would be unbanned by now, it's been weeks. But yes as someone said a timer would be nice, could be a rough estimation in weeks etc. It's more to let the community know.

No... apparently it's "normal" in online fora to not give members any kind of information. And because the new admins are running a whole bunch of different fora they'd get really really confused if we'd just been allowed to continue things in the way that had worked just fine before. Because, you know, all fora must have the exact same policies!

 

[fmk_RoI]

they'd get really really confused if we'd just been allowed to continue things in the way that had worked just fine before.

As has been explained to you multiple time now, the old system did not work fine so cut the nostalgia for sunlit uplands that never existed.

 

[RedheadDane]

As has been explained to you multiple time now, the old system did not work fine so cut the nostalgia for sunlit uplands that never existed.

How did it not work fine? People were able to go check the info thread - you know, the locked one that apparently was so horrible it not only had to stop being posted in, but had to be given the full Dalek-treatment - and see why a user was banned, and for how long it would take before said user would be back.

Note how I didn't say it was perfect? I just said it worked, for what it's purpose was: giving us some damn information!

Is this better? Now we're just wondering what the *** happened.

And if it didn't work, how come it wasn't the mods who made the decision to quietly let the thread die? Rather than them having to be told by the admins?

 

[Lequack]

Yes most of this debate we're having is just the result of us not knowing, and wondering. A short posting saying why/how long would put most of it to rest. It's human nature for a community to wonder what is happening around them.

 

[BR2]

It's simply annoying that we don't know what happened to Logic or when he will be back. Annoying and a bit ridiculous - oh, one of the most prolific members for years has disappeared? Sorry, we can't give you any information about that.

 

[RedheadDane]

I do appreciate the irony of the fact that the mods were ordered to nuke the info thread because "we're not allowed to discuss moderator action", and apparently basic information counts as discussion, and yet here we are...
What did the admins think was gonna happen? That we'd just lean back and go "Yup! This is normal."?

 

[fmk_RoI]

round like a circle in a spiral, like a wheel within a wheel
never ending or beginning on an ever spinning reel

 

[RedheadDane]

round like a circle in a spiral, like a wheel within a wheel
never ending or beginning on an ever spinning reel

I don't see you coming with any suggestions about how we can get some basic information. Apparently the Info Thread was "too disruptive", and forum code doesn't allow for a simple timer.
All you do is acting like everything the admins have done has been perfect...

 

[Salvarani]

It's simply annoying that we don't know what happened to Logic or when he will be back. Annoying and a bit ridiculous - oh, one of the most prolific members for years has disappeared? Sorry, we can't give you any information about that.

Maybe because it is none of our business?

Maybe something has happend that we dont know about or shouldnt be privy to. No one owes anyone anything or an explanation.

You have to move on and let go at some point. If you have trouble doing that, it is your problem to handle and deal with. Recommend you do it privately.

Hopefully the person you are asking about will be back, if they wont then life goes on.

 

[King Boonen]

You all know the simplest solution to all this is that people just post within the rules so the mods/admin don't have to ban them? There are loads of members who manage to do this with no problems whatsoever.

 

[Netserk]

We've had a tradition of avatar bets on cycling outcomes. How about avatar bets on ban lengths? I'm willing to bet that @Logic-is-your-friend's ban length is 1 month. Any takers?

Let the postdiction market open!

 

[BR2]

You all know the simplest solution to all this is that people just post within the rules so the mods/admin don't have to ban them? There are loads of members who manage to do this with no problems whatsoever.

Those are two different aspects. I am not complaining because I was banned but because we don't get any infos about why and more importantly for how long a member was banned. But I have made the mistake to consider this forum a social place before so I should indeed know better now.

 

[BR2]

Maybe because it is none of our business?

Maybe something has happend that we dont know about or shouldnt be privy to. No one owes anyone anything or an explanation.

You have to move on and let go at some point. If you have trouble doing that, it is your problem to handle and deal with. Recommend you do it privately.

Hopefully the person you are asking about will be back, if they wont then life goes on.

I don't even know what to say to this.

 

[RedheadDane]

Whatever he did, it was probably something quite minor.

 

[King Boonen]

Those are two different aspects. I am not complaining because I was banned but because we don't get any infos about why and more importantly for how long a member was banned. But I have made the mistake to consider this forum a social place before so I should indeed know better now.

This wasn't specifically aimed at you, from what has been said it seems clear your ban was silly, but my point was more that if people observed the rules there would be no discussion about whether we need to be informed of ban lengths, allowed to ask question etc. It's the simplest way to stop all of that and it's something the majority of posters do without any trouble (again, not a dig at you, your ban was silly).

Honest question: How does knowing how long a ban is help? Are people saving questions for banned members so the can discuss past events? Are conversations not happening because people are waiting for banned members to be able to be involved? How does knowing the length of a ban change the way anyone posts?

 

[Netserk]

This wasn't specifically aimed at you, from what has been said it seems clear your ban was silly, but my point was more that if people observed the rules there would be no discussion about whether we need to be informed of ban lengths, allowed to ask question etc. It's the simplest way to stop all of that and it's something the majority of posters do without any trouble (again, not a dig at you, your ban was silly).

Honest question: How does knowing how long a ban is help? Are people saving questions for banned members so the can discuss past events? Are conversations not happening because people are waiting for banned members to be able to be involved? How does knowing the length of a ban change the way anyone posts?

If you expect a particular poster, who posts extensive information about a particular rider, to return at any moment, you are less likely to take over that service on their behalf.

If Eshnar was banned in April and I thought he would return before the Giro started, I would wait for him to return and post his big Giro preview. If I knew he was banned for a month, I'd prepare one on my own or help contribute to make one, so there still would be a great preview thread in time for the Giro to start.

 

[RedheadDane]

but my point was more that if people observed the rules there would be no discussion about whether we need to be informed of ban lengths, allowed to ask question etc.

And some of us have started writing "I don't like your post!" - apparently a ban-worthy offense - in response to each other's posts as a joke! If someone who isn't in on the joke sees it and reports it, do we risk getting banned? Or are people gonna know that "Oh, it's just those silly Danes at it again..."?

Or, I noticed this in the rules:

G.R.A.P.E.S. (guns, religion, abortion, politics, economics, sexuality) subject matter discussion is prohibited, except where the topics are expressly related to core subject coverage and is initiated by staff. The moderation team reserves the right to remove any such posts and take action as warranted.

How do we decide whether it's related to the core subject?

Are conversations not happening because people are waiting for banned members to be able to be involved? How does knowing the length of a ban change the way anyone posts?

Conversations tend to be stalled if one of the participants suddenly disappears. Let's say a bunch of people have a perfectly amicable conversation in one thread, one of the participants makes a post that isn't entirely clear, and then gets banned for something that happened in a completely different thread. In such a case it'll be quite a different if the banned person will be back the following day, in a week, or in a month. At which point do you give up asking for clarification, because the person being asked for it might not even remember by the time they're back?

 

[fmk_RoI]

I don't see you coming with any suggestions about how we can get some basic information.

Here's how this works in the real world: you see a problem that isn't there, you imaginate the solution and put forward a reasoned argument for its implementation. It's not for me to do that given there is no problem, you already have the basic information: the user has been banned.