xMinionX said:
Who are the lucky ones who get warnings overtuned on a regular basis? I would really like to know!
Peace
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
xMinionX said:Then why are warnings overturned on a regular basis?
alice s said:This is an announcement, why has it got 94 repplies most are useless?
I am very sorry that you have encountered this behaviour from people as I have always found you to be fair .....WesleyJohn said:Thanks debi. I hear what you are saying. I have never suggested that there is no room for change. (In fact, in my work on staff, I believe that I have attempted to be an agent for positive change and continued care of members.) Nor have I stated that there is a conspiracy. However, statements like those continue to be made about me in other places on the internet, and I am a bit weary of them.
Star Ruby said:Well come on over!! There's room for more!heehee... that's so funny!
MichelleMiss Shelby said:There are LOTS of members not complaining at all. One could safely deduce it's because they don't have a problem with the moderating or if they do it's not something that they let run their lives. THEY are in the majority.
Michelle
No I still think my observation is accurate and that a vocal minority of sqeaky wheels are now getting their grease. Nothing wrong with though, I guess.thereselittleflower said:I think it is a serious error think one can safely deduce such a thing . . .
Peace
A squeaky wheel still needs to be fixed .....Miss Shelby said:No I still think my observation is accurate and that a vocal minority of sqeaky wheels are now getting their grease. Nothing wrong with though, I guess.
Michelle
Erwin said:I plan on making some radical changes to CF moderation and the appeals process.
I am still discussing this with some people and senior staff.
These changes will please some and upset others. However, I anticipate that the changes will overall address the issues of accountability, transparency and clarity being raised by some members. It will involve a rethink of how the whole system works really.
These changes will not happen overnight, and will take time to implement.
I thank you for your patience. We are not perfect and we have our internal issues, and I apologise for this. There is plenty of room for improvement and I am aware of this.
Bear with me as I find out the best way to do this.
Obviously 93 replies disagree with your 'premiere' post on CF Alice.alice s said:This is an announcement, why has it got 94 repplies most are useless?
I'ddie4him said:Warnings are not issued based on assertions, They are based on fact.
crazyfingers said:I disagree. Warnings are not based on fact. Warnings are issued based on the Moderators' interpretation of a general rule as applied to a specific case. There is no getting around that fact that moderators must interpret a rule if they are to attempt to enforce it.
Under the system as it currently stands, with a private appeals process and where most "violations" are deleted or hidden, users here have essentially no way to know whether the moderator giving the warning is interpreting a given rule with any consistency or whether that moderator interprets the rule in a way that is consistent with how other moderators interpret the rule. There is also no way to know whether the moderator or moderators interpret the rule in a consistent way across different cases.
The bottom line is that warnings are not based on fact. They are based on interpretations. And the system provides no feedback on whether any particular interpretation of the rules is consistent with policy and prevailing practice. Actually, the system as it now stands, provides little to no feedback on what the prevailing interpretation on any given rule actually is or whether a prevailing practice exists at all.
crazyfingers said:I disagree. Warnings are not based on fact. Warnings are issued based on the Moderators' interpretation of a general rule as applied to a specific case. There is no getting around that fact that moderators must interpret a rule if they are to attempt to enforce it.
Under the system as it currently stands, with a private appeals process and where most "violations" are deleted or hidden, users here have essentially no way to know whether the moderator giving the warning is interpreting a given rule with any consistency or whether that moderator interprets the rule in a way that is consistent with how other moderators interpret the rule. There is also no way to know whether the moderator or moderators interpret the rule in a consistent way across different cases.
The bottom line is that warnings are not based on fact. They are based on interpretations. And the system provides no feedback on whether any particular interpretation of the rules is consistent with policy and prevailing practice. Actually, the system as it now stands, provides little to no feedback on what the prevailing interpretation on any given rule actually is or whether a prevailing practice exists at all.
I'ddie4him said:Then I guess we can agree to disagree on this. When a post blatantly violates the rules, It is based on fact. Right ??
Further, When a member does this repeatedly, and the previous warning record shows that. It is based on fact, Correct ??
When a member is warned for something that blatantly breaks a rule and continues the actions despite warnings, It is fact. Right ??
I have been on that side of the fence and I have seen it many times. Any rule can be interpreted different ways.
When it is spelled out in concrete terms and it is apparent that the post broke the rules, The member will feel differently. That is a given in any situation and is completely normal to see this.
However, When a member repeatedly takes advantage of a loophole, It is to be expected that that loophole be patched and the member be warned for it after doing so again later. Right ??
For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.
Meaning, You break the rules, You get warned or edit requests or whatever the case may be. What happens is our fault for violating the rules. No one elses. Accountability is such a big concern for the staff, How about accountability for the members as well ??
Fair is Fair.
crazyfingers said:You've missed the point entirely. The point is that there is no way for your hypothetical user to know whether the rule is being applied to him or her in a way that it is consistent with how it is applied to others. And there appears to be no mechanism which ensures that a rule as applied to one person is applied to others in the same way.
I'ddie4him said:I did not miss your point, I have been there and done that too. It has been said MANY times that before a warning is issued, There is a concensus based upon the staff from that forum.
Why is this hard to understand ??
Erwin has already expressed his displeasure after posting about this reform. If this keeps escalating, He might just say the heck with it.
Can a little bit of moderation also be used in what is being asked for ?? This is gonna have to be done in baby steps, Not giant leaps and bounds.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?