Question about Moderation Reports

[TenEightyOne]

This is a genuine question about reporting Moderators... you may discern a hint of complaint, of course.

In the Incest Thread (straight face) I got into an off-topic discussion with @Famine about drink-driving.

In fairness I misunderstood one of his comments that I quoted, in mitigation I stand by some of his later facts being wrong.

I believe I argued the point fairly and demonstrated that by being perfectly willing to apologise when I was wrong.

I did however take issue with some of Famine's comments and wondered if a "normal" user might have got away with that in "normal" forum conversation.

The first, not aimed at me but, I infer, an attempt at a joke was;

If you have consumed so much alcohol that the only way you can still be conscious is to be Polish...

I thought that was unnecessary and, while @Famine rightly corrected me that "racist" was the wrong term, I felt that it was unacceptable behaviour for a forum member.

I made that point (and several others).

@Famine then came out with

This is why I can't be bothered with your crap half the time. Lots of words, no substance and self-contradiction. Go away and troll some other site.

If that's genuinely the case then I'd have a lot more infractions, messages, warnings or otherwise, surely? There are plenty of people here whose line I disagree with, I try to do it respectfully and with a notably weak joke.

So I reported @Famine's comments. I expected that to be the end of it, that was fine. Report made, matter closed, I wasn't going to discuss it any more. I note that @LeMansAid also said that he'd reported a post in that thread although I'm unsure of it was the same one.

But this morning @Famine posted

I'm going to take the fact that @TenEightyOne reported my last-ditch explanatory post rather than responding to it as an indication that he doesn't get it.

I'm not too upset or offended but I'm rather struck that making posts like this makes a mockery of the idea of reporting posts in the first place.

How does one report behaviour that one genuinely feels is unacceptable if the self-same report can be mocked by the reportee in the same thread?

@Jordan, I'd be interested in your comments.

As far as I'm concerned the matter is closed, I'll virtually shake hands with @Famine and mumble one of those schoolboy "sorries"... but the Moderation Report question remains.

Thank you all

 

[LeMansAid]

The second quote was what got to me at the time.

Then, I was really quite surprised that the reporting was addressed publicly. Some clarification of what people should expect when reporting would be welcome.

 

[Famine]

All staff can review all Reports, whether active or closed.

There is also the PM (now "Conversation") system that allows you to clarify things with your chosen member of the moderation team.

 

[TenEightyOne]

All staff can review all Reports, whether active or closed.

There is also the PM (now "Conversation") system that allows you to clarify things with your chosen member of the moderation team.

I was aware you'd be very likely to read the report and, I think, I included a comment to that effect.

What concerned me was your public comment about it and I wondered if it could be considered normal that users can expect to be identified on the forum as having reported specific posts?

I do note that the content of the report wasn't published.

EDIT: Just noticed that @LeMansAid asked pretty much the same question, sorry

 

[Famine]

I do note that the content of the report wasn't published.

I do note that you are only now, 12 hours after the fact and not in the original discussion, apologising for calling me a racist (but not yet apologising for calling me a liar) in the post that preceded me telling you that this was exactly why I can't be bothered with your crap half the time - and that the post you reported was actually this one:

"Polish" isn't a race. It's also a statistical observation.

And no. The accident you related with the lorry driver being guilty of a crime and you not was one in which the lorry driver's driving was contributory and yours not. Thus you disagreed with my statement that "Being involved in an accident to which your driving is a contributing factor is currently a criminal offence. It should be." by saying it both wasn't and shouldn't be and then giving an example of where it was.


Okay, I'll try one last time to get Keef's point over to you.
Making something criminal simply because it increases the likelihood of harm occurring, without any harm ever actually occurring, is wrong. The crime should be the act of causing harm - or possibly acting in a manner where causing harm is significantly more likely than not (such as dropping a fire extinguisher 6 floors into a crowd of people).

He gave two examples. Intrafamilial relationships (where procreation increases the likelihood of birth defects) and drink driving (where DUI increases the likelihood of vehicle collisions).

A fact you have conveniently left off.

