Reports Protocol Revision Semi-Private

[ravenscape]

But, if a report has been made, at least the member will be able to join in the discussion before the post is permanently removed. Correct?

Once the report forums are fixed to allow a member to respond to their report, then if their post is reported, they can participate in the discussion.

Is there ever a compelling reason for staff to discuss a post and permanently remove or edit it without first making a report?

Something like this could happen in the event of a clean-up, where the post is either a rule violation, or it quotes and responds only to another post that had to be deleted for a rule violation.

There have been situations where the Support Team has had to clean a thread of 600-800 posts, where a number of posts that are not rule violations of themselves quoted a rule-breaking post and replied to it. If the post makes sense within the overall thread without the quote, it could just be edited. But usually if it's a specific reply to something that will no longer be in the thread, there is no context for it.

In several cases where I've tried to save part of a post like this, the members who made the posts asked me to just delete it, because it no longer made any sense.

 

[pete56]

Once the report forums are fixed to allow a member to respond to their report, then if their post is reported, they can participate in the discussion.


Something like this could happen in the event of a clean-up, where the post is either a rule violation, or it quotes and responds only to another post that had to be deleted for a rule violation.

There have been situations where the Support Team has had to clean a thread of 600-800 posts, where a number of posts that are not rule violations of themselves quoted a rule-breaking post and replied to it. If the post makes sense within the overall thread without the quote, it could just be edited. But usually if it's a specific reply to something that will no longer be in the thread, there is no context for it.

In several cases where I've tried to save part of a post like this, the members who made the posts asked me to just delete it, because it no longer made any sense.

I thought we were all very aware of that RS, the question I would like to see an answer too is since this has been in the pipeline since October 07, when will it be coded and rolled out?

Pete

 

[ravenscape]

I wish I knew. The sooner the better, IMO. It's evidently something of a technical challenge. They rolled it out earlier, but had it coded so the reporter could view the reports instead of the person who was reported.

 

[pete56]

I wish I knew. The sooner the better, IMO. It's evidently something of a technical challenge. They rolled it out earlier, but had it coded so the reporter could view the reports instead of the person who was reported.

Well wouldn't that be a useful addition too, provided of course there are strict conduct codes for posting in reports?

I guess the coding folk are busy on other things!

P

 

[ravenscape]

There are pros and cons, mostly related to member privacy. I think it could probably work ok with good protocols for staff and member participation, but it's not my decision to make.

 

[snoochface]

I guess the coding folk are busy on other things!

How to best increase ad revenue?

 

[pete56]

How to best increase ad revenue?

Well Sister, you might say that but with my current record with the Support Mods I think I will keep my own counsel!!!

 

[No Swansong]

There has to be a team consensus that the post violates a rule or is completely off topic to the thread. The only exception would be spam or egregious trolling.

Of course the other obvious exception is when an Admin disagrees with the consensus and overrules the mods. Yes it has happened.

 

[pete56]

Of course the other obvious exception is when an Admin disagrees with the consensus and overrules the mods. Yes it has happened.

It certainly does!

 

[Amoranemix]

[FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]

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. However, the report thread will remain private, and should not be divulged to other than the RT, in accordance with the site wide rules.

[*] They still can't.[/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]Bananna 103 : [/FONT]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.
[FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]Amoranemix 149 : [/FONT]That sounds interesting. Can you provide more information ?
[FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]Bananna : [No][/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]Why not ?[/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]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 ?[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]constance : [no response][/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]I suspected as much.[/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana, sans-serif][FONT=&quot]ravenscape 144 : Where would you want to discuss them?[/FONT]
Amoranemix 149 : 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.[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]That wiki has now been concealed.[/FONT]

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

[FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]No, they are unable to defend themselves. All they can do is talk.[/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]Amoranemix[/FONT] : It would also be nice if members are informed when a report against them is closed.
Tangeloper 153 : 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.
The reportee now seems to receive a notification when the report is closed, but I doubt the reporter does.

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

[FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]That used to be the case in december, but now the reportee can see the report and the reporter can't.[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]I think the story goes this way. Report threads were concealed from anyone except the thread starter and staff, which is something easy to do in vbulletin. The thread starter was the reporter. In order to give reportees access, they were made the OPer of the report on themselves, which now denies access to the reporter. (The introduction of the report is worded as if was written by the reportee.) The PTB are like the politicians currently in my country : they spend their time making bad decision where no decisions or the status quo is preferable.[/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]

I guess staff isn't going to answer my respectfully asked, fairly worded and important question.

