Reports Protocol Revision Semi-Private

[No Swansong]

Is any staff member going to even attempt to answer my question? I will ask it again here for clarity's sake.

If staff has nothing to hide and if no other individual's confidentiality is jeopardized what is the purpose for not allowing me to post a report thread in which I am the one reported?

 

[ravenscape]

Is any staff member going to even attempt to answer my question? I will ask it again here for clarity's sake.

If staff has nothing to hide and if no other individual's confidentiality is jeopardized what is the purpose for not allowing me to post a report thread in which I am the one reported?

That's how the reports forums are going to work as soon as the tech folks get it coded right. They thought they had it done yesterday, but there was a glitch.

 

[No Swansong]

Raven I am not sure you understand my question. I will be able to access report threads made on me. But I will not be able to post them say in a thread in which I wish to discuss the decision made. That is the problem with closed or these semi-closed report threads there is no accountability and no way to call for accountability if I cannot show inconsistency or unfairness on the part of the moderation team.

 

[ravenscape]

Where would you want to discuss them?

 

[No Swansong]

Does it matter? For arguments sake let's say our home congregational forum.

 

[ravenscape]

I don't think it matters. AFAIK, the only place where specific report decisions can be discussed, (and potentially overturned) is the complaints forum. That process is supposed to change, but I'm not sure how it will change.

I honestly don't understand the purpose of making the appeals/review process non-transparent. I thought the open appeals were a real benefit to members and staff alike.

 

[No Swansong]

I don't think it matters. AFAIK, the only place where specific report decisions can be discussed, (and potentially overturned) is the complaints forum. That process is supposed to change, but I'm not sure how it will change.

I honestly don't understand the purpose of making the appeals/review process non-transparent. I thought the open appeals were a real benefit to members and staff alike.

I agree with you about transparency, especially in the report threads. My original question was why was it changed? Nobody answered, then we were told that we may (before the decision was made) be allowed to access report threads in which we were reported to defend ourselves but that we were not to discuss anything about the report thread with anyone else either in a thread or by PM. When it was pointed out that the only possible reason for this was to protect privacy it was asked if it is our privacy that is being endangered why don't we have the choice to make the report thread public?

Anyway no one has given a good answer as to why they are now closed again and the only assumption many of us can make is to keep staff inconsistency and unfairness unseen.

 

[Amoranemix]

There does not appear to be a discussion thread for this announcement, so I will make my comments in this thread

Members will still receive a PM notifying them that their post was reported. Members will still be able to see the report graphic under their reported post. The reported member will be allowed to read and respond in the report thread.[1] However, the report thread will remain private, and should not be divulged to other than the RT, in accordance with the site wide rules.[2]

[1] It is definitely a step in the right the right direction, but the road ahead is long still. What guarantee will there be that the reportee will be able to do read and respond in the thread ? [2] I disagree. The reportee should have the right to divulge the report thread to the general public.

In addition, harassment of staff in report threads, pm's or in the open forums is prohibited. The first violation will result in a 1 month ban, although no points will be given. Further harassment will result in infractions being issued.

I strongly disagree with that. Staff should be prohibited to harass members in report threads, PMs or open forums.

I also refuse to assist you in maintaining the cloak of secrecy. Should anything of note be said in any thread I can access, I intend to broadcast it to my utmost ability.

Be careful not to give them too much excuse to ban you.

I would hate to think a few posts over a day or two would be considered harrassment. Folks will be upset in reports threads.... staff know and understands that. This doesn't mean folks won't get warned for flaming if they go to far.

I don’t trust the ones who will decide what is too far.

When its an ongoing thing and personal, that is harrassment, and that has to stop. We lost too many good staff over the last few months with everything being open.

Can you prove that ?
This again demonstrates that these reforms are meant to please staff. Some of them have been whining about harassment and now they get their way. The ordinary members don’t receive the same courtesy.

[FONT=&quot]

Essentially Lee has given the members the site they asked for. This is what they asked for, and some of what the staff needs in order to do their best jobs most efficiently.

[/FONT]I disagree. These modifications are to please staff. Don’t pretend it to be something else. I didn’t ask for this and ordinary members are members too.

I wonder though, if we should adjust the verbiage of that. We don't want folks getting 1 month ban when a warning for flaming would do. It should be clear, but maybe not. What do you folks think?

It is a bad rule. Trash it. Get one of the forum specific moderation protocols. I didn’t participate in one, but many members have and the protocols are, though not perfect, far superior to what I have seen so far.