I'm not aware of many sites that would even allow you to remain a member after calling a member of staff a racist and a liar unprovoked. You've since thrown into the mix a completely unjustified report - the Report system is not to be used simply because you don't agree with someone - wasting the time of all of the staff and, yes, when a report is not justified it can be and has been referred to in public fora. See here and here (both from me, separated by six years - I'm sure there's more).

You are indeed lucky that you've directed your ire against a member of staff who does not habitually infract the people with whom he is discussing and that it's on this site.


Incidentally, "trolling" derives from "trawling" and describes a fishing practice of drawing bait through the water and moving it about while drawing it in, in order to attract more fish. From a membership point of view, the phrase neatly encapsulates the way you move your points and positions about in order to generate responses from both sides of any discussion without ever really fixing your own position. From a moderation point of view, this is not an AUP issue per se, so your claim about infraction points is also wide of the mark.


You are most welcome to continue to discuss the topic with me by PM/Conversation if you wish to avoid doing so in the original thread.

 

[TenEightyOne]

Then, I was really quite surprised that the reporting was addressed publicly. Some clarification of what people should expect when reporting would be welcome.

All staff can review all Reports, whether active or closed.

There is also the PM (now "Conversation") system that allows you to clarify things with your chosen member of the moderation team.

That still doesn't answer the point about reporting; is it reasonable for User X to assume when reporting a post that any of the staff team may then post publicly that "User X reported Post Y"?

Has @Jordan issued any guidance to users or mods on the "privacy" of the report system or what we can expect?

I do note that you are only now, 12 hours after the fact and not in the original discussion...

I thought that given the fierceness of your apparent ire I should consider my response. It's in the nature of fora that discussions aren't immediate.

apologising for calling me a racist

I do apologise for calling you a racist. It was technically incorrect when you limited your accusation of institutional alcoholism to Poles. That is not to say that I find the comment acceptable. Is it acceptable?

If you have consumed so much alcohol that the only way you can still be conscious is to be Polish

Back on-track you note I'm

... not yet apologising for calling me a liar

No I'm not, because I didn't. You made some factual claims which were incorrect. I pointed it out. Had your reaction come from a regular member ("You disagree and therefore call me a liar!") then I would expect the mods to shut that down quite quickly.

Being involved in an accident to which your driving is a contributing factor while being over the limit is not currently considered a deliberately negligent act that caused the accident*. It should be

And it is considered a deliberately negligent at that requires premeditation - both in criminal and civil law.

Blowing 36 shouldn't be a crime, but it is. Killing someone through crap driving and then blowing 36 should be manslaughter, but it isn't*.

Blowing 36 should be a crime (that's an opinion of course), and it is. Killing some one through crap driving and then blowing 36 is a manslaughter homicide, that's simply a fact.

I didn't disagree with you entirely and I said that; where I disagreed it was on a factual basis. I did not call you a liar.

My misunderstanding was in this statement;

Being involved in an accident to which your driving is a contributing factor is currently a criminal offence.

That statement still seems grammatically awkward to me; I read it as "Being involved in an accident to which you're driving / is a contributing factor / is currently a criminal offence"

That was my mistake, a stupid one and I apologised although apparently not quickly enough.

Had you said

Being involved in an accident IN which your driving is a contributing factor is currently a criminal offence.

then I would have understood better. That's a sniffy point, that small misinterpretation was still my error overall.

As it happens, I still disagree with @Keef's comparison but that hardly seems important now.

This is why I can't be bothered with your crap half the time. Lots of words, no substance and self-contradiction.

That simply seemed over the top for any users.

Go away and troll some other site.

Was use of the word troll strictly justified? Seriously? Hmm.

Overall I think the way you conducted yourself seemed slightly unnecessary and over-the-top, not really a good example for other users. That's only my opinion and by now I'm quite used to the fact that you think I'm a "troll" and "making noise".

One final comment to @Jordan; I've had to quote @Famine quite extensively as you can see; the lilac text he uses plays havoc with the background BB code, should that be discouraged nowadays?

 

[Famine]

You are most welcome to continue to discuss the topic with me by PM/Conversation if you wish to avoid doing so in the original thread.

Trying to continue to discuss the topic you've now abandoned in a separate thread intended to complain about my behaviour in not banning you or citing you in any way for calling me a racist and liar or doing the same for wasting the staff's time in abusing the report function is the very definition of trolling - your bait has been moved sideways to an entirely new location, where you continue to waggle it.


So. We're done here right?

 

[TenEightyOne]

Trying to continue to discuss the topic you've now abandoned in a separate thread intended to complain about my behaviour in not banning you or citing you in any way for calling me a racist and liar or doing the same for wasting the staff's time in abusing the report function is the very definition of trolling - your bait has been moved sideways to an entirely new location, where you continue to waggle it.


So. We're done here right?

I didn't call you a liar, you were simply wrong in some of your factual statements. Continuing to thrash about on that point is wasted effort. Your fact were citably incorrect, that seems to be impossible for you to accept. You used the word liar, not I.

Nor did I complain about "your behaviour in not banning me"... I'm really not sure where you pull these "facts" from unless another user has made that complaint and you confuse us?

What you said about the Polish was, in my opinion, akin to racism. I felt your further comments were also un-necessary and contrary to the atmosphere of respect and discussion that is normally a hallmark of moderation at this forum. That seemed, in the absence of any guidance, a fair use of the report function.

The question remains; "Is it reasonable for User X to assume when reporting a post that any of the staff team may then post publicly that "User X reported Post Y"?

In summary I've had an opinion, I've misread one of your facts and corrected the incorrect ones.

I haven't bullied anyone or thrashed about making false accusations.

It seems to me that you have and continue to do so, possibly enraged by being questioned or corrected.

 

[Famine]

I'm not aware of many sites that would even allow you to remain a member after calling a member of staff a racist and a liar unprovoked. You've since thrown into the mix a completely unjustified report - the Report system is not to be used simply because you don't agree with someone - wasting the time of all of the staff and, yes, when a report is not justified it can be and has been referred to in public fora. See here and here (both from me, separated by six years - I'm sure there's more).

And now you're painting me as angry for not placing any sanctions of any kind against you.

So, we're done here, right?

 

[LeMansAid]

when a report is not justified it can be and has been referred to in public fora. See here and here (both from me, separated by six years - I'm sure there's more).

Did you or someone else decide that the report was not justified in TEO's case?

I'm not aiming to waste your time, I genuinely want to know what the protocol is.

 

[Famine]

All staff can review all Reports, whether active or closed.

I already quoted the Reported post in full and I'm more than happy for anyone on the site to tell me where the AUP has been traumatised by it. Here it is again:

"Polish" isn't a race. It's also a statistical observation.

And no. The accident you related with the lorry driver being guilty of a crime and you not was one in which the lorry driver's driving was contributory and yours not. Thus you disagreed with my statement that "Being involved in an accident to which your driving is a contributing factor is currently a criminal offence. It should be." by saying it both wasn't and shouldn't be and then giving an example of where it was.


Okay, I'll try one last time to get Keef's point over to you.
Making something criminal simply because it increases the likelihood of harm occurring, without any harm ever actually occurring, is wrong. The crime should be the act of causing harm - or possibly acting in a manner where causing harm is significantly more likely than not (such as dropping a fire extinguisher 6 floors into a crowd of people).

He gave two examples. Intrafamilial relationships (where procreation increases the likelihood of birth defects) and drink driving (where DUI increases the likelihood of vehicle collisions).

 

[LeMansAid]

I already quoted the Reported post in full and I'm more than happy for anyone on the site to tell me where the AUP has been traumatised by it. Here it is again:

Ok.

 

[Famine]

I have no idea why you just made some of my text smaller and some bigger, but I'll take it to mean you can't find any justification under the AUP for that post being reported.

So. We done here? The query was answered in posts #3 and #5 and repeatedly asking questions answered by those posts is unproductive.

 

[TenEightyOne]

I have no idea why you just made some of my text smaller and some bigger, but I'll take it to mean you can't find any justification under the AUP for that post being reported.

The site was running slow this morning so I edited in BB mode; it didn't go well as you can see, I partly blame your insistence on color tags in your postings for the problem, it kills the typebox

I already quoted the Reported post in full and I'm more than happy for anyone on the site to tell me where the AUP has been traumatised by it. Here it is again:

If you look at the detail of the report (and I'm happy for it to be published here if necessary) you'll see that while the report was anchored to one post it included quotes from others (or another).

Given the vexation caused by a single (and considered) report I'm glad I didn't report each post individually.

So. We done here? The query was answered in posts #3 and #5 and repeatedly asking questions answered by those posts is unproductive.

Post #3:

All staff can review all Reports, whether active or closed.

There is also the PM (now "Conversation") system that allows you to clarify things with your chosen member of the moderation team.

That answers the first question partly but doesn't go to the developing theme about the publication of/mockery of reports made by users in good faith. Which mine was. Not for vexation, trolls or lulz.

Post #5:

I do note that you are only now, 12 hours after the fact and not in the original discussion, apologising for calling me a racist (but not yet apologising for calling me a liar) in the post that preceded me telling you that this was exactly why I can't be bothered with your crap half the time - and that the post you reported was actually this one:A fact you have conveniently left off.

I'm not aware of many sites that would even allow you to remain a member after calling a member of staff a racist and a liar unprovoked. You've since thrown into the mix a completely unjustified report - the Report system is not to be used simply because you don't agree with someone - wasting the time of all of the staff and, yes, when a report is not justified it can be and has been referred to in public fora. See here and here (both from me, separated by six years - I'm sure there's more).

You are indeed lucky that you've directed your ire against a member of staff who does not habitually infract the people with whom he is discussing and that it's on this site.


Incidentally, "trolling" derives from "trawling" and describes a fishing practice of drawing bait through the water and moving it about while drawing it in, in order to attract more fish. From a membership point of view, the phrase neatly encapsulates the way you move your points and positions about in order to generate responses from both sides of any discussion without ever really fixing your own position. From a moderation point of view, this is not an AUP issue per se, so your claim about infraction points is also wide of the mark.


You are most welcome to continue to discuss the topic with me by PM/Conversation if you wish to avoid doing so in the original thread.

Your entomology for trolling is interesting and not the only theory... certainly the word goes back to at least the 50s in military slang (having a visible presence without doing much...but ready for combat/trouble).

You say you're ""not aware of many sites that would even allow you to remain a member after calling a member of staff a racist and a liar unprovoked". No, nor am I. The racism comment was fully provoked by your own generalised comment about the Polish... and I didn't call you a liar. I called you mistaken, ironically enough. So really your awareness of those sites is academic in this case.

While answering the original question you've filibustered, made groundless accusations "TenEightyOne called me a liar!" and really continued, in my opinion, to set a bad example to users.

With great power comes lilac writing, I guess.

 

[Famine]

Still painting me as angry because I haven't sanctioned you, I see.

Trying to continue to discuss the topic you've now abandoned in a separate thread intended to complain about my behaviour in not banning you or citing you in any way for calling me a racist and liar or doing the same for wasting the staff's time in abusing the report function is the very definition of trolling - your bait has been moved sideways to an entirely new location, where you continue to waggle it.


So. We're done here right?

So.

We're done here, right?

 

[LeMansAid]

I have no idea why you just made some of my text smaller and some bigger, but I'll take it to mean you can't find any justification under the AUP for that post being reported.

I was highlighting what the straight up answer would have been, and I wasn't looking for any justification.

 

[Famine]

I was highlighting what the straight up answer would have been, and I wasn't looking for any justification from you.

I gave you a straight up answer. I'm not sure why you chose to take it as anything other than that and set about highlighting stuff. Unless you're not being "straight up" about that response, of course.

So.

Now we all know that all the staff have immediate access to the entire Report log, past and present, and that if you waste the staff's time by unjustifiably reporting posts your own time may be wasted in return - the same thing we all knew after posts #3 and #5...

are we done here?

I think we can guess the answer to that one

 

[TenEightyOne]

Now that a gentle air of tolerance has settled across the thread, I'd like to respectfully restate a couple of questions if I may?

Is it reasonable for User X to assume when reporting a post that any of the staff team may then post publicly that "User X reported Post Y"?

That still interests me and, I believe, @LeMansAid.

1. Is it reasonable for User X to assume when reporting a post that any of the staff team may then post publicly that "User X reported Post Y"?

If you have consumed so much alcohol that the only way you can still be conscious is to be Polish...

2. Do you think that the above is an acceptable thing to post on this forum?

... not yet apologising for calling me a liar

3. Did I call you a liar?

Did you or someone else decide that the report was not justified in TEO's case?

I'm not aiming to waste your time, I genuinely want to know what the protocol is.

I'm also interested to know that and for the same reason as LeMansAid. I've already said I think there's a lack of community guidance on how a Report is handled - that's not to say I think they're handled badly in any way.

4. Did you or someone else decide that the report was not justified in (my) case?

This is why I can't be bothered with your crap half the time. Lots of words, no substance and self-contradiction. Go away and troll some other site.

5. Do you think that the above is an acceptable thing to post on this forum?


EDIT: I can't retrieve my report, please might it be possible for the text of it to be posted here? Thank you if so

 

[Famine]

I think we can guess the answer to that one

That still interests me and, I believe, @LeMansAid.

So.

Now we all know that all the staff have immediate access to the entire Report log, past and present, and that if you waste the staff's time by unjustifiably reporting posts your own time may be wasted in return - the same thing we all knew after posts #3 and #5...

The answer to your remaining questions are all "yes".


I'm not even going to ask because I am absolutely sure that even though we were done here thirteen posts and 24 hours ago, we're not done here. I have very many better things to do, but if I were to lock this thread as it deserves I'm sure we'd see the toy flinging from low Earth orbit.

I await the next waggle of the line with eager antici...

 

[TenEightyOne]

..p..p..p...please may I ask another question?

6. Was it you who decided that the report was unjustified? If so, was that decision taken alone or collaboratively?

 

[Coxis]

Your entomology for trolling is interesting and not the only theory...

I think you meant to say etymology; unless of course a troll is some kind of insect. That is all.

Sorry for the random post but it had been bugging me for a while.

 

[Famine]

...pation.

All staff can review all Reports, whether active or closed.

 

[TenEightyOne]

6. Was it you who decided that the report was unjustified? If so, was that decision taken alone or collaboratively?

All staff can review all Reports, whether active or closed.

7. All moderators can solely moderate themselves?

and

8. Where did I call you a liar? Vous m'accusez with seemingly absolute conviction but I can't find it. Link me please.

and

9. Please can you post the content of the report that I made?

Thank you

 

[TB]

I'm not even involved with this and I'm annoyed.

@TenEightyOne - I suggest if you have a problem with a member of staff, do what it says in the FAQ:

www.gtplanet.net/faq/#contest_moderation

 

[Famine]

29 hours... At what point do I have to saw my own forearm off with a penknife?

All staff can review all Reports, whether active or closed.

There is also the PM (now "Conversation") system that allows you to clarify things with your chosen member of the moderation team.

I understand the irony (and probable uselessness) of reporting a mod's comments, especially when Murphy's Law the same mod will collect this report... but I think Famine's comments were unnecessary, ill-judged and a bad example for the forum in general.

Famine WAS citeably and factually wrong in his statements. I was persistent in trying to address his comments (one if which I admittedly understood).

Is his response genuinely justified? Not my decision to make of course.

...This is why I can't be bothered with your crap half the time. Lots of words, no substance and self-contradiction. Go away and troll some other site...

Does posting this get us anywhere? No - it adds absolutely nothing you haven't already said.

If you want to discuss the content of messages in the thread, the thread is the place to do it. If you want to engage with me and me alone, the Conversation system is the place to do it. Every remaining question you have about the moderation of reported comments has been resolved a day ago.

So. Is there any chance I can get on with other things? Are, to coin a phrase, we done yet?

 

[TenEightyOne]

29 hours... At what point do I have to saw my own forearm off with a penknife?

I'm tempted to ask what GTP's statute of limitations is, but shan't.

@TB, thank you for your advice.