Maybe they will next year. Don't be so impatient.[/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]No Swansong 161 : [/FONT]I really hoped that it would be taken seriously, I still have many I consider to be friends on staff. I am truly disappointed that they will not answer me.
Lindon Tinuviel 162 : Maybe they've been forbidden to answer?
Then they could say they have been forbidden to answer, unless that is forbidden too. But then they could still communicate that via other channels.

[FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]

If it is going to be a significant amount of time (bearing in mind how long it has been already) then why can we not simply to revert to the previous form of reports until this one is ready?

That would make reports accessible to all members and the PTB find that undesirable.[/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]

Just from my limited experience in coding PHP, this may be a fairly daunting task as PHP sites include hundreds if not thousands of pages of codes, and needless to say -- millions of lines of coding.

I don't know any PHP, but I think giving access to the reportee is very easy. I challenge anyone to show otherwise.[/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]

As for re-opening the reports to all members, the reason this will not be done in the meantime, is because it is not inline with Lee's policy changes regarding access to the reports.

Why isn't it in line with LeeD's policy regarding access to reports ? Is keeping the reportee out of his/her report in line with that policy ? Since Tangeloper is no longer on staff, this is addressed to the PTB.[/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]

Not only do mods now have to seek to keep the peace, work reports, deal with trouble makers and those who feel that they have been wronged by the system, not to mention keeping on top of all the staff rules protocols and systems that I am sure they all have to learn and keep informed on

Apparently all that is too much for staff as moderation quality has decreased since the takeover.[/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]

Take away the counter-productive "Working Reports" duties, and Staff will be free to actually get things done by being right there in the open forums where the discussions--and, presumably, the violations--are taking place.

I think that participating in all the threads is more time consuming than handling reports and the former doesn't even completely dispense the latter.[/FONT]

 

[Amoranemix]

But there is more to come. The trend is that any staff, all the way up to Superadministrators can do no wrong.[FONT=Verdana, sans-serif][1][/FONT]
Instead of following the rules about notifying a member in private about their posts, the Supers can address members directly in the thread to harass and scold and demean them.
No member is above violation of this rule not to attack the poster, but only reply to the post. But Superadministrators are exempt from that rule.[2]

[FONT=Verdana, sans-serif][1] They do seem to receive the benefit of the doubt while the ordinary member is screwed if (s)he fails to prove his/her innocence.[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, sans-serif][2] Do you (or anyone else since you seem to have left) have evidence of that ?[/FONT]

The Webmaster only wants staff to control the fora in order not to bother him. Since he depends entirely upon HIS staff, they answer to him only. So it does not matter what is actually being done to members, as long as LeeD thinks staff is in CONTROL.

[FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]I disagree. It doesn't matter as long as the money flows in.[/FONT]

A few of you think that all the staff have become corrupt. That's simply not true. As a former person on staff, I know from experience that they (staff) are often are not told about changes till right before it's done. How can moderators be responsible for what they don't know?[1] And even those in the upper administration levels...they too are often not told about certain changes until right before they are implemented. So to use a blanket statement about "staff" is asinine. There may be a few...that's certainly possible. But it's simply unfair to say that "all" are corrupt.[2]

[FONT=Verdana, sans-serif][1] In a democracy not knowing the law is no valid excuse for not following it and on law-enforcement officers higher expectations are placed.[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, sans-serif][2] I shall repeat the question : Who are those people that think all staff have become corrupt ?[/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]

This is a straw man. If anyone here has stated that "all staff are corrupt" please link us to the post. What I see being communicated in this topic is that the sort of absolute control staff now have, practiced in a secret and protected environment, can be corrupting. Even the best of us might find ourselves drifting away from our highest ideals under such circumstances. This is why I worry about the staff more than I do the members. In following Christ's example, it is better to suffer an injustice than to perpetrate one.

Christians may find consolation in the belief that the wicked staff members will burn in Hell while they themselves are eating rice milk in Heaven, but sceptics can find no such consolation.[/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]Pete56 197 : Well Tom the only PM I received was to tell me that my posts had been removed after the event!
You go figure!
I believe in our part of the world we call this 'Mushroom Management'![/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]Glass*Soul 201 : [/FONT]Case in point.
This is bad for the membership, but even worse for staff.
[FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]Unless staff are ruining their afterlife I don't see how their privileges are bad for them.[/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]Glass*Soul 212 : So, if a member receives notice that a post has been delted or edited, but does not receive a warning or infraction, this could possibly explain why no PM was sent informing them of a report prior to the action. A report would never have been made in the first place.[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]Ravenscape 213 : Possibly. But there have been a few cases I've heard of where a report was made, but the reportee didn't receive a PM.[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, sans-serif] The deletion of my signature (the one saying 'LeeD listens to the members like God listens to his creatures') was another example, but staff have said that was a mistake and given 50 blessings as compensation. Eventually I lost 100 blessings in the affair and could not keep the signature I wanted.[/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]Lindon Tinuviel 217 : [/FONT]Can't you ingrates at least be happy that there are a bunch of new ads to look at?
[FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]A New Dawn 218 : [/FONT]I don't see ads, anyway, so why should I be grateful?
[FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]Disable your ad-blocker. That should allow you to be grateful.[/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]

The clock ran out, and I couldn't in good conscience renew my sub. My main objection being: a millionaire should pay his workers. I have a small company, and I pay all my workers. It's a very creepy thought, that a millionaire doesn't pay his workers. Besides being completely unChristian, it should be illegal. I can't imagine not paying my people for the work they do. Not paying them would be like stealing, wouldn't it?

If you would not be paying them, why would they be working for you ?[/FONT]

I would ask someone on the team that moderates the forum where the thread disappeared about the post. If they can't find out why it was deleted or where it now resides, then you could escalate to the admin of that team, or to the Reconciliation team.

[FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]With the new staff structure, how does one know what team moderates what forum ? The FAQ is clueless. The list of staff members displayed in General Apologetics does not include an administrator. [/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]Glass*Soul 231 : One presumes, if the post was deleted accidentally, the team may restore it on request.[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]But, let's say it was deleted on purpose. May moderators delete any post they see fit? IOW is there any grounds for requesting that a post that was purposefully deleted be restored? [/FONT]
Ravenscape 232 : There has to be a team consensus that the post violates a rule or is completely off topic to the thread. The only exception would be spam or egregious trolling.
[FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]That is what protocol prescribes. May we have a list of staff that don't care for protocol or one of staff that do care for protocol (whichever is shorter) ?[/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]

If the process was not begun by means of a report, by what means can the member gain the information that would have been available to them if they had been allowed to participate in the staff dicussion? Do they have the right to request a transcript

If there is no report, what would the transcript be from ?[/FONT]

I wish I knew. The sooner the better, IMO. It's evidently something of a technical challenge. They rolled it out earlier, but had it coded so the reporter could view the reports instead of the person who was reported.

[FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]How do you deduce from the excessive time it took to implement the improvement that it was a technical challenge ?[/FONT]

How to best increase ad revenue?

[FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]The link doesn't work.[/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]

Of course the other obvious exception is when an Admin disagrees with the consensus and overrules the mods. Yes it has happened.

Indeed it has.[/FONT]

 

[Criada]

Wow... that must have taken you some time to put together!

Could you tell me, briefly, exactly what the original grievance is here, and I will attempt to help you with it.

 

[snoochface]

[FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]The link doesn't work.[/FONT]

I posted it in DECEMBER. It worked then.

Why are you dragging up a thread that died 5 months ago?

 

[Agent101]

I agree. This is a good step in the right direction, the semi-private reports is better than having them totally closed.

But what is up with an automatic 1-month ban? Reports are volatile, they bring out emotions in people, and I can see someone having an outburst and getting banned which will just exacerbate their feelings of injustice or bias from staff.

Why does it have to be that way? Why does this feel like someone up top felt like they had to make this concession, but damned if they weren't going to get their pound of flesh for it?

i totally agree with you. that almost happened to me one time...and just b/c the lack of an understanding between me and the mods there at the time. but we did get it straightened out in the end.
however, i think the 1 month ban should only be issued if they use cuss words or other lewd language in their responce. if they simply are expressing their honest opinions (minus the obscenities, of course...that doesn't count as an opinion), they have a right to free speech under American law.

 

[PETE_]

i totally agree with you. that almost happened to me one time...and just b/c the lack of an understanding between me and the mods there at the time. but we did get it straightened out in the end.
however, i think the 1 month ban should only be issued if they use cuss words or other lewd language in their responce. if they simply are expressing their honest opinions (minus the obscenities, of course...that doesn't count as an opinion), they have a right to free speech under American law.

There is no right to free speech on a privately owned forum