What's going to happen to folks that copy and paste reports into the open forums? And don't say that it will never happen...

I fear these people will be punished. Dictatorships usually don’t take kindly releasing to the public information embarrassing to the authorities.

DarylFawcett 21 :What about the person who reported the post?
Will that person also have access along with the reported person?
synger 22 : Probably not. What is the point? If there's a violation, the reported post will be deleted or edited. If there isn't, it'll remain.
I disagree. The reporter should have access. He should also be able to post in the thread, but then lose his/her anonymity. The reporter can clarify whether there is a violation as (s)he may have information unavailable to staff. In addition, a report may be related to other incidents.

YAY to semi-private reports and YAY to the harassment rule.[1]

Don't want to get banned? DON'T HARASS THE STAFF.[2] It's a fairly easy rule.
Will the reporter still be anonymous to the reported one viewing the thread?
As for anyone who C&Ps a report somewhere else, that ought to result in an automatic ban.[3] For how long, I don't know...

[1] Another staff members applauding lowly member discrimination. [2] What evidence to you have to show that would be sufficient ? [3] You really dislike ordinary members, don’t you ?

[FONT=&quot] how can this part be enforced? there would need to be a means to disallow copy and paste from report threads, as well as making every poster in the thread (including staff) anonymous.[/FONT]

No. Staff members should not be anonymous.

[FONT=&quot]

I think this is an excellent compromise! Staff are people too and they shouldn't have to put up with harassment just because they have a letter beside their name! And it is wrong to paint all staff with a broad brush. They are volunteers, with real lives outside of this site. They are trying to do their best with what they have been given.
[*] They all are humans, and members in their own right. It would be good to remember that.

[*][/FONT]What evidence do you have to support that ?

That's bull and you [Lindon Tinuviel] know it. Reasonable? Based on WHAT? You made an assumption about my character and about my reasons for becoming a mod. And given how you've posted in this thread, it's no stretch to see that your assumptions are negative. You don't know me, you don't have any clue as to why I volunteered to become staff [1] but I will tell you this, even though I don't owe you the time of day: I did not volunteer to be on staff to abuse any powers like you suggest.[2] I hope I never have to ban someone [3], and I've been to bat for several people who have been close to banning. I've stood up for both staff and members of this forum.

[1] You are mistaken. He does have a clue. [2] That’s what they all say. My thirst for power too has nothing to do with my moderator application. Considering how an administrator voted against me (‘No’ and not ‘Apply later’) shortly after I complained about an issue she was involved, it looks like it’s not like coming up for the members is what lifts you a step on the social ladder. [3] You’d rather have it done automatically. That’s more convenient.

So you can take your baseless accusations elsewhere, LT. They don't belong here. If you have problems with poor mods, as you put it, take it up with those mods privately.

What would that be supposed to accomplish ?

[FONT=&quot]

I agree. Harassment needs a definition. Right now in some forums there is too much latitude. A mod could get a hair up their *blink* just because they don't like someone. Then because they belong to the "officers" even the supermods support their decision. Good 'ol Boy philosophy.

[/FONT]I was sorry I didn’t spend enough time in the Harrassment and False Accusations wiki. I shouldn’t have. The wiki should be reopened, completed and snapshotted.

Every time staff has asked for a bit more of a definition of a rule (and we've asked for several) we've been rebuffed, FYI.
If forums are causing problems PM the RT.

Staff has been rebuffed by who ?

DaryFawcett 45 :]I asked as I received a PM from a reportee who received an auto-PM when the report was closed.
The reportee wanted to know the results of the report he/she submitted.
Tonks 47 : We generally don't tell folks.
I think that is bad policy. They should be informed.

not a bad compromise at all.

I disagree. A compromise where one side gets 95% and the other side 5% is a very bad compromise.

I think this is a good step in the right direction. I'd prefer reports fully open, as I think it serves as a learning tool for the majority of users, but this is at least a compromise. Good to know compromises can be made.

That is how LeeD likes to manipulate naïve people. He first robs them of an arm, gives them back a finger and then they are happy with the compromise. I think though many ordinary members are merely happy out of resignation as this may be the least bad they can get.

I have to ask why the report thread must not be divulged to anyone else? Some people may want to ask advice of others who have had experience. Or they may wish to discuss the deliberations with someone. Why not? If, for example, their post is deleted but they are not infracted because their fault was found to be less serious, they might wish to let other members know that.

