Welcome guest, is this your first visit? Create Account now to join.
  • Login:

Welcome to the Online Debate Network.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed.

Results 1 to 18 of 18
  1. #1
    Administrator

    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Fairfax, VA
    Posts
    10,208
    Post Thanks / Like

    Feedback for Reported Posts

    In the past, we've received several suggestions or concerns that reported posts seem to go unanswered. Of course, because we no longer show an infraction icon on posts and the staff forums are private that would appear like a black hole in most cases to the user base.

    So in an effort to correct this view and to help facilitate understanding and clarity on the rules we will be replying to post reports once the staff has reached agreement. This will come in the form of a PM from me (Squatch347) primarily though sometimes from other staff as well. Please do not take these PMs as the opinion of the staff member writing you, but rather as a summary of the findings of the staff.

    Feel free to respond with any questions or concerns you might have regarding the report and please contact me if you haven't heard back about a reported post for 3 or 4 days.

    Finally, please keep these PMs private. Do not reference these decisions in the forums, they are private communications. Feel free to respond via PM to me (or any of the staff), or to open a thread in the Ask the Staff Forum.

    Hopefully, this policy will resolve the concerns noted above and give everyone a better sense of staff involvement. We appreciate your continued patience and look forward to any feedback you might have.
    "Suffering lies not with inequality, but with dependence." -Voltaire
    "Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions. -G.K. Chesterton
    Also, if you think I've overlooked your post please shoot me a PM, I'm not intentionally ignoring you.


  2. #2
    Banned Indefinitely

    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Southern California, USA
    Posts
    2,018
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Feedback for Reported Posts

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    In the past, we've received several suggestions or concerns that reported posts seem to go unanswered. Of course, because we no longer show an infraction icon on posts and the staff forums are private that would appear like a black hole in most cases to the user base.

    So in an effort to correct this view and to help facilitate understanding and clarity on the rules we will be replying to post reports once the staff has reached agreement. This will come in the form of a PM from me (Squatch347) primarily though sometimes from other staff as well. Please do not take these PMs as the opinion of the staff member writing you, but rather as a summary of the findings of the staff.

    Feel free to respond with any questions or concerns you might have regarding the report and please contact me if you haven't heard back about a reported post for 3 or 4 days.

    Finally, please keep these PMs private. Do not reference these decisions in the forums, they are private communications. Feel free to respond via PM to me (or any of the staff), or to open a thread in the Ask the Staff Forum.

    Hopefully, this policy will resolve the concerns noted above and give everyone a better sense of staff involvement. We appreciate your continued patience and look forward to any feedback you might have.
    I do have some feedback. Don't do this in private. Behind the scenes decision making breeds suspicion, not trust.

  3. #3
    Registered User

    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Manteca, CA
    Posts
    1,443
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Feedback for Reported Posts

    Quote Originally Posted by cstamford View Post
    I do have some feedback. Don't do this in private. Behind the scenes decision making breeds suspicion, not trust.
    Ummm... The last thing they need is any old person telling them they did this or that wrong. I for one think we should respect them and their responsibility for these forums, especially because there is nothing malicious in their intent and they discuss these things between all of them if they have to. We've got people on all sides of the aisle looking out for us, like Miccan, Sig, Squatch, etc. Opening this up to the public would be like asking good ole Zhavric and his ilk to start flaming like crazy.
    There is no wealth like knowledge, no poverty like ignorance.
    Nahj ul-Balāgha by Ali bin Abu-Talib

  4. Likes Someguy liked this post
  5. #4
    Banned Indefinitely

    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Southern California, USA
    Posts
    2,018
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Feedback for Reported Posts

    Quote Originally Posted by Lukecash12 View Post
    Ummm... The last thing they need is any old person telling them they did this or that wrong.
    When I said do it in public, I didn't mean open it up to public comment. Simply have a forum where members can go to read the staff consultations prior to issuing a ruling, but can't use to comment. I don't see any good reason why staff discussions need to be secret.

    Quote Originally Posted by Lukecash
    I for one think we should respect them and their responsibility for these forums, especially because there is nothing malicious in their intent and they discuss these things between all of them if they have to.
    And I think you've got three things here that should be looked at singly. First is the issue of respect. I have a great deal of respect for most of the staff, but not an equal respect for all. But in any case, respect that is deserved is not preserved by the darkness of secrecy, but by the light that only shines in the public square. By contrast, unearned respect lives a long life in the dark.

    Second, the issue of malice. If the staff members were proven to be sinless in this regard by their long history of public contributions to debates, this may just be a dead issue. However, I can name staff members who have written malicious posts in anger in the past, so this is not a dead issue. And so long as staff members are selected from the regular membership in a process that unfolds behind closed doors, it will never be a dead issue. Until we have holy saints for staff members all, a little poisonous malice, added to the honey of trust left to ferment in the darkness of secrecy, brews the toxic gall of suspicion.

    Third, the issue of all of them discussing an issue "if they have to". Well, who decides "if they have to"? How often are rulings handed down only after "all of them" have weighed in on it? What difference does it make how many do or don't weigh in, if we can't see them doing it? (See both just above and right below!)

    Quote Originally Posted by Lukecash
    We've got people on all sides of the aisle looking out for us, like Miccan, Sig, Squatch, etc.
    No, they're all on the same side of the aisle that counts. They're all corrupt human beings, just like me, just like you.W e've got people on all sides of the aisle in Congress too, and look how well that's going...and it's televised! Just imagine if everything Congress did it did behind a wall of secrecy, how much worse it would be in the blink of an eye. That's what secrecy does when you have people "on all sides of the aisle looking out for us".

    The time has come to throw open the doors and let the sunshine in.

    Quote Originally Posted by Lukecash
    Opening this up to the public would be like asking good ole Zhavric and his ilk to start flaming like crazy.
    This is the only good reason for not doing it that I can see, and my original suggestion for making it public assumed it could be done in a way that made this physically impossible.

    Let me make my suggestion complete: make staff consultations public in a way that makes regular member commentary physically impossible, and have bi-annual elections for staff members on which all the regular members vote who have financially contributed some minimum amount cash (to be determined by public staff consultation, but, for example, the quotient of the annual site expense, times the term of office for staff, divided by all the members averaging a certain number of posts monthly) to the site maintenance expenses during the previous two years. The bi-annual voting would be the sum total of the active members' "commentary" on staff consultations.

    Or if two years is too long, because of voluntary turn over in the staff, make the term of office shorter...or longer, whatever. The term length is not nearly as important as the election.

    And if this thing works as I think it would, the inducement created by having a say in who rules what is allowed on a day to day basis will virtually fund this site indefinitely, and in a completely just way. No one will pay more than his or her just share, and no one will pay less. You pay to say, and what you say has impact that everyone can see.

  6. #5
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    9,271
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Feedback for Reported Posts

    Quote Originally Posted by cstamford View Post
    When I said do it in public, I didn't mean open it up to public comment. Simply have a forum where members can go to read the staff consultations prior to issuing a ruling, but can't use to comment. I don't see any good reason why staff discussions need to be secret.
    Hi. I'm speaking as a moderator but not necessarily on behalf of the moderating staff although what I'm about to say I've said in a staff forum and there seemed to be general agreement but again, this is not necessarily coming from "the staff".

    There are two certain problems with opening our discussion for public viewing.

    1. It would effect how we communicate with each other as well as our decision-making. Certain people here are a bigger problem than others and warrant some frank discussions on their bad behavior and if one of us finds them particularly annoying (btw, from what I can see you have a good reputation amongst the staff). Knowing that people can see everything we say would strongly effect how we conduct ourselves and we could not be as frank as we may need to be to have a productive discussion.

    2. I also think it would negatively effect members reporting other members. One may be less inclined to offer a sincere report on another member if they fear of offending that member and likewise one person seeing that they were reported by another would likely effect their debate and increase the chances of the debate getting personal instead of staying on-topic (instead of debating the issue, the are debating the justification of the report - "that wasn't spam!"). Also, more trollish members may intentionally report his/her opponent with the intent of upsetting them (and likewise dragging the debate off track as things get personal). In short, it would likely decrease the number of justified reports and increase the number of unjustified reports.

    So in short, I think it would make it much more difficult for the staff to do their job as well as negatively effect the quality of debate at ODN.

  7. #6
    Banned Indefinitely

    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Southern California, USA
    Posts
    2,018
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Feedback for Reported Posts

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    Hi. I'm speaking as a moderator but not necessarily on behalf of the moderating staff although what I'm about to say I've said in a staff forum and there seemed to be general agreement but again, this is not necessarily coming from "the staff".

    There are two certain problems with opening our discussion for public viewing.

    1. It would effect how we communicate with each other as well as our decision-making. Certain people here are a bigger problem than others and warrant some frank discussions on their bad behavior and if one of us finds them particularly annoying (btw, from what I can see you have a good reputation amongst the staff). Knowing that people can see everything we say would strongly effect how we conduct ourselves and we could not be as frank as we may need to be to have a productive discussion.
    Are you guys ridiculing members? Calling them names behind closed doors? If not, I don't see how being frank in public would be any more of a problem than being frank in secret.

    Quote Originally Posted by mican
    2. I also think it would negatively effect members reporting other members. One may be less inclined to offer a sincere report on another member if they fear of offending that member...
    And what good reason would any intelligent person have for "fearing" giving offense to another member? What's the other member I've offended going to do to me? Nothing. Furthermore, either I report someone for what I believe is a legitimate issue needing staff intervention, or I report someone just trying to get them in trouble. If staff can't tell the difference, then we need new staff post haste! And if they can, then doing it in public would just make that determination that much more impactful on me for gaming the system like that. And if it doesn't, then staff could start a public discussion of what sort of penalty I should get if I don't quit it without one.

    Quote Originally Posted by mican
    ...and likewise one person seeing that they were reported by another would likely effect their debate and increase the chances of the debate getting personal...
    What are we? Three year olds? Who that is old enough to use a computer and able to type well enough to be a regular contributing member of this site, is going to get their feelings hurt by being reported? Especially when they can then go and watch the staff deliberations justify them and throw out the complaint of their accuser?

    Again, if someone reports me, it's either legitimate or it isn't. If it isn't, no harm no foul, and I get to watch myself being justified by staff. If it is, then I deserve what I get, and I get to watch justice meted out. And if I'm the sort who thinks I have a right to punish someone for reporting me actually breaking the rules of the site, then all the other members are trusting staff to wave bye-bye to me until I grow a character that allows me to take part in a project like this.

    Quote Originally Posted by mican
    Also, more trollish members may intentionally report his/her opponent with the intent of upsetting them (and likewise dragging the debate off track as things get personal).
    What are you suggesting here? That you've joined a staff that is so chalk full of idiots and bigots that it can't make this sort of determination and expeditiously stop this kind of behavior? If so, what good are you guys?

    Quote Originally Posted by mican
    In short, it would likely decrease the number of justified reports and increase the number of unjustified reports.
    Only if staff didn't do a good job. There is nothing inherent in staff doing it's job in public that would likely lead to any of the problems that have been raised so far, either by you or Lukecash, so long as the staff did their job well. That is not to say my suggestion doesn't place a bigger burden on staff members to be thorough in investigating complaints (something that from my own personal experience could use some improvement), or work harder to be objective, because it would, but then that's part of its merit, rather than a strike against it.

    Bottom line here, all the objections so far at least involve, or worse, are completely caused, not by staff doing it job in public, but by staff failing to do its job in public.

  8. #7
    Administrator

    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Fairfax, VA
    Posts
    10,208
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Feedback for Reported Posts

    Cstam, a couple of things here. First there isn't really any reason to imply that because we prefer to confer in private that we are staff full of bigots and a holes. There are clearly legitimate reasons to do so, hence why virtually all high courts do it. I would personally appreciate it if you could dial that implication back a bit in future.

    As for our reason, I'll start with the most obvious, in what sense are our disagreements relevant to the community? If I think something is an Adhom, but Mican shows me why he thinks it is not, why is that discussion relevant to you?

    What is relevant is the resolution of that discussion, that we agree Mican was right or I was. If I misunderstood the definition of Ad hom, that isn't helpful to any of you, all that is helpful is that we resolved the issue and we have explained to the reported member why we felt it wasn't an ad hom. Right?


    Secondly, I think the staff would benefit from a private forum to discuss these things. It encourages open conversation and dialogue far more than an operating theater environment. I want open discussion in the staff, it helps me personally keep a pulse on the team, the board and the reports. It helps the staff gel, it helps us understand the climate we are operating in. All of those are good reasons why individual topics aren't open to your review.

