Reported posts

I'd like to raise two matters on this subject, if I may:

The first is whether a response to a reported post should include which moderators have reviewed the report/post and which of them is responding.
The second is whether a moderator should be allowed to respond, and subsequently close, a report raised about one of their own posts, or whether it should deliberately be left to one of the others.

So, for example, imagine I report one of Tiassa's posts for, say, using obscene language. I would then hopefully get a response back to say the matter has been reviewed, what action, if any, taken, and thus closure of the report. But at the moment there is nothing to say that it was not Tiassa himself who reviewed that report of his own post, decided unsurprisingly that the language was suitable, and then closed the report.

Should the reviewing moderator not be made clear in the response, even just to avoid any suggestion of conflict of interest? And following that, should it not be obvious that no moderator ought to be the one to review a report raised about their own posts, however trivial the report, that they not be the one to determine if and what resolving action there need be, and then subsequently close it, should that be currently happening?

Just some thoughts.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

On another forum I’ve been a member of, the moderation team responds to “reports” via private message, letting members know if an issue has been resolved and if relevant, the resolution.

I find it helpful because at least you know your “complaint” has been handled. Even if the mods disagree with the complaint, they’ll share why.

I’ve only reported a few posts on here, and haven’t received any responses. It should be something private between the member who submitted the report and mods, as opposed to discussing in the open forum. For obvious reasons.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I think there's several things going on, none of which are probably surprising.

There is the idea that if one doesn't agree with the moderation of this site, one can leave. This isn't particularly helpful but it is what it is.

Related to the above is that moderation can be applied in a biased and inconsistent way. Something that a moderator does or says can result in anyone else receiving a warning/ban for. This is largely due to the broad, all encompassing way that "trolling" is defined. Again, it is what it is.

The "Don Quixote effect" may also be at play in certain circumstances.

It's probably best to just post on subjects that we find interesting and to ignore the rest. This may not be an entirely satisfying way to look at it but it's probably the most accurate way to look at it.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Inasmuch as I have said, before, that everything is in its way ad hoc, I would take the moment to point out the basic idea that the question at hand is even necessary. Is the question viable or not, because if it's a viable question, we might also wonder how or why.

By general circumstance, the question is almost inevitably viable. And it is not the pricking of my thumbs or an aching in my bones; the discussion is complicated because there is a lot that goes into our present and particular moment.

 

I wrote "It's probably best to just post on subjects that we find interesting and to ignore the rest." and what you got out of it was that I'm suggesting that one posts on subjects that one finds uninteresting?

My suggestion has nothing to do with what to post but rather with what to ignore by not reading.

 

It doesn't bother me, it's just an odd reading of what I wrote. The longer version would be to post on subjects that you find interesting and to not bother to read the "upseting" threads if they bother you. Nothing about it suggested anything about posting on subjects that you aren't interested in. That doesn't make sense, which is why (presumable) you wrote it. Therefore, if it doesn't make sense, that's probably not the meaning implied.

 

No need to make everything an issue of aggression, wouldn't you agree? Maybe we can all just chill out a little?

 

In most cases I accept that, as most cases are not reports about what one of the moderators has posted. In most cases, therefore, it is sufficient that one of the moderators, any of them, handles the report, and it should not matter which one as there would be no conflict of interest. But in the instances where it is a moderator’s post that has been reported, the “team” aspect becomes moot, as there would be, I’d have thought it should be obvious to all, a clear conflict of interest should the one whose post has been reported be the one to then “resolve” the report.

A policy of adding their name to the response to such a report (of a moderator’s post) would serve two purposes: 1, it would encourage moderators not to review reports raised about their own posts, to avoid the obvious conflict of interest, and encourage them to be fair in their resolution when there is such a conflict. And 2, it ensures that the person receiving that response knows either the person responding was not the moderator whose post had been reported, that there has been no conflict of interest, or that there has been a conflict of interest should the resolution not be to the complainants satisfaction - i.e. that conflict becomes reasonable grounds for escalation.

And if adding the responding moderator’s name to those reports (of moderators' posts) helps achieve that, then adding their name to the response on any report can surely be done just as easily and as a matter of policy. It is just a name, which doesn’t take long to type, yet the benefits should be quite obvious. Maybe only add it in the instance that the post reported was written by a moderator, if your concern is that it is otherwise unwarranted.

Note that the person raising the report does not see any private message by the one issuing a warning to the one issued with the warning. They simply see “Your post has been resolved…“ with an explanation of the resolution (or non-resolution as might be the case). No indication of the moderator who has actually responded.

Again, on the whole, there is not really an issue with this as most reports are not about the behaviour of one of the moderators. But since adding the moderator’s name would help identify conflicts of interest in such instances, or help reduce such instances, adding that name would I thought have been an easy win for the site to adopt as a policy. Why the reluctance?

Sure, but if the one responding is the one whose post has been reported, there is nothing to assure the members that such a discussion has taken place, that it is not just the moderator trying to sweep away their own reported behaviour, for example. A simple matter of adding the mod's name to the response will help assure the members that their report into the post of a moderator has been noted and addressed by another, and that there is no conflict of interest in the "resolution", or provides reasonable grounds for escalation of an unsatisfactory "resolution", should there be conflict of interest. And if adding it to responses of those reports, why not all.

You’re not that short-staffed to warrant their being such obvious and easily-addressed conflicts of interest. While you may well be short-staffed for the general running of the site, and resolving all reports etc, you only have 3 mods, so there should be commensurately few reports raised about those mods’ posts. I.e. the fewer the mods, the fewer the reports will be raised about them.

Furthermore, being prompt does not trump an obvious conflict of interest. Members will, I’m sure, be willing to wait for their report to be resolved if they know that the one reviewing and responding is not the same person whose post they have reported. How difficult would it be, hypothetically, for Tiassa to see that one of his posts has been reported, and to then leave that ticket number, or whatever system you have, to either you or Bells to review and address? How difficult would it be for Bells, or for you, to do likewise for reports about your own posts? The answer, I’m sure, is that it would be easy.

Given your claimed moral standards about disclosure of vested interests, James, I would have expected far better from you than to just excuse such obvious conflicts of interest as being discussed here, especially ones that speak to the moral integrity of the moderators, and to this site as a whole. It is bad enough that such conflicts of interest might already be happening, and the willingness to excuse not addressing this begs its own questions.

 

That's one.
The other is that no moderator should action a report raised about their own posts. It is a clear conflict of interest. That sticking point remains.

I'm not talking about closing threads down, or issuing warnings, as moderators can't be warned. I'm simply talking about how a report made of a moderator's post is handled, and whether it should ever be handled by the same moderator who has been reported about. None of what you have said here addresses that. The only time I can think of where prompt action is justified over conflict of interest is where the moderator whose post has been reported actually agrees with the report, agrees their behaviour needed reporting, and they apologise etc. In such an instance the conflict of interest is effectively removed by the outcome. But other than this, no, prompt action does not overcome conflict of interest.

James, your entire previous response to the issue was one excuse after another for why it doesn't happen, and for one of the two issues you're still doing that. That you are now not simply excusing, well, at least one of the suggestions, is encouraging. Thank you. But you are still making excuses regarding the issue of conflict of interest in dealing with reports of moderators' posts. That sticking point remains. And that continues to beg the question of why.
Why not raise the matter with the other moderators and see what they think, as you propose with the suggestion of adding your name?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

There you go again trying to cast aspersions on people with such insinuations. Do you not see how antagonistic that comes across as? How petty? How pathetic? Can you not stop yourself?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Thanks, James - I’d “reported” a post a few months back, and didn’t receive any notification or PM as to how it was handled. There was no response at all.

 

Given the amount you're acting in self-interest, of late, maybe you're not striking the right tone.

Your handling of reports #6121-6122, for instance, is clearly self-interested, and inconsistent to the point of hypocrisy.

†​

Here, James, a tale of three zingers. Are you ready?

1) Weariness and exhaustion might contribute to error and omission.

2) Psychological dysfunction is the reason someone is unsatisfactory.

3) Neurological disease is the only explanation for this person's disagreement.​

Guess which one of those is an offense? Oh, right, you already know.

Given that you held utterance of the first against someone¹, uttered the second, yourself², and endorsed someone else's utterance of the third³, your post at #3715986/17 ("What is the furthest …?")↗ is inconsistent with your prior assessment of other people's behavior, but does reflect how you wish to treat other people. It's one thing if I leave the report for you to comment on, but closing it as you did was not the best of decisions, especially considering your reasoning. As much as you don't like being criticized, you've managed to put on quite a performance. And remember, James, we already know from history that you will not tolerate being spoken to the same way.

†​

History, James, and I'll try to be brief: One of the reasons our policies seem so ad hoc is that you wanted it this way. That is, it is for you that we have no unified policy standard. And there is a record on this point. And the reason we might take the moment to recall this is how our present moment reflects its boundaries: First, the attitudes and circumstance you find yourself confronting are a product of an environment in which this is actually how it's gone for quite a while; i.e., sure, Sciforums is what its members make of it, but that statement does not account for what we encourage or discourage, so inasmuch as we have shaped the environment for them, it's unclear what you might expect of what our policy outlook has cultivated, but inasmuch as the knives-out malaise around here is hardly new, your increased sensitivity is a question only you can answer.

And this leads to the next point: You are behaving in a manner that you previously sought to forestall. That is, when we go back and check the record⁴, part of the reason we don't have a unified standard is that you don't trust the staff, and worry they will behave abusively, and you are now fulfilling a role you pretended to guard against.
____________________

Notes:

¹ Internal Memoranda #3481

² "Entities and Attributes in science", #9↗, #69↗, #71↗

³ Report #6063

⁴ e.g., Internal Memoranda #2791 (2016), #3032 (2017), and #3175 (2018), for instance; the record is, of course, considerably larger.

 

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Sure. I was simply reminding you what the issue was that you were replying to, as that particular reply had no bearing on it. You were going on about thread closures, issuing of warnings, etc, when they have no bearing on the reporting of a moderator's post, and whether a response to such should have the responding mod's name, or whether the reported mod should be allowed to respond to that report. Nothing more, nothing less.

How do we know it happens "very rarely"? And if you're excusing it such that it be allowed to happen "very rarely", what is the escalation process?

They could read the thread for the first suggestion, yet you explicitly said that you would raise it with them. You didn't do so with this second suggestion, hence my suggestion that you do so.

Thank you.

So despite being told that casting aspersions, to make such insinuations (via guessing at motive etc) is antagonistic, petty, and pathetic, you decide to double-down? What are we to make of that? That antagonistic behaviour is acceptable? Or should we simply ignore such hypocrisy and dishonesty from a moderator? I'm left confused by this. Perhaps you could explain, please?

Thank you.

Oh, such magnanimity of you.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!