I think staff wants compensation for being LeeD’s puppies. Most of the modifications are I think to please staff. Having access to areas ordinary members haven’t is reward for their loyalty. Both from an argumentative as a numerical stance open reports have already been successfully defended, but this is a dictatorship, sometimes by the Powers That Be euphemistically described as ‘not a pure democracy’. Good reasons don’t matter as long as what they advocate doesn’t suit those in power.

[FONT=&quot]

bump

[/FONT]If I were to bump all my unanswered questions, I would be doing a lot of bumping. It is unlikely a restriction will be placed on from when on reportees are allowed to post in the report.

I, for one, am VERY pleased with this development. It shows that the updated wiki/discussion process may actually work. We had a long discussion on this topic, and the option presented here was the one that had overwhelming support by those who participated in the discussion.

I disagree. The majority wanted open reports.

 

[Amoranemix]

jtbdad 85 : I would suggest it also needs to apply both ways. What if a staff member is harassing a member. (yes it has been done and recently too)
PreachersWife2004 87 : I agree but...Some people have a tendency to see harassment from a mod if an action is taken on their posts that they don't like.[1] Mods may have to send multiple PMs as part of reports or infractions - is that harassment? I suppose that would depend on the message that also comes with the PM. I also was just recently accused of harassment because I deleted posts in a thread as part of a clean up. The very fact that most of these actions are taken with a consensus can pretty much eliminate staff harassment of members within the violations area.[2][1] I agree too but some moderators have a tendency to harass people they don’t like and moderators have more harassment weapons than ordinary members. [2] I disagree. Staff teams form a club who tend to support each other. It’s not easy not to go along with your friends. Ordinary members are strangers and have no serious recourse and thus are much easier to dismiss than a colleague.

I agree with you that it needs to be defined on both sides. The difficulty lies in how.

By having a discussion on the topic, which happens to be what wikis are for. Failing that, LeeD’s puppy’s could also do a job they shouldn’t be ashamed of and write a decent rule.

JT, most members I read from and heard from were furious that the reports had been closed. Some wanted them to stay closed, and a lot wanted them totally opened again. This really is the best solution.[1] This lets the reported poster see that the actions taken are fair.[2] That was the main concern from people who didn't like closed reports, because now the mods could "hide" so to speak. At least this way, the reporter knows what is going on. And that's how it should be.[3]

[1] Can you prove that ? [2] Can you prove that ? [3] It is the reportee who should know what is going on. The reporter and the majority of members will be kept in the dark.

jtbdad 86 : And all those who were involved in the discussion were staff and I correct? While this may be what staff wants and what staff thinks is best it certainly does not seem to be what membership wants and I would argue it most certainly is not what is best for them.
constance 90 : Incorrect. This idea was actually brought to staff by several members.
Please provide links to the pertinent documentation.

I'm glad that now people can defend themselves.
Will both the reported and the reporter beable to add to the threads or only the reported.

Apparently only the reportee would be able to see the report.

jbdad 92 : Again I will ask (maybe I missed the answer) If a report is about me, no one else will have their confidentiality compromised and staff has nothing to hide what possible reason exists to prevent me from posting the report thread in public view?
Tonks 94 : would you need to?
You are being evasive.

We're Christians. We can treat each other even better than this, I think.

Strange that you would become Christian. You seemed to be a sensible person, even in matters of religion.

Will these respectfully asked questions be answered?

Don’t you think the Powers That Be have better things to do than answer questions of lowly members ? Stop whining and click on the ads.

Some people are persistently undermining authority, credibility and character of others and yes both staff and general members can get paranoid.. and yes that does not guarantee moderators and posters are on the square.[1]
Some Things we have to do may make us look like the bad guy when we are just following protocol to make sure things are as fair and safe as we know how to make it, no one being hacked, and no one systematically disrupting harmony and dissuading faith.[2]
We are all human. We all need prayers, consideration and understanding.
No one should have their comments published without permission to the general forum.[3] This includes moderators.
This process with the accused being able to answer for their infractions, will certainly speed up some reports and slow down others. The Reconciliation team is available for appeals if someone feels they are being singled out and treated unfairly.[4]
I would suggest that if you feel you need an advocate that is unbiased that you look up a system for determining an advocate to reconcile differences between parties and put it in the suggestion forum. It is easy to have a ton of people complaining about rules and yet not so many have thought through viable and workable suggestions.[5]
On our team our diversity allows us to have at least one person advocating at any given time. I thank our admin’s for making that happen.[6]