    Finally, it leads to divisions on the staff that are unacceptable. In the distant past I remember a situation where it became clear that there were divisions amongst the staff and some community members played on it, sought to divide them and cause problems. I see no justifiable benefit to overcome that concern.


    So I think the idea of opening up the threads for everyone's review is a non-starter to be honest (unless you have a massively different justification than what has been offered). I am open still (though hesitant) to the idea of us publishing common law opinions as it were based on post reports.
    "Suffering lies not with inequality, but with dependence." -Voltaire
    "Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions. -G.K. Chesterton
    Also, if you think I've overlooked your post please shoot me a PM, I'm not intentionally ignoring you.


  9. #8
    Banned Indefinitely

    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Southern California, USA
    Posts
    2,018
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Feedback for Reported Posts

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    Cstam, a couple of things here. First there isn't really any reason to imply that because we prefer to confer in private that we are staff full of bigots and a holes.
    Which is why I never implied that. Not a particularly auspicious start.

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch
    There are clearly legitimate reasons to do so, hence why virtually all high courts do it. I would personally appreciate it if you could dial that implication back a bit in future.
    Sorry, but I can't "dial back" what I'm not doing. If you'd care for clarification on what I am doing in that area, you can ask, and I'll be glad to take the time to do that for you. Or, you could simply read what I've written in context more carefully. Either way is good by me.

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch
    As for our reason, I'll start with the most obvious, in what sense are our disagreements relevant to the community? If I think something is an Adhom, but Mican shows me why he thinks it is not, why is that discussion relevant to you?
    I'm surprised you have to ask. This whole site is dedicated to the proposition it's not the position you hold, but why you hold it that matters. What amazes me is, you think this is the most "obvious" reason why no public scrutiny is needed for staff deliberations (coupled with membership voting for staff members, as I also suggested...again), when it is in fact the most obvious reason for public scrutiny of staff deliberations.

    This would be an absolutely outstanding way for the membership to learn how the rules are applied, and by whom, which would benefit their debates substantially. And yet all you seem able to see here is how this affects the staff, which should be the least of your concerns if you were actually deliberating the pros and cons of my suggestions.

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch
    What is relevant is the resolution of that discussion, that we agree Mican was right or I was. If I misunderstood the definition of Ad hom, that isn't helpful to any of you, all that is helpful is that we resolved the issue and we have explained to the reported member why we felt it wasn't an ad hom. Right?
    Wrong. If you, as a moderator, misunderstood the definition of Ad hom, then you'd be misapplying the rule. Members need to know when and how often their moderators misapply rules due to their misunderstanding of them. It was entirely relevant to me that, for example, Judge Arenda L. Wright Allen thought the concept "all men are created equal" was to be found expressed in the Constitution and that she believed all relevant studies found "no difference" between the young adult outcomes for children raised by their biological parents, and those raised by homosexual couples. But if all I ever got to see from Judge Wright Allen was her conclusion, I'd never know what an outstanding progressive bigot she was, or how much of that bigotry she brought with her to the bench, or that it was her ideological bias, rather than the law she was applying, that decided her conclusion.

    Same principle applies here. Knowing just the conclusion is far,far from enough. Members should know that the decision was made by a majority of some minimum number of staff members, or quorum, who was in favor, and why, and who was opposed, and why.

    Furthermore, at the moment you've got staff members some are saying suffer from certain mental disorders. I bring this up because it's already been brought out in public debate if I've seen it, and I have. I'm just supposed to trust that in spite of that, people like this will make good moderators? Or that if they don't, the staff that chose them will remove them? On what would I base such trust? And more importantly, why should I need to trust when I can see for myself with a few minor tweaks to the site?

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch
    Secondly, I think the staff would benefit from a private forum to discuss these things. It encourages open conversation and dialogue far more than an operating theater environment. I want open discussion in the staff, it helps me personally keep a pulse on the team, the board and the reports. It helps the staff gel, it helps us understand the climate we are operating in. All of those are good reasons why individual topics aren't open to your review.
    I've never suggested that staff deliberations be open to my review, or the review of anyone else. This is your second mischaracterization of what I've said in this thread in this post.

    You're suggesting I want a forum where I'm allowed to comment on, ie., "review" staff deliberations, and I never suggested anything of the sort. So all of the above simply ignores what I've actually suggested, or else just gives me your unsupported opinion.

    To your specific points: open discussion is as easily conducted in public as it is in private...unless that discussion is not fit for public consumption. Judges write their own opinions if the one written for the majority or for the minority doesn't adequately represent theirs. We, as members, do virtually the same thing in debate s hundreds of times a day. So the idea that not being able to do it in secret will somehow make it more difficult to do is, frankly, absurd on its face.

    And if what I'm suggesting were to occur, you wouldn't need to "keep a pulse on the team". You wouldn't be the one making decisions about "the team" anymore. Is this really a problem for you?

    As for "gelling" and "climate", I don't even know what you're talking about, having been a productive member of this site for going on 4 years off and on. That I have no idea what you mean by these terms seems to me just another argument in favor of opening things up some.

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch
    Finally, it leads to divisions on the staff that are unacceptable. In the distant past I remember a situation where it became clear that there were divisions amongst the staff and some community members played on it, sought to divide them and cause problems. I see no justifiable benefit to overcome that concern.
    That's because you're not even considering my suggestions in total, as is very clear by this post.

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch
    So I think the idea of opening up the threads for everyone's review is a non-starter to be honest (unless you have a massively different justification than what has been offered). I am open still (though hesitant) to the idea of us publishing common law opinions as it were based on post reports.
    Well, I never made the suggestion thinking it would get anything like a fair hearing, and it hasn't. Not once did any staff member in this thread, you making three, actually address the benefits I suggested could accrue from opening up staff deliberations to membership view, coupled with members voting for staff members at specified intervals. Not once. It was as if I hadn't suggested any, to read through the staff replies I've received to date.

    Don't misunderstand. The dismissal was entirely expected, so not a bother. I will not detain you and your "team"'s return to your private council chambers any longer.

  10. #9
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Seattle, Washington USA
    Posts
    7,068
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Feedback for Reported Posts

    Commentary of Sig

    There is a general desire among the staff to present a unified front or "voice" as it were on the board. For better or worse this is the prevailing paradigm and the staff works pretty hard at maintaining it.

    Of course as anyone would expect a pack of seasoned debaters is not going to actually have a single opinion or voice. So the way things work is we hash it out under the covers and send forth a spokesman with either the consensus view or simply the decisions of those vested in making decisions. (Goes Apok -> Squatch -> Rest of the mods)

    I think its good for folks to understand we are not all of one opinion, but I also think it makes sense that we only choose one course of action and that the staff has to be in consensus that is the action we are taking. One of the main reasons not to open up our internal discussions is so we don't invite a wider debate among members of the same issues the staff is hashing out. We don't want ODN itself to be the primary topic of discussion on ODN and I've seen more open boards where that can certainly happen.

    There is also the reason you eluded to, that behind closed doors we may indeed say some things that would be impolite or offensive if they were out in the open. We often share our frank opinions about the motivations and skills of debaters on the board. And often we have to. If we think someone is just being a trouble maker, we have to be able to discuss that openly but it would only make more trouble to do it where said person can read about us doing it. And sometimes we think someone is a poor debater and we need to say so because that can make the difference between a person breaking the rules because they are willful breaking them and someone who just doesn't yet know better. (this comes up a lot with the challenge rule) That kind of discussion is often needed, but better not to be had out in the open where folks could get their feelings hurt and dander up for no good reason.

    Of all the mods I am likely the most open to pulling back the curtain and showing how the sausage is made. Frankly 80% of the time there isn't much to it. But the other 20% can be pretty ugly and I think frankly its better to keep the ugly stuff "in the family" as it were and not take it out in the streets. I do try to let people know that within the moderator group there is rarely just one opinion. We fight some serious battles sometimes. But as leaders we do have to come down to one policy and one action and we all have to stand by it.

    Final reason.... Were all volunteers. We do it because we like the board and want to help. Its bad enough these guys have to listen to me rant and rave on occasion, to have the whole board moaning and kvetching would be a royal pain in the ass. I'm a KISS manager, (keep it simple stupid) and while that is about impossible given the type of folks that are attracted to a place like this, I still think you keep it as simple as you can and widening all our adjudication to the public is going to complicate things.

    I think there is some room for opening up what we do and getting wider involvement. When I was Admin I tried to do that just by getting on a lot more moderators, pretty much anyone who volunteered and wasn't totally green. I think some of our discussions should get more input and we've done a bit of that here and there. But the day to day moderation of reporting posts and nuking spammers... not sure that would really accomplish much.
    Feed me some debate pellets!

  11. Thanks Lukecash12 thanked for this post
  12. #10
    Banned Indefinitely

    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Southern California, USA
    Posts
    2,018
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Feedback for Reported Posts

    Quote Originally Posted by Sigfried View Post
    Commentary of Sig

    There is a general desire among the staff to present a unified front or "voice" as it were on the board. For better or worse this is the prevailing paradigm and the staff works pretty hard at maintaining it.

    Of course as anyone would expect a pack of seasoned debaters is not going to actually have a single opinion or voice. So the way things work is we hash it out under the covers and send forth a spokesman with either the consensus view or simply the decisions of those vested in making decisions. (Goes Apok -> Squatch -> Rest of the mods)

    I think its good for folks to understand we are not all of one opinion, but I also think it makes sense that we only choose one course of action and that the staff has to be in consensus that is the action we are taking. One of the main reasons not to open up our internal discussions is so we don't invite a wider debate among members of the same issues the staff is hashing out. We don't want ODN itself to be the primary topic of discussion on ODN and I've seen more open boards where that can certainly happen.

    There is also the reason you eluded to, that behind closed doors we may indeed say some things that would be impolite or offensive if they were out in the open. We often share our frank opinions about the motivations and skills of debaters on the board. And often we have to. If we think someone is just being a trouble maker, we have to be able to discuss that openly but it would only make more trouble to do it where said person can read about us doing it. And sometimes we think someone is a poor debater and we need to say so because that can make the difference between a person breaking the rules because they are willful breaking them and someone who just doesn't yet know better. (this comes up a lot with the challenge rule) That kind of discussion is often needed, but better not to be had out in the open where folks could get their feelings hurt and dander up for no good reason.

    Of all the mods I am likely the most open to pulling back the curtain and showing how the sausage is made. Frankly 80% of the time there isn't much to it. But the other 20% can be pretty ugly and I think frankly its better to keep the ugly stuff "in the family" as it were and not take it out in the streets. I do try to let people know that within the moderator group there is rarely just one opinion. We fight some serious battles sometimes. But as leaders we do have to come down to one policy and one action and we all have to stand by it.

    Final reason.... Were all volunteers. We do it because we like the board and want to help. Its bad enough these guys have to listen to me rant and rave on occasion, to have the whole board moaning and kvetching would be a royal pain in the ass. I'm a KISS manager, (keep it simple stupid) and while that is about impossible given the type of folks that are attracted to a place like this, I still think you keep it as simple as you can and widening all our adjudication to the public is going to complicate things.

    I think there is some room for opening up what we do and getting wider involvement. When I was Admin I tried to do that just by getting on a lot more moderators, pretty much anyone who volunteered and wasn't totally green. I think some of our discussions should get more input and we've done a bit of that here and there. But the day to day moderation of reporting posts and nuking spammers... not sure that would really accomplish much.
    You all continue to act as if this sort of change would have bad results that couldn't be controlled, and that's simply not the case. I've not suggested the staff give up a single iota of it's control. So, for example, when you say you think one of the problems with my suggestion is it would lead to members debating what they've seen going on in the public staff forum (which, recall, would not allow them to comment there), then simply add a rule to the site rules making it an infraction to discuss staff discussions in the debate forums. Or make a new member discussion forum similar to the one that exists now for discussing ongoing debates (that no one ever uses!) This isn't rocket science. If the staff is afraid opening up staff deliberations to the membership will lead to certain types of bad behavior, just make those types of behavior infractions and treat as is normal for such things now. There's no omnipotent genie here that staff can't get back in the bottle if he starts acting up.

    So far the only reasonable objection I've seen is the one that concerns staff being able to verbally denigrate certain posters with impunity, and shame on you guys if that's what is behind this entrenched bias against opening things up.

  13. #11
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    England
    Posts
    1,151
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Feedback for Reported Posts

    Quote Originally Posted by cstamford View Post
    So far the only reasonable objection I've seen is the one that concerns staff being able to verbally denigrate certain posters with impunity, and shame on you guys if that's what is behind this entrenched bias against opening things up.
    Ex-staff member
    It's not so much verbal denigration as handling with discretion.

    1. You can be infracted for things said in Personal Messages if reported. These may get reported solely because the member in question trusts the staff to handle the issue with discretion. These things not being reported is bad. When considering punishments all past history is taken into account so these things would need to be discussed in any post with serial offenders but also there have been people banned off PM's alone the contents of some of which, I assume, all parties would've wanted to keep non-specific when explaining this to other members.

    2.It's not so much verbally denigrating certain posters as having serious and frank discussions about people who long term toe the line between troll and not troll. People who are deliberately doing it get too much information on how and when to cool off (or indeed how and when to push people's buttons), people that aren't normally don't want the PM's that will be sent to them, PM's that often going over things that seem obvious in the rules to everyone else but genuinely haven't occurred to some people dragged out in public when we're trying to steer them back to the right track. It's a little on the humiliating side if you're well-meaning at best, and we generally want to keep these people. Again discretion is important in terms of goodwill from these members but being able to have a frank discussion about their failings as a member in abiding by the rules and speculating on reasons for that cannot happen in an environment they see the whole discussion rather than a considered response alone.

    3.It creates bad blood between members who are genuinely mistaken about the staff's line on rules when they report and the ruling is against them. Either way the damage in terms of pissing off the person you've reported is done and it makes things that little bit more unnecessarily hostile even if it isn't an explicit conversation about the legitimacy of the decision. That is in a relative against being able to PM the member who made the report explaining no action has been taken and why, which, if I recall, is largely what happened in my days on the staff.

    4.It creates false impressions of drama to casual web-surfers. Most forums, including debate forums, just don't do this. Given that fact I think it would be more off-putting to lots of people than welcoming to have public discussions of disciplinary issues and the unpleasant things that can be said in the heat of the moment left up for record immemorial rather than deleted from public view.

    Just my 2 cents on the matter
    -=]Eliotitus[=-
    "Every saint has a past and every sinner has a future"- Oscar Wilde

  14. Thanks Squatch347 thanked for this post
    Likes Someguy liked this post
  15. #12
    Banned Indefinitely

    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Southern California, USA
    Posts
    2,018
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Feedback for Reported Posts

    Quote Originally Posted by eliotitus View Post
    Ex-staff member
    It's not so much verbal denigration as handling with discretion.

    1. You can be infracted for things said in Personal Messages if reported. These may get reported solely because the member in question trusts the staff to handle the issue with discretion. These things not being reported is bad. When considering punishments all past history is taken into account so these things would need to be discussed in any post with serial offenders but also there have been people banned off PM's alone the contents of some of which, I assume, all parties would've wanted to keep non-specific when explaining this to other members.

    2.It's not so much verbally denigrating certain posters as having serious and frank discussions about people who long term toe the line between troll and not troll. People who are deliberately doing it get too much information on how and when to cool off (or indeed how and when to push people's buttons), people that aren't normally don't want the PM's that will be sent to them, PM's that often going over things that seem obvious in the rules to everyone else but genuinely haven't occurred to some people dragged out in public when we're trying to steer them back to the right track. It's a little on the humiliating side if you're well-meaning at best, and we generally want to keep these people. Again discretion is important in terms of goodwill from these members but being able to have a frank discussion about their failings as a member in abiding by the rules and speculating on reasons for that cannot happen in an environment they see the whole discussion rather than a considered response alone.

    3.It creates bad blood between members who are genuinely mistaken about the staff's line on rules when they report and the ruling is against them. Either way the damage in terms of pissing off the person you've reported is done and it makes things that little bit more unnecessarily hostile even if it isn't an explicit conversation about the legitimacy of the decision. That is in a relative against being able to PM the member who made the report explaining no action has been taken and why, which, if I recall, is largely what happened in my days on the staff.

    4.It creates false impressions of drama to casual web-surfers. Most forums, including debate forums, just don't do this. Given that fact I think it would be more off-putting to lots of people than welcoming to have public discussions of disciplinary issues and the unpleasant things that can be said in the heat of the moment left up for record immemorial rather than deleted from public view.

    Just my 2 cents on the matter
    Well, despite the obvious effort you've put into this, I don't see any real analysis here. If there were, I'd see you looking at the tradeoffs, instead of simply ticking off the possible negatives you can imagine from your past experience.

  16. #13
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    1,479
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Feedback for Reported Posts

    Quote Originally Posted by cstamford View Post
    Well, despite the obvious effort you've put into this, I don't see any real analysis here. If there were, I'd see you looking at the tradeoffs, instead of simply ticking off the possible negatives you can imagine from your past experience.
    I doubt there is anything that can be said, apart from agreeing with you, which will either change your mind or get you to accept that the way we handle staff decisions is not going to change. Best to simply agree to disagree and move on.
    I will no longer be replying to any post from a Liberal going forward. I will continue, as normal, to discuss topics and engage in intellectual exchanges with non-leftist

  17. #14
    Banned Indefinitely

    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Southern California, USA
    Posts
    2,018
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Feedback for Reported Posts

    Quote Originally Posted by Someguy View Post
    I doubt there is anything that can be said, apart from agreeing with you, which will either change your mind or get you to accept that the way we handle staff decisions is not going to change. Best to simply agree to disagree and move on.
    I started off agreeing to disagree when I said I held out no real hope for the change I proposed being thoughtfully and objectively considered. And I don't see that I have any obligations to anyone, based on your doubts about my mind.

    But since you brought it up, yes, there definitely is something that could be done to change my mind. In fact the one thing no one has tried to do in this thread has that potential. If my suggestions had ever been subjected to a real negatives v. positives style analysis, instead of just a string of negatives analyses, and that analysis had demonstrated the negatives from the suggested changes outweighed the positives, then I would certainly change my mind. But until that's been done, why should I?

    If the shoe were on the other foot, would you?

  18. #15
    Administrator

    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Fairfax, VA
    Posts
    10,208
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Feedback for Reported Posts

    Second Mod Announcement on this subject.

    In an attempt to help everyone get a better understanding of the mod actions here, I've also opened up the infractions forum for general view. This will allow the member-base to see new infractions issued in their thread search and the reasoning for those infractions. Replying to those threads has been disabled, and you'll only be able to see threads from the last 30 days.

    I cannot stress enough that this is solely meant as a situational awareness initiative. We want you to understand when infractions are issued and why so that we can continue to develop our mutual understanding of the rules here. These infractions are not to be discussed in open thread, I will delete and infract anyone who does so. These are not meant to harass, demean or to dismiss other debaters.

    If there are any questions about a specific infraction, please open a thread in the "Ask the Staff" forum.

    Comments and questions about this initiative here are appreciated.
    "Suffering lies not with inequality, but with dependence." -Voltaire
    "Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions. -G.K. Chesterton
    Also, if you think I've overlooked your post please shoot me a PM, I'm not intentionally ignoring you.


  19. #16
    Banned Indefinitely

    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Southern California, USA
    Posts
    2,018
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Feedback for Reported Posts

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    Second Mod Announcement on this subject.

    In an attempt to help everyone get a better understanding of the mod actions here, I've also opened up the infractions forum for general view. This will allow the member-base to see new infractions issued in their thread search and the reasoning for those infractions. Replying to those threads has been disabled, and you'll only be able to see threads from the last 30 days.

    I cannot stress enough that this is solely meant as a situational awareness initiative. We want you to understand when infractions are issued and why so that we can continue to develop our mutual understanding of the rules here. These infractions are not to be discussed in open thread, I will delete and infract anyone who does so. These are not meant to harass, demean or to dismiss other debaters.

    If there are any questions about a specific infraction, please open a thread in the "Ask the Staff" forum.

    Comments and questions about this initiative here are appreciated.
    How do I view the "infractions forum"?

  20. #17
    Administrator

    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Fairfax, VA
    Posts
    10,208
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Feedback for Reported Posts

    New threads will show up in your New Posts search, additionally you can view the last 30 days here: http://www.onlinedebate.net/forums/f...58-Infractions
    "Suffering lies not with inequality, but with dependence." -Voltaire
    "Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions. -G.K. Chesterton
    Also, if you think I've overlooked your post please shoot me a PM, I'm not intentionally ignoring you.


  21. #18
    Banned Indefinitely

    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Southern California, USA
    Posts
    2,018
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Feedback for Reported Posts

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    New threads will show up in your New Posts search, additionally you can view the last 30 days here: http://www.onlinedebate.net/forums/f...58-Infractions
    Thanks.

 

 

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •