While it’s okay to discuss board moderation in a general aspect, I think it’s detrimental for the board’s culture for people who get a warning to then start a thread in ATMB to complain about the warning. Getting a warning is not the end of the world. The person should take the lesson to heart and move on. If they feel like they have been wronged, then an official complaint thread in ATMB may be warranted, but it should only be done after careful consideration. If they are just complaining to complain, then it seems like there should be some additional penalty for complaining about the warning. Having some downside to making a complaint will help to ensure that the complaint is valid.
This is similar to how the NFL allows coaches to ask for a review of a call by the officials. The coaches can’t just ask for reviews whenever they feel like it. They have a certain number of challenges allowed per game. If the call is not overruled, they lose one of their timeouts. This format ensures the coaches will only make a challenge when they feel there has been a mistake made that’s worth a second look.
So I would propose something similar here. If someone wants just complain and blow off some steam about their warning, they can create a thread in the Pit and rant to their heart’s content. But if they want to make an official complaint about the warning in ATMB, then they should be risking something if the warning is not overturned. It could be that they lose the ability to post in the forum where they got the warning for a certain amount of time or something like that. This would help deter people with warnings from creating complaint threads in ATMB just to stir up more trouble.
100% disagree. Penalizing someone for protesting a warning gives the mods far more power. If the warning is overturned, nothing changes from the current system. If the warning isn’t overturned, you’re punished twice.
I also have never understood the idea that you should just accept the note because it’s only a note. If you got pulled over while driving 30 in a 30mph zone and the cop gave you a written warning for going 55 in a 35, would you not want to contest that? Sure, it’s just a warning, but the next time you deal with the police, that warning is going to show up.
Same thing here. You get a note for insulting someone when you didn’t insult anyone, the mod simply misunderstood what you said (lets take that at face value). The next time there’s an incident, they’ll see the previous warning and take that into consideration with how to handle the current issue.
If, like in football, someone contests a warning in order to prevent or cause something else from happening, that’s entirely different. Timeouts in football are/can be done for strategic reasons, otherwise the last 5 minutes of the game wouldn’t take 20 minutes. I can understand penalizing people when they’re using timeouts to game the system.
My suggestion would be that if a poster is consistently getting notes (or warnings) and consistently starting ATBM threads about them and the mods are consistently not overturning them (and other posters agree with that) then that seems like a one on one issue between that poster and the staff. Otherwise, this just seems like a solution in search of a problem.
ETA, the only way this system would make sense is if it’s reciprocal. If a certain percentage of a mod’s notes and warnings are overturned, they’re forced to step down.
Also, with your system, what prevents a mod from just writings warnings and notes for the fun of it to see what sticks. Considering how many people will be afraid to contest them for fear of getting punished.
What would prevent that is the board in general would start to complain about the moderation. The people getting the warnings would not need to start their own thread. Other people would be starting threads saying the mod is being a bad mod.
In threads where someone gets a warning for a misunderstanding, it’s common for that person or other people to clarify that issue. But it’s not an official thread in ATMB or anything. It’s something like “I didn’t mean to say it like that.” and the thread moves on.
The system I’m proposing would not prevent people from complaining about their warnings, but it would make it less likely that people would be complaining just because they didn’t like the warning. If there has truly been some misunderstanding, then the person can make a thread knowing that they may have another penalty if it doesn’t work out. And it’s not the end of the world if they get a 2nd penalty. It doesn’t have to be another warning or ban. If a person feels so strongly that the warning was done incorrectly, they can still do it.
We already have a fair amount of that now. Sometimes by friends and sometimes not but it’s not that uncommon.
I understand the OPs point and position and I will admit to getting frustrated myself at seeing the same people complaining about the same “points of Moderation” over and over again. But as at least one other has said, when that becomes the case the Mod for this forum can (and has) shut threads down. And at times the Mods and us learn things even from the clearest cases of a just warning being protested; it allows the board to grow and change with the times. So while I understand the theory of the OP I would be against its implementation.
I disagree for the same reason that I disagree with the policy of charging a defendant a “court fee” for appealing a moving violation and failing to win that appeal. It’s a very intimidating policy, and people who might otherwise win in court are discouraged from even trying because of fear of punishment.
I remember appealing a “fixed camera” violation I got in the mail for speeding past a park. No speed was listed. My appeal was based on the fact that they couldn’t even tell me how fast I was going. I basically got a picture of my car and an accusation. Their reply was that I could file a law suit for a fee of $360. Really?!
Likewise, I think someone creating a thread saying there should be some penalty for protesting your warning and not having it overturned should face some consequence if their suggestion is not acted upon.
You’re proposing a solution for a problem that doesn’t exist. The ability to discuss moderation, including objecting to warnings, is one of the unique features of this board that makes it a better place. Many sites strictly prohibit any discussion or criticism of moderation, leaving moderators full scope for bias and capriciousness with zero accountability.
Even if an objection has no merit, explaining that fact – which is often done by regular posters as well as mods – helps others, especially the OP and new joins, understand the board culture better. I have rarely if ever seen an objection to a warning that was entirely frivolous, in that it lacked any kind of even semi-coherent explanation that usually merited at least some discussion, but any such posts can be quickly closed. Those who truly revel in trolling and sealioning are dealt with in other ways. I think the ATMB forum and its intended purposes are useful and important.
I agree. In fact, I think that trying to get something about the board’s rules or culture changed should get dinged if the suggestion isn’t implemented. After three dings, it’s obvious that the poster isn’t happy here, so the mods should help the poster move on.
Passive-aggressive surreptitious commentary on another poster under the guise of a suggestion should get two, maybe three, dings.
I actually agree with that. I am making a suggestion in the part of the board meant for official business. This request will take time and energy by the mods and admins to review and discuss. Someone making such a suggestion should feel strongly enough about the idea to make it worthy of that time and effort. If the person did not feel that strongly about their idea, they should make the suggestion in a part of the board with more casual discussions where the admins would not feel the need to respond.
The perspective I’m coming from is that moderation is done by volunteers. They have normal lives with TV to watch, family to be with, errands to run, etc. Moderation takes time and energy. It doesn’t seem like it would be a fun or easy task to look at reports and rule on them. And often, that’s met with lots of complaining no matter how they rule. All of that makes me wonder why anyone would be a mod anyway. I would think that greatly reduces the pool of people willing to be a mod and makes it much harder to find good mods . If someone makes an official complaint about their warning where the expectation is that the mods need to respond, that’s more hassle the mod has to deal with. So I feel that a person making an official protest should have to make some sacrifice for creating that extra work for the volunteer mod who has to take time out of their day to respond.
This doesn’t mean people can’t complain about their warnings. They could do it in other parts of the board. And it doesn’t mean they can’t complain about moderation in general. That could still be done in ATMB. But if someone is starting a thread in ATMB of the form “I am protesting about my warning”, then there should be a difference between a complainer just complaining and a person who got an unjust warning.
I agree… the mods are human, and can/do make mistakes, both in determining infractions and penalizing those infractions, and pointing those out and inviting debate about them gets us all to a better set of rules we all agree to.
After all, while it’s not a democracy exactly, it isn’t a totally top-down endeavor either, and we, the moderated do and should have some say in how that moderation is accomplished.
Exactly. I have plenty of sympathy for mods who have to take the time to patiently explain over and over why a particularly note or warning makes sense, but no one accepts the role of moderator here without knowing that responding to ATMB complaints is part of the deal.
It also seems to me that your system would inventive not overturning warnings and notes. If a mod warned someone and they formally object to it, the mod gets a two for one deal by letting it stand.
I’ve never thought of the mods being vindictive like that. And in any case if they were, acting like that in ATMB would likely lead to the mod’s expulsion as a mod. I would suspect the board members would be very vocal if a mod was acting that way and the admins would take action.
I feel like you should take the same attitude towards the posters as well. Most of them/us aren’t inundating the mods with requests to have warnings and notes overturned and the ones that are getting that many warnings/notes and constantly trying to get them overturned can be dealt with under other rules that won’t hurt the rest of us.
What this rule does is turn every ATMB thread about a warning/note into a game of double or nothing.
It should be noted that as much as I prefer rules to be mostly clearly defined. I don’t like rules created and applied to an entire group because of the actions of a single person. It’s like your boss telling all the employees that they can no longer use their cell phones at work, but we all know it’s because of those two people that are never not playing with theirs.
While we’re at it, I propose that anyone who takes a case to an Appeals Court and gets turned down should be strung up by their thumbs until the Supreme Court overturns the ruling.
Eh, people used to do it all the time when it was still allowed. It got tedious sometimes( often ), just like bitching in here gets tedious sometimes( often ). But I can’t say the board ran much worse, particularly. It was just different.
But yeah, I agree with others that this proposal is a solution in search of a problem.