[1] In some real-life dictatorships undermining the authority of the state is a crime. That does not appear to be the case here (yet), except for the prohibition to discuss staff activity in public.
[2] No one ? You are kidding, right ? In addition, lots of staff don’t follow protocol, or some protocol ISO another.
[3] I disagree. If it’s part of their job to post in public then they must do so. They should ensure that what they are posting and doing is nothing to be ashamed of. Besides, PM from reportees used to be revealed to the public without their permission and I don’t think there was a majority against that.
[4] What good will that do ? I have a complaint running, which appears to have gained me a ‘No’ vote in my moderator application.
[5] Maybe you are not aware of this, but the pay of the ordinary members working for the message board is quite low.
[6] That sounds interesting. Can you provide more information ?

Likewise all those under authority have access to the ear of the God of the universe through Yeshuah HaMashiach (Jesus the Christ our head). All those under the headship of Christ abide in his will.
I believe that includes we respect the rules and show respect to authorities set in place over us.

We do ? Since when ?

I guess I see scripture as saying other wise. I respect your desire for justice, I just see God as having the right to set the order of authority and government. In the US if one buys someting they own it. I won't agree to do anything ungodly or unethical neither do I see any ungodly or or unethical rules. Life is not Fair though.
[*] It was not fair that my savior died so I might live... I'm just so thankful he did.

[*] You are saying that as if to justify unfairness. Imagine a murderer excusing himself with “Eventually we all die.”

It is my opinion that a Christian board should exemplify biblical princiipals.

It is my opinion that a Christian board should compromise between good and Christian principles, preferable with the good principles dominating.

[FONT=&quot]Bananna 114 : It will cover the moderators actions when they come to reconciliation.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]OddBeani 115 : Great point. Unfortunately, I don't think a very clear answer of "harassment" is possible. That's my opinion, but with every clarification is limitation.[/FONT]
Not necessarily. I think I did a decent job defining what should be appealable, all by myself.

jtbdad 102 : If staff is not acting imappropriately and no other poster's personal information is at risk why should I not be permitted to post the report thread?
constance 120 : Because Christian Forums should be about posting on a Christian Forum. It's just like any other institution - these are the rules and conditions of participation.
I find your attempt at avoiding to answer the question embarrassing. That goes as well for all the other questions and concerns the Powers That Be have ignored.

jtbdad 102 : Who actually was responsible for making this decision? Was it staff only, LeeD only or a combination of both?
constance 120 : Both, and it was suggested by a member.
Imagine there is a poll about a policy that could be P1 or P2 and that 99 members vote P1 and 1 member votes P2. The Powers That Be implement whatever pleases them and if that happens to be P2 you will say ‘It was suggested to us by a member.’ Right ?

If you are harassing someone, you will be told far before you are banned. If there is some disparity at any time, you can appeal it. Harassment would include (but not be limited to) such things as:
- Following someone from thread to thread
- Posting their name/personal information
- PMing or otherwise contacting someone when you know that contact is unwelcome
- singling out a person or persons to mock or belittle
- threatening to contact their work/church/spouse/family or suggesting that other people do it
- posting veiled references to people
- misquoting people

That is a good start, but is too much open to staff discretion. I suppose though as OddBeani indicated it hard to detail harassment enough to leave no room for interpretation. Staff abuse needs, I think, to be prevented elsewhere.

Additionally you also said it could be appealed, but is it not staff who will be hearing the appeal and as I understand it those appeals are also closed correct?

As far as I understand the appeal panel will consist of members of the Reconciliation Team and they should do very little moderation. Apparently ordinary moderators cannot see the appeals.

jtbdad 129 : Yet no one has given me a reason yet PW for this rule? What is there to hide that I should not be able to post a report thread on me? If I am not ashamed of it or want it kept secret why should it be? What is the reason for the rule?
melethiel 130 : Under what circumstances and for what reason would you need to post it?
You are being evasive and that question has already been answered.

Another reason one might want to post parts of a report thread, or a report decision, is to educate another poster regarding what grounds, what arguments might inform a decision on a particular type of reported post.

The debate about whether reports should be open has already been won. The Powers That Be don’t listen to reason that does not serve their own interests.

constance 137 : Thanks, Lindon. The tech is working on it.
[FONT=&quot]snoochface 138 :[/FONT][FONT=&quot]Why can't the tech work on so many of the other bugs that have been reported repeatedly for months on end with no resolution?[/FONT]
I suppose because they do so in their free time. I think Erwin was the only one doing the coding and he didn’t have much time. With LeeD matters should improve.

jtbdad 143 : Raven I am not sure you understand my question. I will be able to access report threads made on me. But I will not be able to post them say in a thread in which I wish to discuss the decision made. That is the problem with closed or these semi-closed report threads there is no accountability and no way to call for accountability if I cannot show inconsistency or unfairness on the part of the moderation team.
[FONT=&quot]ravenscape 144 : Where would you want to discuss them?[/FONT]
Mainly the report itself. There also used to be semi-appropriate external places to discuss these after the 7/7/07 reforms, for example the local staff conference room, the wiki/rules discussion forum or the public Appeals forum. Some members also suggested an open complaints forum. Discussion was fragmented, but here is a thread about it : Wiki: General complaints forum.

Anyway no one has given a good answer as to why they are now closed again and the only assumption many of us can make is to keep staff inconsistency and unfairness unseen.

Apparently they only answer respectfully asked questions. You have been cursing and flaming all the time. No wonder they are ignoring you. Also, they are only answering questions, not concerns.

It would also be nice if members are informed when a report against them is closed.

 

[Lindon Tinuviel]

Be careful not to give them too much excuse to ban you.

Oh, they've threatened.

 

[synger]

.

 

[Caitlin.ann]

I like it. Members are given privacy and the ability to defend themselves when reported. Sounds like a win-win to me.

 

[Tangeloper]

"It would also be nice if members are informed when a report against them is closed."

Now, that right there is a very good suggestion, and something I would like to see change. Especially if a report against a member is ruled as "no violation" as some reports stay open for days if not weeks, whereas others are dealt with rather quickly. If there was a notification when the reports are closed people would not have to wonder if something is still being decided or not. I will pass on this suggestion.

 

[tall73]

So the current status is that we can see reports we have made but not ones that were made against us?

 

[Caitlin.ann]

So the current status is that we can see reports we have made but not ones that were made against us?

I hope thats not true, but if so I wonder why not.

 

[Million Pieces]

I think that situation was in error, and is in the process of being changed.

 

[Caitlin.ann]

I think that situation was in error, and is in the process of being changed.

I hope so.

 

[Glass*Soul]

Originally Posted by Glass*Soul 95
We're Christians. We can treat each other even better than this, I think.

Strange that you would become Christian. You seemed to be a sensible person, even in matters of religion.

I'm a skeptic, a non-theist and a follower of Christ's teachings. If I've gone through a conversion over the last year, I think it is more a subtle conversion regarding my self-identity than one of becoming something I formerly was not. I recently reviewed many of my posts going back to the time I first joined Christian Forums, and though I am addressing somewhat different questions these days, I still agree with what I've posted all along.

One thing I've noted about Jesus' teachings is that he so often urged upon his followers a radical transparency and accountability both inwardly and outwardly. One might expect this to lead Christians to treat one another quite differently from how we are being treated on this board. I ask myself constantly why Christianity as a practice is so often divorced in this fashion from the teachings of Christ. Is the thing that is hindering us embedded in his teachings themselves? Is there something fatally flawed therein? Something that my skepticism cannot strip away without shattering the whole?

I would be brokenhearted to find that there was such a fatal flaw, but if that is the truth of the matter, then I need to know it.

My doubts, my skepticism on this count, are contained in that little "I think" at the end of my sentence.

 

[Tenebrae]

I'm a skeptic, a non-theist and a follower of Christ's teachings. If I've gone through a conversion over the last year, I think it is more a subtle conversion regarding my self-identity than one of becoming something I formerly was not. I recently reviewed many of my posts going back to the time I first joined Christian Forums, and though I am addressing somewhat different questions these days, I still agree with what I've posted all along.

One thing I've noted about Jesus' teachings is that he so often urged upon his followers a radical transparency and accountability both inwardly and outwardly. One might expect this to lead Christians to treat one another quite differently from how we are being treated on this board. I ask myself constantly why Christianity as a practice is so often divorced in this fashion from the teachings of Christ. Is the thing that is hindering us embedded in his teachings themselves? Is there something fatally flawed therein? Something that my skepticism cannot strip away without shattering the whole?

I would be brokenhearted to find that there was such a fatal flaw, but if that is the truth of the matter, then I need to know it.

My doubts, my skepticism on this count, are contained in that little "I think" at the end of my sentence.

A very rep worthy post

 

[Moriah_Conquering_Wind]

Reports should be open to BOTH the reportER as well as the reportEE. Only in this way will it be fair.