Moderation again

[csearle]

If that post is reported then they have to take a look at it.

Personally I don't mind reading through long posts if they have been reported. It doesn't happen all that often. If I'm in a hurry and cant invest the time I just leave the report open for one of my colleagues.

Chris

[beeswax]

If we have to shovel a lot of well I won't used the word I'm thinking of to find the gems then then maybe its worth it...

Some of us, me included, tend to rabbit on a bit but have to admit that long complex posts put me off as its way past the time when I studied for my Engineering degree when detailed mathematical analysis, accuracy and relevance mattered far more than posting a few paragraphs on social media. Then it was life and death and now its just ermm, death! Of course it depends on the which section of the site/forum we post on where some may indeed require longer detailed analysis to get their points across and some just light hearted banter. Surely we all know our limits though.

Every poster will know what those are and will pass on those that are maybe too complex or too long unless its of specific interest to them. I just hope the Moderators continue to do the best they can and they do imo as well as enforcing the rules of the site without being too pedantic about our occasional off topic comment and I think they do a pretty good job in allowing the many discussions to flow without any moderation really.

I suppose in football terms. I've had one or two red cards from the Moderators and quite a number of yellows and spent some time in the dug out on one occasion..

[CryptoPlankton]

In response to Lootman's post, as we used to say, 'Why use one word when four will do?'

You don't think that sort of comment and your previous one here is the type that might be Modded on other TLF boards?

Are you serious? What if I add a smiley? Are we all supposed to be shrinking violets? I have had a lot worse on other Boards and just ignored them if I do not like them. Short and to the point. That is my motto for posts.

Dod

A very telling response...

[Gengulphus]

As you say the main effect of writing long posts is to deter people from reading them ("TLDR", as the kids say). And that might not matter to the author, who may just enjoy writing and derive pleasure from going into a lot of detail. That author may in fact not care if few people read it, or even if nobody reads it. It is the writing itself that is the end.

It's quite possible to simply scroll or click to the next post without letting these things bother us - especially when we might not have been the intended recipient of such information in the first place...

I agree. But the context here was moderators, and they do not have the option that the rest of us have to simply skip or ignore a long, complex post. If that post is reported then they have to take a look at it.

Yes, but that doesn't mean that they have to take a detailed look at all of it. For example, they get a report that someone called another Fool a "Nazi". Load the post, type CTRL-F and "Nazi"; if their computer finds the word, look at each instance to see whether it's actually being used to describe another Fool and deal with it if so, or consider the report unjustified if none of them is; if it doesn't find the word, consider the report unjustified. If they consider the report unjustified, possibly read the post thoroughly to see whether some equivalent (such as "National Socialist") was used, or PM the reporter to say e.g. "The word 'Nazi' doesn't appear in the post you reported. If you meant to report some other post, please report that instead; if you meant to report this post, please report it again, being more precise about exactly what you're reporting." Obviously the former would be likely to be the best use of the moderator's time on a short post, the latter on a long post.

Basically, I can't think of any common type of report that a moderator cannot deal with adequately by either locating the specific problem reported with the aid of at most a quick skim of the post concerned and dealing with it as appropriate or that sort of "Sorry, you'll have to be more specific" response to the reporter. If the reporter feels that making the report more specific demands too much of them, and that a volunteer moderator should instead be expected to put a lot of effort into trying to work out what their report is about, they're basically saying "my time is valuable, the moderator's isn't" and IMHO should be told quite bluntly where to get off!

Gengulphus

[Gengulphus]

In response to Lootman's post, as we used to say, 'Why use one word when four will do?'

Well, why use eighteen words when none will do? ;-)

Gengulphus

[Raptor]

Hopefully, when someone reports a "post" they do it on the post they are complaining about. That makes it quite easy for moderators as the notification will take us to that post and it is also highlighted in red. Mods may have to read back to get the context for the "report" but at least they, should, have a starting point.

Raptor.

[melonfool]

I think I have only once had to reply to a report asking for more detail.

Does anyone know a phone equivalent of Ctrl+F?

Mel

[PinkDalek]

Does anyone know a phone equivalent of Ctrl+F?

It must depend on the phone/mobile. Here's a suggestion for iphones https://www.quora.com/Is-there-a-Ctrl+F ... -in-mobile.

On the ipad, it is cmd-F.

[swill453]

Does anyone know a phone equivalent of Ctrl+F?

Chrome browser on Android (and probably IOS) has "Find in page" on its menu.

Scott.

[Lootman]

the context here was moderators, and they do not have the option that the rest of us have to simply skip or ignore a long, complex post. If that post is reported then they have to take a look at it.

Yes, but that doesn't mean that they have to take a detailed look at all of it. For example, they get a report that someone called another Fool a "Nazi". Load the post, type CTRL-F and "Nazi"; if their computer finds the word, look at each instance to see whether it's actually being used to describe another Fool and deal with it if so, or consider the report unjustified if none of them is; if it doesn't find the word, consider the report unjustified. If they consider the report unjustified, possibly read the post thoroughly to see whether some equivalent (such as "National Socialist") was used, or PM the reporter to say e.g. "The word 'Nazi' doesn't appear in the post you reported. If you meant to report some other post, please report that instead; if you meant to report this post, please report it again, being more precise about exactly what you're reporting." Obviously the former would be likely to be the best use of the moderator's time on a short post, the latter on a long post.

A report of the use of a banned word is probably the easiest case to deal with, I'd agree. A simple search will reveal it. Even so it took a longish paragraph there to describe the if-then-else logic to be employed in that case. And a mod would also have to allow for some other cases, such as someone cunningly misspelling it to evade detection e.g. "Nasi", "N*zi" or "Nazzi".

(Such alternate spellings were specifically disallowed on TMF if the intent was to get away with using a banned word. I can't say for sure that's a rule at TLF but it would be in the spirit of having banned words at all that such attempts are also banned).

Basically, I can't think of any common type of report that a moderator cannot deal with adequately by either locating the specific problem reported with the aid of at most a quick skim of the post concerned and dealing with it as appropriate or that sort of "Sorry, you'll have to be more specific" response to the reporter. If the reporter feels that making the report more specific demands too much of them, and that a volunteer moderator should instead be expected to put a lot of effort into trying to work out what their report is about, they're basically saying "my time is valuable, the moderator's isn't" and IMHO should be told quite bluntly where to get off!

I can think of one. Mel referred earlier to a "common type" of problem that can't be dealt with that way when she stated that "We can also see when people are revenge reporting. You'd be surprised how much that happens."

In such a case it is not sufficient to look at the reported post and the alleged technical infringement. A moderator would also have to look for motive by looking at the overall context to see if the two parties were having a fight and one party (probably the one who was losing the debate) suddenly decided to report something that they had previously let slide.

And if both those parties had been making long posts then the job becomes more difficult, especially if their battle was carried over from another board that the mod in question doesn't moderate.

In other words it is not always just the content of a reported post that drives the moderation decision, but the inferred motive of the reporter. It sounds like TLF is on top of this problem - I wasn't always convinced that TMF was.

[melonfool]

I can think of one. Mel referred earlier to a "common type" of problem that can't be dealt with that way when she stated that "We can also see when people are revenge reporting. You'd be surprised how much that happens."

In such a case it is not sufficient to look at the reported post and the alleged technical infringement. A moderator would also have to look for motive by looking at the overall context to see if the two parties were having a fight and one party (probably the one who was losing the debate) suddenly decided to report something that they had previously let slide.

We can see that people are 'revenge reporting' but a breach is a breach, there is no 'technical infringement'. So, the motive for the report is irrelevant to the decision how to proceed with the moderation.

We might however drop the reporter a note about it.

Mel

[Lootman]

I can think of one. Mel referred earlier to a "common type" of problem that can't be dealt with that way when she stated that "We can also see when people are revenge reporting. You'd be surprised how much that happens."

In such a case it is not sufficient to look at the reported post and the alleged technical infringement. A moderator would also have to look for motive by looking at the overall context to see if the two parties were having a fight and one party (probably the one who was losing the debate) suddenly decided to report something that they had previously let slide.

We can see that people are 'revenge reporting' but a breach is a breach, there is no 'technical infringement'. So, the motive for the report is irrelevant to the decision how to proceed with the moderation.

We might however drop the reporter a note about it.

The problem with being literal about rules and removing posts in such a situation is that the "revenge reporter" (RR) is basically being rewarded for his/her behaviour. The RRs achieve their goal - to remove the post that refuted them and thereby made them look bad. And that in turn may encourage RRs to do that type of thing again and again. If that is the case then it is not really "surprising how much that happens". RR'ing works.

Sending the RR a PM may fix the problem. But it may not and, if the RR continues then is the idea that the RR may be given some kind of ban? Because the RR can always reply that they are "just trying to uphold the rules". And it's harder to credibly counter that if all RR'ed posts were removed, thereby upholding the actions of the serial offender.

One could argue that if there is room for subjectivity in moderation decisions then maybe we need a tighter set of rules. The trouble with that is that over-tight rules remove the ability for a bit of common-sense to be used when making judgement".

I took that "common sense" reference to mean not always following a rule literally but rather taking context and scale into account. Which in turn means there is such a thing as a "technical infringement". It means an infraction that is minor, does not offend a reasonable Lemon and does not harm the site or its sponsors. And perhaps where the reporting of it is deemed petty, spiteful or self-serving.

The ultimate question there is whether, in Clariman's view, TLF is improved more by taking a strict zero tolerance approach to the rules? Or whether the intentions and motives of (some) mischievous Lemons is a bigger risk to the integrity of the site?

[melonfool]

There is no such 'ultimate question' at all.

The breach and any motivation for the report are separate things. We also know that sometimes people put things in their posts to goad others to report them, this can all be easily seen by patterns of reporting and sometimes people write it in their actual posts! But, the breach is the breach and that's that - if you put something knowing it will get your post reported, expect to get it reported and moderated. If you report something that is on the line, well the mod will make a judgment but that judgment is about the post and the breach, NOT the motivation for the report.

Mel

[Lootman]

The breach and any motivation for the report are separate things. We also know that sometimes people put things in their posts to goad others to report them, this can all be easily seen by patterns of reporting and sometimes people write it in their actual posts! But, the breach is the breach and that's that - if you put something knowing it will get your post reported, expect to get it reported and moderated. If you report something that is on the line, well the mod will make a judgment but that judgment is about the post and the breach, NOT the motivation for the report.

So what is the downside for a serial revenge reporter? The reported posts get removed anyway and the worst that happens is that they might get a PM?

How does that meaningfully deter the undesirable behaviour?

[Lootman]

If you want to troll and flame, one ought to make it subtle, maybe angle your trolling and flamebait carefully to ensure that it hits the target, while being plausible and eloquent enough to escape moderation. Its quite the art-form, for sure, and the chances are that in order to escape post deletion one has to actually contribute something interesting to the debate.

Yes, I think part of what Clariman means by not wanting the rules or enforcement to be too rigid is that if you have exhaustively documented rules and overly literal enforcement, then it actually becomes quite easy to steer just this side of them. You can achieve a goal of (say) mercilessly lampooning someone and completely get away with it.

Whereas if the rules are enforced more on a "spirit of the law" basis than a "letter of the law basis" then such finessing is harder to pull off. Your underlying intentions, if snide, can be more easily policed.

But it all depends on what is considered the real problem here - content or motive?

[melonfool]

Motive is not mentioned at all in the rules, nor in our mod guidelines, so there's no argument. It's all about the words on the screen.

Why does there even need to be a downside for a revenge reporter? But if someone got really annoying I expect a few days in the sin bin might give them time to reflect.

Mel

[kiloran]

Steering close to the wind will always occur, because delight in provoking a reaction is a chimpanzee trait that is hard to wear out.

Only for chimpanzees

--kiloran

[Gengulphus]

A report of the use of a banned word is probably the easiest case to deal with, I'd agree. A simple search will reveal it. Even so it took a longish paragraph there to describe the if-then-else logic to be employed in that case. ...

Describing and doing don't take the same length of time for all sorts of everyday activities - try describing how to make a cup of tea, for instance, with full details of all the if-then-else cases that might arise. Why should moderation be different?

... And a mod would also have to allow for some other cases, such as someone cunningly misspelling it to evade detection e.g. "Nasi", "N*zi" or "Nazzi".

Only if they're required to adhere perfectly to your standards - otherwise the "bounce it back to the reporter to clarify" technique will do the job. One can make any task near-impossible by demanding such perfectionism - if one is in a position to make demands about how moderators behave, which you, I and the rest of us (apart from stooz and Clariman) are not. And even they are only in a position to demand that or the moderator's resignation, and there are definite drawbacks for them if moderators choose the second option at all often...

... el referred earlier to a "common type" of problem that can't be dealt with that way when she stated that "We can also see when people are revenge reporting. You'd be surprised how much that happens."

In such a case it is not sufficient to look at the reported post and the alleged technical infringement. A moderator would also have to look for motive by looking at the overall context to see if the two parties were having a fight and one party (probably the one who was losing the debate) suddenly decided to report something that they had previously let slide.

Even if the moderator were to do that and find that the two parties had been having a heated argument and one of them suddenly decided to report something they'd not reported earlier in the discussion, inferring a revenge motive isn't a reasonable thing for a moderator to do. For example, I not infrequently encounter cases where someone has quoted me out of context by editing the quote down too much and as a result have replied to a point I didn't make, not the one I did. I'll very rarely deal with that by reporting it straight away: instead, I'll reply to supply the missing context and try to take the discussion back to what I actually said. It's tedious to have to do that, but people (including me, by the way - I'm not claiming to be perfect about such things!) do sometimes miss important context and it would be complete overkill to haul in a moderator every time it happens - and most times, whoever quoted me out of context accepts it and the discussion starts making progress again.

But occasionally, someone does it again and again, and oddly enough, on each occasion it gives them an easy counter-argument to make against what the out-of-context quote appears to be saying... At some point, I find myself no longer able to believe it isn't deliberate or completely careless disruption of the discussion, and at that point I am liable to start reporting it. From the outside, that will look just like the situation you describe, but my motive in doing so is not revenge. And by the way, often the other party clearly wants the discussion to head in a different direction. That's absolutely fine by me, but if I'm not interested in that direction, I prefer simply not saying anything about it - but will make it clear that I'm afraid I'm not interested and am not going to comment on it if too directly challenged to do so. Equally, it's absolutely fine by me if the other party isn't interested in the direction I've taken my comments and simply doesn't say anything about them. In both cases, if no-one else takes the discussion further in the direction concerned, that's life...

The one other point I'll make about revenge reporters is that IMHO the best way is to frustrate them. Posters can best do that by giving them as few things as possible to report (pay particular attention to the "play the ball, not the man" principle) and not posting about their suspicions that revenge reporting is happening (if it does need to be mentioned, a PM to the moderator rewards the revenge reporter much less - commenting on the matter in public tells the revenge reporter that they're getting to you). Moderators can best do it by dealing with reports in as low-key a way as they can: edit them minimally to remove the problem if they find the report valid, do nothing to the post otherwise (this is one place where TLF moderators' ability to edit posts really scores over the TMF moderators' delete-or-do-nothing choice). If posters and moderators both do those things, the outcome is that the revenge reporter gets little reaction and runs out of things they can validly report, and then either gives up or resorts to making invalid reports. In the second case, they're wasting the moderators' time, which is something I'm sure the moderators can deal with - and will if the revenge reporter persists in doing so!

Gengulphus

[Lootman]

inferring a revenge motive isn't a reasonable thing for a moderator to do.

Mel appeared to state that such inferences do happen, because she said "moderators can see" when Lemons engage in revenge reporting. I cannot comment on how reasonable that inference process is since I don't know how they do that, but it would appear to happen. And there are other examples where motive is inferred e.g. the mention earlier in the thread about Lemons who "flame" or "troll".

So reasonable or not, such inferences are a reality.

For example, I not infrequently encounter cases where someone has quoted me out of context by editing the quote down too much and as a result have replied to a point I didn't make, not the one I did.

If that happens to you not infrequently then I suspect that may be another one of those problems that are more likely to happen with a long post, and for two reasons.

Firstly I might likely re-quote your entire post if it is short, but take excerpts from it if it is longer, as I am doing here, thereby increasing the risk of taking something out of context.

Secondly, in a long post it is more likely the point you are making is qualified by another statement that is in a previous or later paragraph, and those are both harder to see and connect, and are harder to re-quote in one contiguous segment.

What I have suffered from more than that is someone paraphrasing what I said for the purpose of representing an inferior version of my argument, so they can then shoot down the point I never made in the first place.

the outcome is that the revenge reporter gets little reaction and runs out of things they can validly report, and then either gives up or resorts to making invalid reports. In the second case, they're wasting the moderators' time, which is something I'm sure the moderators can deal with - and will if the revenge reporter persists in doing so!

Over-reporting would be irritating for moderators on any event, I would imagine, like the very picky customer who complains about every little thing. I'm sure they know who the main culprits are, with the result that reports from those sources are perhaps less of a priority.

In my own case I very rarely report a post, so do expect it to be taken seriously on those rare cases when I do.

[chas49]

In my own case I very rarely report a post, so do expect it to be taken seriously on those rare cases when I do.

Two thoughts:

If a user of the site reports legitimate issues frequently, should moderators place less weight on one of those, than a report of something possibly borderline but from an infrequent (or even first time) reporter?

Moderators do not moderate all the boards, so we won't know if someone reports frequently on a board we don't mod.

(Disclosure: I am a mod ☺)