Moderation

Page 9 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
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.
 
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.
 
Reactions: Salvarani
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?
 
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.
 
Reactions: Salvarani
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.
 
Last edited:
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.
 
Reactions: Salvarani

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS