Reports Protocol Revision Semi-Private

[No Swansong]

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.

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.

But who decides it is harassment and what is the definition by which this will be judged?

 

[No Swansong]

Desperate? It seems that this has taken a step toward the surreal. Why should one become desperate over being reported? I'm sorry, but I simply don't understand all the melodrama associated with this issue. When the reports were fully open, I got harrassed and sent nasty PMs all the time. It certainly didn't send me into a state of desperation.

Because there are some out there who would report a comma depending upon who posted it. The harassment goes both ways too. I have known staff members who report fellowship posts. As of yet some of these folks are still staff. Of course there is no way to know if such behavior is or will ever be addressed.

 

[No Swansong]

If folks are found to be copying / pasting report threads to the main forums they should lose access to the report thread. No need to ruin it for everybody.

What I don't understand Tonks is this. If staff is not "misbehaving" and no personal information involving other posters is involved what is the problem with members posting the comments made in a report thread about them?

 

[snoochface]

What I don't understand Tonks is this. If staff is not "misbehaving" and no personal information involving other posters is involved what is the problem with members posting the comments made in a report thread about them?

That's a really good question.

 

[No Swansong]

Yeah, except when you've quoted a specific post.

You're not fooling anyone LT.


Back on topic, I do agree that a definition of harassment needs to be put in place, so that there is no doubt and no wiggle room.

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)

 

[No Swansong]

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.

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.

 

[PreachersWife2004]

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)

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. 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.

Yes, harassment does happen, but I tend to think it happens more on the end of the member harassing the staff. I'm not saying that staff is perfect, not by a long shot, but I do think we deal with more crap than the average member has to. The average member won't get multiple PMs over one or two deleted posts, where the author of said PMs rants on their abilities to be a mod or their character or whatever the insult du jour happens to be (I myself consider this to be harassment, actually).

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

 

[PreachersWife2004]

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.

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. This lets the reported poster see that the actions taken are fair. 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.

 

[pete56]

PW

I disagree with you! This is not the Best Way at all!

This way the only person that can view the report is the staff working on it, and the reported poster. There really is NO accountability for the staff and as such the single poster will find him or her self fighting the complete staff alone!

There needs to be a more open accountable report forum so that all of the Staff actions are accountable to ALL of the members!

I understand the need for closed Staff Forums but I do not agree with the closed Reports Forums. (having spent some time on staff before the 7/7/7 changes I know the sort of things that Staff say and do in private and I would like to see the return of the open reporting system.

Pete

 

[constance]

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.

Incorrect. This idea was actually brought to staff by several members.

 

[No Swansong]

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. This lets the reported poster see that the actions taken are fair. 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.

PW;

Two things; number one if those who are reported cannot discuss the actions taken what good does opening the report serve? The mods could be as abrasive, abusive, unfair, and inconsistent as they want to be and the reported individual still has no recourse. At least with open threads the membership could keep an eye on what was going on. Please don't tell me these things don't happen I spent quite a bit of time on staff and plenty of staff were abusive. Secondly how can the reporter know what is going on?

 

[No Swansong]

Incorrect. This idea was actually brought to staff by several members.

I understand now that there was a wiki discussion but please don't tell me that this is what made the decision. The decision wasn't made by the membership it was either made by staff, or by LeeD or by a combination of both, but most assuredly the membership in general did not make this decision. I can assure you that this is not the preferred option amongst the membership.

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?

 

[Bananna]

Okay,
This throws a kink in the way we do investigations

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.

Bananna

 

[Tonks]

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?

Why would you need to?

 

[Glass*Soul]

Incorrect. This idea was actually brought to staff by several members.

Virtually every permutation of possible report thread configuration from completely closed to completely open has been suggested and supported by at least a few memebers. That is not to say that the new configuration represents the desires of a consensus of the membership or of a majority of the members, or that it is the best possible configuration, nor is it to say that the members actually helped make the decision.

The new configuration is certainly better than one fully closed to all but staff. That said, if the policy makers do not define harrassment of staff well, defending oneself in a report thread is going to be a nervous proposition to say the least (with a one month ban in the offing)! And with no site-wide feedback on how the members are faring in the report process, each and every person will be forced to enter it with the same trepidation...not knowing if they can trust the process or how far they can trust it.

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

 

[Glass*Soul]

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?

Why would you need to?

A good (and rather tricky question), Tonks.

If the reports are closed from view to the general public, what the general public will learn about are the ones in which the staff have not behaved in an exemplary manner. The routine sorts of reports, in which everyone has behaved and a good piece of work has been done, will never be seen by anyone but the rightful participants. But let there be something even a little off, and that report will get around by hook or by crook. If it can't be posted publically, it will make the rounds of PM's, IM's, emails, and other discussion boards. People will communicate them to one another.

Secrecy breeds distrust in both camps. It is in everyone's best interests to keep the whole process visible.

I can understand the decision to limit who can participate. Limiting who can watch is much harder to justify. Exceptions can be made for the very few situations in which privacy is truly needed. For all the rest, secrecy is a lose/lose proposition.

 

[No Swansong]

Why would you need to?

Actually this is very easy to answer, to hold staff accountable. How will the membership know if there is consistency in report results? How will the membership know if there is fairness in the report results? I served on staff long enough to know that consensus (which evidently is easily overturned anyway) is still no guarantee of either consistency or fairness. Pretty simple really. If there is nothing inappropriate posted then again I question why should I not have the ability to post the report thread?

 

[No Swansong]

Why would you need to?

By the way this isn't an answer, why not just answer it?

 

[Forest]

Why would you need to?

Because Lee said this in one of his first posts:

Desire for unbiased and fair staff action

I don't understand how keeping things hidden helps that.

 

[Lindon Tinuviel]

Agreed, Forest. I'd like to see jtbdad's question answered.