@fzian: And that system doesn't already exist where the admins tend to rule for the moderators? do police tend to back each other up regardless?
What I'm talking about is they infract, you read the forum rules and try to prove them wrong, then they eat an infraction themselves. Think of it as a challenge of sorts. Enough of those may be enough to ease the pressure of them on the back of us normal users a little bit.
Increasing the inherent antagonism involved in an infraction is not a viable method to improve the staff-nonstaff relationship.
Separately, I don't think that there is really a need to "ease the pressure" off of nonstaff users.
Further separately, it's rarely possible to "prove" someone wrong or right with regard to an infraction. Very few infractions deal with 100% objective facts, especially the more common infractions for things like flaming.
@binary: True. I have fought and won tickets in court, and I'm out several days of leave, and the cop goes on with his day as normal. It sucks, but that's why the system is broken and open to abuse of power by the police. Same as here.
But there's a check on the police (the courts) just like there's a check here (higher ups). The court determining that a police officer did not dot some i or cross some t may end in you not having to pay the ticket, but it doesn't (and shouldn't) result in the officer getting the same penalty you would have gotten.
Under what I'm proposing, of course no mod would rescind their infractions.
Which is exactly why I think it's a bad idea and shouldn't be implemented. It will only contribute to moderators even more aggressively defending their infractions. Given that I see the problem more as clear and respectful communication about infractions, and not merely the volume of infractions, I believe your proposed system will make things worse instead of better.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I am no longer on MTGS staff, so please don't contact me asking me to do staff things. :|
@fzian: And that system doesn't already exist where the admins tend to rule for the moderators? do police tend to back each other up regardless?
What I'm talking about is they infract, you read the forum rules and try to prove them wrong, then they eat an infraction themselves. Think of it as a challenge of sorts. Enough of those may be enough to ease the pressure of them on the back of us normal users a little bit.
I think that this is a little simplistic; it assumes that infractions are black and white. On the contrary, infractions are usually filled with shades of gray -- and due to the grayish nature of some infractions, I believe that your proposed system would make it worse.
Take for the example, "flaming". A moderator can easily find ways to show that a borderline inflammatory post should be infracted / warned for flaming. On the other hand, a global moderator / admin / owner may recognise the post is a borderline case but feel inclined to say that the offence is not so serious as to deserve an/a infraction/warning. In that case, you are essentially giving the arbiter the dilemma of: -
1. infracting the moderator despite recognising that the offending post was borderline inflammatory
2. rejecting the appeal even though the offending post was merely a borderline case
I do not believe that this is a good way to go about managing the site. Unless the moderator is doling out infraction like Halloween candies, I don't think anything should be done to change the existing system. It should also be noted that the process for users to appeal an infraction is not very cumbersome (as opposed to, say, challenging a parking ticket) and I have seen globals downgrade infractions after a simple appeal on their helpdesk.
@Binary: I responded to your point already. You brought it up twice.
You guys do bring up some good points, I will admit that.
I never flame, so I have no idea about grey areas. The many infractions I have received have been cut and dry, and justification based on literal statements in the rules. So I suppose this is why I have overlooked several considerations.
In my experience with my most recent battle, it was pointed out to me the rule is clearly stated, and it's black and white. So where is the grey area? I pointed it out. But no.
How many of you posting have actually fought an infraction by the way? Or dealt with a wrongful infraction?
Anyway, if a cop is having a bad day, decides to take it out on you and give you a wrongful ticket, you fight it and win, why shouldn't they suffer some kind of consequence? Where is the check and balance? And don't tell me it is so just take your word for it.
How do I know? I have done it in real life before. Wrongfully got tickets, came to court ready for war, won my case, dismissed and who really wins in the end? The cop just laughs as you just wasted several hours in court, and several days of leave. He goes and has a doughnut. Now what if there was punishment for his arrogance...bet your ass he would think twice about ticketing that next person...
Take that example, replace it with a moderator, and instead of a ticket, it's a frivolous infraction. But I do understand what you posters are saying, and respectfully disagree.
I'd like to point out that fortunately for us, if you do win an appeal through proper channels and can prove that the moderator made the bad call based on malice rather than a genuine difference in rules interpretation, you may share these evidences to the administrators for their further action. Giving the administrators the benefit of doubt, I have a feeling that they won't be very amused to find out that one of their mods have been abusing his/her power and proceed to subject them to a fate worse than infractions.
I can see where you are coming from though but I'd like to stress that the analogy is pretty bad here. The size of the staff is nowhere as big as, say, the member of a police force for most major countries and any frequent abuses of power could be caught on easily, relatively speaking. Neither would the appellant spend "several hours" at the helpdesk appealing nor would you spend several days of leave. As for the doughnut part, I don't think it is our place to stop the moderator from having a doughnut.
@Binary: I responded to your point already. You brought it up twice.
With respect, I believe the point I made in my more recent post was distinct from the one I made previously.
How many of you posting have actually fought an infraction by the way? Or dealt with a wrongful infraction?
Given that I was previously an adminstrator of this site, I'd say I've dealt with more appeals of infractions (wrongful or not) than most.
Anyway, if a cop is having a bad day, decides to take it out on you and give you a wrongful ticket, you fight it and win, why shouldn't they suffer some kind of consequence? Where is the check and balance? And don't tell me it is so just take your word for it.
How do I know? I have done it in real life before. Wrongfully got tickets, came to court ready for war, won my case, dismissed and who really wins in the end? The cop just laughs as you just wasted several hours in court, and several days of leave. He goes and has a doughnut. Now what if there was punishment for his arrogance...bet your ass he would think twice about ticketing that next person...
Why are you assuming that a wrongful infraction must be due to "arrogance" and the mod "taking it out on you?" Can you see situations in which two staff members might disagree on whether an infraction was warranted that might not be due to malice?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I am no longer on MTGS staff, so please don't contact me asking me to do staff things. :|
I've only had two issues with MTGS Moderators. I won't mention names.
The first issue is with selective moderation. I received an infraction for flaming (or maybe a warning) in a thread from this mod because of a generalized comment I made (mentioned no names in the comment). Yet at least a dozen people flamed me directly by name in the thread...no red text on their posts for a flame or infraction. I brought this to the attention of the mod who gave me the red text...I was told to do the "adult thing" and report their posts since it wasn't his responsibility to actually look for violations, just to see what is reported and take action. This was also a thread he was participating in, so there is no way he didn't notice all the flaming go on against m.
The second issue is with undefined rules. I receive an infraction for breaking a rule that was not defined, and remains undefined right now. The mod even agreed that the rule was unclear, but has not clarified the rule and never removed or downgraded my infraction for breaking the rule that never said what would be consider okay by it or what would break it. That is like telling someone not to hornswaggle, but then never tell them what hornswaggling is and then punishing them when they hornswaggle.
In both cases, I contacted a Global Mod for the appeals process and was never responded to.
So my issues pertain to mods who warn/infract people for one thing and then do nothing to others doing the exact same thing in the exact same thread that the moderator himself is participating in and to mods who set rules and never define the parameters of the rule, almost as if they are waiting for someone to break the rule just to issue an infraction. Smells like entrapment to me.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I was driven from this once-great site by abusive mods and admins, who create rules out of thin air to punish people for breaking them (meaning the rule does not exist under forum rules) and selectively enforce the rules that are written on the forum rules. I am currently lurking while deleting 6 years and 2 months of posting history. I will return when ExpiredRascals, Teia Rabishu and Blinking Spirit are no longer in power.
@Binary: I see that now. Thank you for clarifying. And since you were previously an admin, how many infractions (being impartial) did you find were wrongful (%)?
And yes there may be an instance where an infraction isn't due to malice, but it certainly doesn't feel that way. With the police, yes. With the staff, well maybe not all the time. It should be never. The point is to try and reduce the sheer volume of infractions and warnings, because more times than not it feels like walking on eggshells because you never know when the next trigger happy mod will walk by.
@Solaran X: Thanks for sharing, and I'm sure your case is not isolated. At least be proud you stood up for your rights, and fight every last one to the end. Don't make it easy for them to get away with bias and ambiguous boundries.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
BUDGET DECK BUILDER SINCE 93'
Modern ------------------------- WU Azorius Titan Midrange
Commander ------------------- WUG Derevi, Empyrial Tactician
***Are you looking for cards priced below TCG NM "LOW" and with FREE SHIPPING? - Click HERE! for my sales thread - 485 Feedback 100% positive!***
@Binary: I see that now. Thank you for clarifying. And since you were previously an admin, how many infractions (being impartial) did you find were wrongful (%)?
Obviously I didn't keep any records on this kind of thing so I'm working solely off of memory... but in my experience, not many. The two most common situations were infractions I entirely agreed with, or infractions I wouldn't have issued myself but understood the mod's reasoning for doing so and did not consider the infraction so clearly out of place as to rescind. I'd say the number of infractions that were appealed to me that I actually reversed was probably 10% or less.
In truth, most of the infractions I reversed were because the mod who issued them asked me to reverse them without any prompting on my part.
And yes there may be an instance where an infraction isn't due to malice, but it certainly doesn't feel that way. With the police, yes. With the staff, well maybe not all the time. It should be never.
I agree that infractions should not be issued due to malice. While I was an admin I had a couple of cases where I believed that was exactly why the infraction was issued. I reversed them and made it exceedingly clear to the mod that such conduct was not tolerable. They usually got the message. Those that didn't, didn't stay mods for long.
The point is to try and reduce the sheer volume of infractions and warnings, because more times than not it feels like walking on eggshells because you never know when the next trigger happy mod will walk by.
I do not consider the current rate at which infractions are handed out to be an issue. If a rule is violated, then the mod absolutely should take action. The issue lies in improving communication between staff and the usership about why someone is receiving an infraction, and doing so in a clear, respectful manner.
I do not see your proposed solution as solving what I see to be the problem; indeed, I think it is correcting a non-problem by exacerbating the problem that already exists. That is why I am opposed to it.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I am no longer on MTGS staff, so please don't contact me asking me to do staff things. :|
@Binary: I see that now. Thank you for clarifying. And since you were previously an admin, how many infractions (being impartial) did you find were wrongful (%)?
I'm not Binary, but given the number of infractions that pour through the Infractions dump-forum in the Mod Cave in the course of a week, I'd wager less than a dozen or two on average are questionable-to-wrongful. The percent is really low. And many of the questionable warnings/infractions are simply cases where action of a sort is justified but perhaps a different mod may have been slightly more lenient (a warning rather than an infraction, for example) where nothing may be reversed but the action could spark a dialogue.
As far as actual reversals? I'd say about 5%, but probably less since some reversals are the result of moderator error in setting the infraction up and they request a reversal immediately ("oops, made it an infraction instead of a warning, please reverse" and "damn, should've been for spamming, not flaming, could I get someone to reverse this please?" are not uncommon). In terms of actions found to be wrongful? Probably in the vicinity of 2%.
The point is to try and reduce the sheer volume of infractions and warnings, because more times than not it feels like walking on eggshells because you never know when the next trigger happy mod will walk by.
Ever wonder if maybe it's not the mods that are at complete fault here? That maybe some users just suck at following rather simple rules and are too immature/headstrong/dumb to accept their part in things?
Ever wonder if maybe it's not the mods that are at complete fault here? That maybe some users just suck at following rather simple rules and are too immature/headstrong/dumb to accept their part in things?
I'm not any of the above, and I have more than enough warnings/infractions.
And I think this would be considered flaming, saying some users suck, and that they are immature/headstrong/dumb. So what will come first? My warning for backseat moderating or yours for flaming? I bet I know the answer...
Also, I fought and won 2 of my 5 warnings/infractions. That's 40% wrongful. That % should be higher, but unfortunately there is no one higher to appeal to than the admins.
I'm not any of the above, and I have more than enough warnings/infractions.
And I think this would be considered flaming, saying some users suck, and that they are immature/headstrong/dumb. So what will come first? My warning for backseat moderating or yours for flaming? I bet I know the answer...
I only see 1 infraction and it was for editing a mod texted post. Are you one of those users who want to be a martyr for your cause?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Out of the blackness and stench of the engulfing swamp emerged a shimmering figure. Only the splattered armor and ichor-stained sword hinted at the unfathomable evil the knight had just laid waste.
I'm not any of the above, and I have more than enough warnings/infractions.
Mmhmm. Look, all I'm saying is that in my experience, all things being equal, if a poster gets an infraction it's because they were in the wrong and not because the mod in question was a trigger-happy power-tripping jackass. For every instance of a mod screwing up somehow, there are hundreds of completely on the level warnings and infractions given to users that deserved them. If you're looking to decrease the number of infractions given, you may want to look at it from the other side of responsibility here and think about the many users who earned their infractions.
And I think this would be considered flaming, saying some users suck, and that they are immature/headstrong/dumb. So what will come first? My warning for backseat moderating or yours for flaming? I bet I know the answer...
Okay then. :kanyeshrug:
Point of the matter is that most posters who appeal moderator action (from a warning right up to a ban) are simply incapable or unwilling to take responsibility for their actions. Whether because they aren't mature enough to look at things objectively (or too immature to see beyond an authority figure affecting their behavior), too headstrong to admit they may have been at fault, or just not swift enough to even realize their behavior was wrong at all. That's not flaming, that's nothing more than an observation of what the staff deals with daily.
We can make an issue of the staff not taking responsibility for wrongdoing all we want (a worthwhile venture, I agree, and one the staff have been infinitely willing to engage us on), but that shoe does go on the other foot as well. The membership here isn't without fault.
Also, I fought and won 2 of my 5 warnings/infractions. That's 40% wrongful. That % should be higher, but unfortunately there is no one higher to appeal to than the admins.
Good for you? Look, I don't know you or anything about your infraction history (to be honest, I don't really think it's very important here), but I don't believe most of your infractions must be unjustified (without getting into it here, I just can't see the mods issuing one member so many infractions that they couldn't stick, that'd just be asinine on their part). And I have faith that the staff aren't handing out justified infractions and wrongful infractions in equal measure.
I fought and won 2 of my 5 warnings/infractions. That's 40% wrongful. That % should be higher, but unfortunately there is no one higher to appeal to than the admins.
Those two Infractions weren't even from a "real" moderator - they were from a "mod helper," sort of a mix between a "mod intern" and a "mod-in-training."
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"...because without beer, things do not seem to go as well."
I only see 1 infraction and it was for editing a mod texted post. Are you one of those users who want to be a martyr for your cause?
Read what I wrote. "Warnings/Infractions". And I take them all seriously, regardless.
No one is trying to be a martyr. Definitely not me. I'm just a user frustrated with the system, and expressing my opinion here, because this is the place to do it. If I stop getting what I see as wrongful warnings/infractions, I will have no reason to complain.
Those two Infractions weren't even from a "real" moderator - they were from a "mod helper," sort of a mix between a "mod intern" and a "mod-in-training."
It's not my responsibility to ensure your staff is trained. I wasted my time having those two overturned, and regardless they were from your staff. Good attempt to downplay it with excuses though.
mikey does make points I can't argue. There are users that deserve what they get. Some times I'm one of those, but the times I am not I will fight it on a matter of principle, all the way to the end.
Read what I wrote. "Warnings/Infractions". And I take them all seriously, regardless.
You probably shouldn't considering Warnings are at worst reminders of a rule you've broken with next to no actual weight. They don't contribute to suspensions and are in no way as serious as an infraction (which in and of itself isn't even that serious).
If I stop getting what I see as wrongful warnings/infractions, I will have no reason to complain.
And if the staff don't agree with your view of what a wrongful warning/infraction constitutes?
It's not my responsibility to ensure your staff is trained. I wasted my time having those two overturned, and regardless they were from your staff. Good attempt to downplay it with excuses though.
I think he was just saying that it's probably not logical to hold the actions of people who weren't even fully staff against the staff proper. It's like holding a grudge against the police department because of the poor actions of a trainee on a ride along.
It takes time for a new mod to get the hang of things and sometimes they make minor mistakes. I know I did starting out. It's not exactly awe-striking that mods-in-training took inappropriate action, the process of training them means guiding them through what actions are appropriate for which situations. Sucks that you received minor penalties that weren't warranted, but they were ultimately overturned and it's really kind of a no harm, no foul sort of deal. Holding minor mistakes against the whole staff isn't doing anyone any favors.
It's not my responsibility to ensure your staff is trained. I wasted my time having those two overturned, and regardless they were from your staff. Good attempt to downplay it with excuses though.
The mod helper who issued those is no longer a mod helper. That may or may not be a coincidence.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"...because without beer, things do not seem to go as well."
@mikey: Getting enough violations to be banned won't be the end of my life. So yes, you are right however it's the principle of the matter.
And if the staff doesn't agree with me, then I will argue my case up the chain until I can go no further. If top brass doesn't agree, then I don't have a choice. But at least I tried.
Yes people make mistakes, and once again I will admit you make logical points. That was just two of them though. The rest were not from "trainees" far as I understand.
To get back on track w/ main topic: So it's becoming obvious even if someone could propose a working system, there would never be enough support for it from staff to ever be enacted. I don't think they would pass a rule that would work against there ability to freely hand out warnings/infractions.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
BUDGET DECK BUILDER SINCE 93'
Modern ------------------------- WU Azorius Titan Midrange
Commander ------------------- WUG Derevi, Empyrial Tactician
***Are you looking for cards priced below TCG NM "LOW" and with FREE SHIPPING? - Click HERE! for my sales thread - 485 Feedback 100% positive!***
To get back on track w/ main topic: So it's becoming obvious even if someone could propose a working system, there would never be enough support for it from staff to ever be enacted.
If someone would propose a good system with a solid basis of logic for implementation - which no one has - the staff would consider it. Time and time again the staff have put into action plans proposed by the membership, even plans that many felt trigger-happy, heavy-handed nazi-mods would never support. The common denominator for those plans? They would make the site run better and would ease relations between staff and membership.
Give them a good plan and a smart reason to utilize it, and chances are they will. Give them butthurt and complaints with no constructive solution and it's no wonder all you get is a brick wall.
I don't think they would pass a rule that would work against there ability to freely hand out warnings/infractions.
And that stands to reason. A very large part of the staff's responsibility to the site involves issuing warnings and infractions to members who've broken the rules. Make that process less efficient or otherwise harder and the staff is likely to scrutinize that plan unless there is a great reason for it.
But again, I think your personal bias here is clouding your arguments and it's not doing you any favors. You had issues with a few of your warnings/infractions and you assume that most of the staff had a higher rate of issuing wrongful infractions. They don't. You proposed a rather poor solution to the problem you perceived and the staff didn't want to implement it so you assume they won't use suggestions from members that may inconvenience the staff in some way. They would. I get the impression that you perceive things here a little differently than they actually are and it makes it seem like your arguments are motivated by bad blood and petulance. I truly hope that's not the case because if you read back through old CI/SYM threads, those users tend to not be taken nearly as seriously (unless, of course, the stopped clock hits that magic point that happens twice a day and such a user has a good suggestion lodged amongst the rest). Perhaps you should take a break, step back and really consider this issue from all its angles. What the problem is in a nutshell and what sort of solution would address that issue to the benefit of everyone involved.
@mikey: Butthurt? How about using civilized language when you talk to or about people? This is the 2nd post already. You sound like a high school kid.
Of course there is personal bias. Be realistic. Just like you have bias to protect yourself and the staff. Bad Blood? Nope. The admin I worked with was professional for the entire appeal process, it didn't go my way, and I don't hold that against him.
I was never around for any of these action plans you are talking about, so of course I assume there has never been one. Where are they now if they were ever enacted?
I understand the points you make along with the other mods, though I may not agree with all of it. In light of that, my suggestion is flawed from the perspective of making the site run better or easing relationships between staff and users. I admit it is a proposal based a little on personal bias towards user rights. However, I got to say my peace, and I can see it's an issue people knew needed attention prior to me posting here. I hope it eventually reaches a resolution.
@mikey: Butthurt? How about using civilized language when you talk to or about people? This is the 2nd post already. You sound like a high school kid.
Mmm. I'm sorry you feel that way. Butthurt is a very common behavioral description around here (and a common behavior, but I digress), used by staff and civilized user alike. I'm so used to seeing and using it now that I've taken it for granted that it wouldn't raise any eyebrows.
Of course there is personal bias. Be realistic. Just like you have bias to protect yourself and the staff.
Myself now? Maybe. But the staff and my actions while I was a part of it? Not as much as you might think. Time and distance has provided me a bit of perspective. At this point, I'm more about protecting fairness and common sense. Of course I would wish the staff to be on the right side of that but in any instance they are not, then no, I won't be protecting them.
Bad Blood? Nope. The admin I worked with was professional for the entire appeal process, it didn't go my way, and I don't hold that against him.
Sorry, I was assuming there was bad blood since in your sig you were decrying the mods and admins of this site as being unfair and encouraged other members to stand up to them. It's since been changed I see, but you'll forgive me if I interpreted it to mean you bore the staff some ill will as a result of your interactions with them.
I was never around for any of these action plans you are talking about, so of course I assume there has never been one. Where are they now if they were ever enacted?
Seemlessly integrated into the site's policies and rules. The very best example I can think of would be the policy regarding suspensions. The policy now of ever-increasing in length suspensions for repeat offenders was a suggestion made by members to replace the hardline policy of utilizing bans more often. The members wanted a system that would encourage shaping up not shipping out. And though it was a big change at the time, the staff implemented it. And now you'd hardly know the difference.
Sorry, I was assuming there was bad blood since in your sig you were decrying the mods and admins of this site as being unfair and encouraged other members to stand up to them. It's since been changed I see, but you'll forgive me if I interpreted it to mean you bore the staff some ill will as a result of your interactions with them.
You got me on this one. I was heated after an exchange with the staff, and I expressed that in my sig. In retrospect, not the smartest thing I could have done since it obviously betrayed the reasons behind my intentions. I have nothing against the staff.
Anyway, I appreciate everyone's time discussing the issue. It was informational reading the staff's perspective on this topic.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
BUDGET DECK BUILDER SINCE 93'
Modern ------------------------- WU Azorius Titan Midrange
Commander ------------------- WUG Derevi, Empyrial Tactician
***Are you looking for cards priced below TCG NM "LOW" and with FREE SHIPPING? - Click HERE! for my sales thread - 485 Feedback 100% positive!***
Seemlessly integrated into the site's policies and rules. The very best example I can think of would be the policy regarding suspensions. The policy now of ever-increasing in length suspensions for repeat offenders was a suggestion made by members to replace the hardline policy of utilizing bans more often. The members wanted a system that would encourage shaping up not shipping out. And though it was a big change at the time, the staff implemented it. And now you'd hardly know the difference.
Indeed. shinbatsu, your <year membership no doubt gives you your own valuable perspective regarding this website. Still, if you truly feel passionate about this cause, I urge you to read through the history of MTGSalvation. See what has changed, how and why.
Many of us are generally happy with what the community has created.
Increasing the inherent antagonism involved in an infraction is not a viable method to improve the staff-nonstaff relationship.
Separately, I don't think that there is really a need to "ease the pressure" off of nonstaff users.
Further separately, it's rarely possible to "prove" someone wrong or right with regard to an infraction. Very few infractions deal with 100% objective facts, especially the more common infractions for things like flaming.
But there's a check on the police (the courts) just like there's a check here (higher ups). The court determining that a police officer did not dot some i or cross some t may end in you not having to pay the ticket, but it doesn't (and shouldn't) result in the officer getting the same penalty you would have gotten.
Which is exactly why I think it's a bad idea and shouldn't be implemented. It will only contribute to moderators even more aggressively defending their infractions. Given that I see the problem more as clear and respectful communication about infractions, and not merely the volume of infractions, I believe your proposed system will make things worse instead of better.
I think that this is a little simplistic; it assumes that infractions are black and white. On the contrary, infractions are usually filled with shades of gray -- and due to the grayish nature of some infractions, I believe that your proposed system would make it worse.
Take for the example, "flaming". A moderator can easily find ways to show that a borderline inflammatory post should be infracted / warned for flaming. On the other hand, a global moderator / admin / owner may recognise the post is a borderline case but feel inclined to say that the offence is not so serious as to deserve an/a infraction/warning. In that case, you are essentially giving the arbiter the dilemma of: -
1. infracting the moderator despite recognising that the offending post was borderline inflammatory
2. rejecting the appeal even though the offending post was merely a borderline case
I do not believe that this is a good way to go about managing the site. Unless the moderator is doling out infraction like Halloween candies, I don't think anything should be done to change the existing system. It should also be noted that the process for users to appeal an infraction is not very cumbersome (as opposed to, say, challenging a parking ticket) and I have seen globals downgrade infractions after a simple appeal on their helpdesk.
You guys do bring up some good points, I will admit that.
I never flame, so I have no idea about grey areas. The many infractions I have received have been cut and dry, and justification based on literal statements in the rules. So I suppose this is why I have overlooked several considerations.
In my experience with my most recent battle, it was pointed out to me the rule is clearly stated, and it's black and white. So where is the grey area? I pointed it out. But no.
How many of you posting have actually fought an infraction by the way? Or dealt with a wrongful infraction?
Anyway, if a cop is having a bad day, decides to take it out on you and give you a wrongful ticket, you fight it and win, why shouldn't they suffer some kind of consequence? Where is the check and balance? And don't tell me it is so just take your word for it.
How do I know? I have done it in real life before. Wrongfully got tickets, came to court ready for war, won my case, dismissed and who really wins in the end? The cop just laughs as you just wasted several hours in court, and several days of leave. He goes and has a doughnut. Now what if there was punishment for his arrogance...bet your ass he would think twice about ticketing that next person...
Take that example, replace it with a moderator, and instead of a ticket, it's a frivolous infraction. But I do understand what you posters are saying, and respectfully disagree.
BUDGET DECK BUILDER SINCE 93'
Modern ------------------------- WU Azorius Titan Midrange
Commander ------------------- WUG Derevi, Empyrial Tactician
***Are you looking for cards priced below TCG NM "LOW" and with FREE SHIPPING? - Click HERE! for my sales thread - 485 Feedback 100% positive!***
I can see where you are coming from though but I'd like to stress that the analogy is pretty bad here. The size of the staff is nowhere as big as, say, the member of a police force for most major countries and any frequent abuses of power could be caught on easily, relatively speaking. Neither would the appellant spend "several hours" at the helpdesk appealing nor would you spend several days of leave. As for the doughnut part, I don't think it is our place to stop the moderator from having a doughnut.
With respect, I believe the point I made in my more recent post was distinct from the one I made previously.
Given that I was previously an adminstrator of this site, I'd say I've dealt with more appeals of infractions (wrongful or not) than most.
Why are you assuming that a wrongful infraction must be due to "arrogance" and the mod "taking it out on you?" Can you see situations in which two staff members might disagree on whether an infraction was warranted that might not be due to malice?
The first issue is with selective moderation. I received an infraction for flaming (or maybe a warning) in a thread from this mod because of a generalized comment I made (mentioned no names in the comment). Yet at least a dozen people flamed me directly by name in the thread...no red text on their posts for a flame or infraction. I brought this to the attention of the mod who gave me the red text...I was told to do the "adult thing" and report their posts since it wasn't his responsibility to actually look for violations, just to see what is reported and take action. This was also a thread he was participating in, so there is no way he didn't notice all the flaming go on against m.
The second issue is with undefined rules. I receive an infraction for breaking a rule that was not defined, and remains undefined right now. The mod even agreed that the rule was unclear, but has not clarified the rule and never removed or downgraded my infraction for breaking the rule that never said what would be consider okay by it or what would break it. That is like telling someone not to hornswaggle, but then never tell them what hornswaggling is and then punishing them when they hornswaggle.
In both cases, I contacted a Global Mod for the appeals process and was never responded to.
So my issues pertain to mods who warn/infract people for one thing and then do nothing to others doing the exact same thing in the exact same thread that the moderator himself is participating in and to mods who set rules and never define the parameters of the rule, almost as if they are waiting for someone to break the rule just to issue an infraction. Smells like entrapment to me.
And yes there may be an instance where an infraction isn't due to malice, but it certainly doesn't feel that way. With the police, yes. With the staff, well maybe not all the time. It should be never. The point is to try and reduce the sheer volume of infractions and warnings, because more times than not it feels like walking on eggshells because you never know when the next trigger happy mod will walk by.
@Solaran X: Thanks for sharing, and I'm sure your case is not isolated. At least be proud you stood up for your rights, and fight every last one to the end. Don't make it easy for them to get away with bias and ambiguous boundries.
BUDGET DECK BUILDER SINCE 93'
Modern ------------------------- WU Azorius Titan Midrange
Commander ------------------- WUG Derevi, Empyrial Tactician
***Are you looking for cards priced below TCG NM "LOW" and with FREE SHIPPING? - Click HERE! for my sales thread - 485 Feedback 100% positive!***
Obviously I didn't keep any records on this kind of thing so I'm working solely off of memory... but in my experience, not many. The two most common situations were infractions I entirely agreed with, or infractions I wouldn't have issued myself but understood the mod's reasoning for doing so and did not consider the infraction so clearly out of place as to rescind. I'd say the number of infractions that were appealed to me that I actually reversed was probably 10% or less.
In truth, most of the infractions I reversed were because the mod who issued them asked me to reverse them without any prompting on my part.
I agree that infractions should not be issued due to malice. While I was an admin I had a couple of cases where I believed that was exactly why the infraction was issued. I reversed them and made it exceedingly clear to the mod that such conduct was not tolerable. They usually got the message. Those that didn't, didn't stay mods for long.
I do not consider the current rate at which infractions are handed out to be an issue. If a rule is violated, then the mod absolutely should take action. The issue lies in improving communication between staff and the usership about why someone is receiving an infraction, and doing so in a clear, respectful manner.
I do not see your proposed solution as solving what I see to be the problem; indeed, I think it is correcting a non-problem by exacerbating the problem that already exists. That is why I am opposed to it.
I'm not Binary, but given the number of infractions that pour through the Infractions dump-forum in the Mod Cave in the course of a week, I'd wager less than a dozen or two on average are questionable-to-wrongful. The percent is really low. And many of the questionable warnings/infractions are simply cases where action of a sort is justified but perhaps a different mod may have been slightly more lenient (a warning rather than an infraction, for example) where nothing may be reversed but the action could spark a dialogue.
As far as actual reversals? I'd say about 5%, but probably less since some reversals are the result of moderator error in setting the infraction up and they request a reversal immediately ("oops, made it an infraction instead of a warning, please reverse" and "damn, should've been for spamming, not flaming, could I get someone to reverse this please?" are not uncommon). In terms of actions found to be wrongful? Probably in the vicinity of 2%.
Ever wonder if maybe it's not the mods that are at complete fault here? That maybe some users just suck at following rather simple rules and are too immature/headstrong/dumb to accept their part in things?
Archatmos
Excellion
Fracture: Israfiel (WBR), Wujal (URG), Valedon (GUB), Amduat (BGW), Paladris (RWU)
Collision (Set Two of the Fracture Block)
Quest for the Forsaken (Set Two of the Excellion Block)
Katingal: Plane of Chains
I'm not any of the above, and I have more than enough warnings/infractions.
And I think this would be considered flaming, saying some users suck, and that they are immature/headstrong/dumb. So what will come first? My warning for backseat moderating or yours for flaming? I bet I know the answer...
Also, I fought and won 2 of my 5 warnings/infractions. That's 40% wrongful. That % should be higher, but unfortunately there is no one higher to appeal to than the admins.
BUDGET DECK BUILDER SINCE 93'
Modern ------------------------- WU Azorius Titan Midrange
Commander ------------------- WUG Derevi, Empyrial Tactician
***Are you looking for cards priced below TCG NM "LOW" and with FREE SHIPPING? - Click HERE! for my sales thread - 485 Feedback 100% positive!***
I only see 1 infraction and it was for editing a mod texted post. Are you one of those users who want to be a martyr for your cause?
Mmhmm. Look, all I'm saying is that in my experience, all things being equal, if a poster gets an infraction it's because they were in the wrong and not because the mod in question was a trigger-happy power-tripping jackass. For every instance of a mod screwing up somehow, there are hundreds of completely on the level warnings and infractions given to users that deserved them. If you're looking to decrease the number of infractions given, you may want to look at it from the other side of responsibility here and think about the many users who earned their infractions.
Okay then. :kanyeshrug:
Point of the matter is that most posters who appeal moderator action (from a warning right up to a ban) are simply incapable or unwilling to take responsibility for their actions. Whether because they aren't mature enough to look at things objectively (or too immature to see beyond an authority figure affecting their behavior), too headstrong to admit they may have been at fault, or just not swift enough to even realize their behavior was wrong at all. That's not flaming, that's nothing more than an observation of what the staff deals with daily.
We can make an issue of the staff not taking responsibility for wrongdoing all we want (a worthwhile venture, I agree, and one the staff have been infinitely willing to engage us on), but that shoe does go on the other foot as well. The membership here isn't without fault.
Good for you? Look, I don't know you or anything about your infraction history (to be honest, I don't really think it's very important here), but I don't believe most of your infractions must be unjustified (without getting into it here, I just can't see the mods issuing one member so many infractions that they couldn't stick, that'd just be asinine on their part). And I have faith that the staff aren't handing out justified infractions and wrongful infractions in equal measure.
Archatmos
Excellion
Fracture: Israfiel (WBR), Wujal (URG), Valedon (GUB), Amduat (BGW), Paladris (RWU)
Collision (Set Two of the Fracture Block)
Quest for the Forsaken (Set Two of the Excellion Block)
Katingal: Plane of Chains
Read what I wrote. "Warnings/Infractions". And I take them all seriously, regardless.
No one is trying to be a martyr. Definitely not me. I'm just a user frustrated with the system, and expressing my opinion here, because this is the place to do it. If I stop getting what I see as wrongful warnings/infractions, I will have no reason to complain.
It's not my responsibility to ensure your staff is trained. I wasted my time having those two overturned, and regardless they were from your staff. Good attempt to downplay it with excuses though.
mikey does make points I can't argue. There are users that deserve what they get. Some times I'm one of those, but the times I am not I will fight it on a matter of principle, all the way to the end.
BUDGET DECK BUILDER SINCE 93'
Modern ------------------------- WU Azorius Titan Midrange
Commander ------------------- WUG Derevi, Empyrial Tactician
***Are you looking for cards priced below TCG NM "LOW" and with FREE SHIPPING? - Click HERE! for my sales thread - 485 Feedback 100% positive!***
You probably shouldn't considering Warnings are at worst reminders of a rule you've broken with next to no actual weight. They don't contribute to suspensions and are in no way as serious as an infraction (which in and of itself isn't even that serious).
And if the staff don't agree with your view of what a wrongful warning/infraction constitutes?
I think he was just saying that it's probably not logical to hold the actions of people who weren't even fully staff against the staff proper. It's like holding a grudge against the police department because of the poor actions of a trainee on a ride along.
It takes time for a new mod to get the hang of things and sometimes they make minor mistakes. I know I did starting out. It's not exactly awe-striking that mods-in-training took inappropriate action, the process of training them means guiding them through what actions are appropriate for which situations. Sucks that you received minor penalties that weren't warranted, but they were ultimately overturned and it's really kind of a no harm, no foul sort of deal. Holding minor mistakes against the whole staff isn't doing anyone any favors.
Archatmos
Excellion
Fracture: Israfiel (WBR), Wujal (URG), Valedon (GUB), Amduat (BGW), Paladris (RWU)
Collision (Set Two of the Fracture Block)
Quest for the Forsaken (Set Two of the Excellion Block)
Katingal: Plane of Chains
And if the staff doesn't agree with me, then I will argue my case up the chain until I can go no further. If top brass doesn't agree, then I don't have a choice. But at least I tried.
Yes people make mistakes, and once again I will admit you make logical points. That was just two of them though. The rest were not from "trainees" far as I understand.
To get back on track w/ main topic: So it's becoming obvious even if someone could propose a working system, there would never be enough support for it from staff to ever be enacted. I don't think they would pass a rule that would work against there ability to freely hand out warnings/infractions.
BUDGET DECK BUILDER SINCE 93'
Modern ------------------------- WU Azorius Titan Midrange
Commander ------------------- WUG Derevi, Empyrial Tactician
***Are you looking for cards priced below TCG NM "LOW" and with FREE SHIPPING? - Click HERE! for my sales thread - 485 Feedback 100% positive!***
If someone would propose a good system with a solid basis of logic for implementation - which no one has - the staff would consider it. Time and time again the staff have put into action plans proposed by the membership, even plans that many felt trigger-happy, heavy-handed nazi-mods would never support. The common denominator for those plans? They would make the site run better and would ease relations between staff and membership.
Give them a good plan and a smart reason to utilize it, and chances are they will. Give them butthurt and complaints with no constructive solution and it's no wonder all you get is a brick wall.
And that stands to reason. A very large part of the staff's responsibility to the site involves issuing warnings and infractions to members who've broken the rules. Make that process less efficient or otherwise harder and the staff is likely to scrutinize that plan unless there is a great reason for it.
But again, I think your personal bias here is clouding your arguments and it's not doing you any favors. You had issues with a few of your warnings/infractions and you assume that most of the staff had a higher rate of issuing wrongful infractions. They don't. You proposed a rather poor solution to the problem you perceived and the staff didn't want to implement it so you assume they won't use suggestions from members that may inconvenience the staff in some way. They would. I get the impression that you perceive things here a little differently than they actually are and it makes it seem like your arguments are motivated by bad blood and petulance. I truly hope that's not the case because if you read back through old CI/SYM threads, those users tend to not be taken nearly as seriously (unless, of course, the stopped clock hits that magic point that happens twice a day and such a user has a good suggestion lodged amongst the rest). Perhaps you should take a break, step back and really consider this issue from all its angles. What the problem is in a nutshell and what sort of solution would address that issue to the benefit of everyone involved.
Archatmos
Excellion
Fracture: Israfiel (WBR), Wujal (URG), Valedon (GUB), Amduat (BGW), Paladris (RWU)
Collision (Set Two of the Fracture Block)
Quest for the Forsaken (Set Two of the Excellion Block)
Katingal: Plane of Chains
Of course there is personal bias. Be realistic. Just like you have bias to protect yourself and the staff. Bad Blood? Nope. The admin I worked with was professional for the entire appeal process, it didn't go my way, and I don't hold that against him.
I was never around for any of these action plans you are talking about, so of course I assume there has never been one. Where are they now if they were ever enacted?
I understand the points you make along with the other mods, though I may not agree with all of it. In light of that, my suggestion is flawed from the perspective of making the site run better or easing relationships between staff and users. I admit it is a proposal based a little on personal bias towards user rights. However, I got to say my peace, and I can see it's an issue people knew needed attention prior to me posting here. I hope it eventually reaches a resolution.
BUDGET DECK BUILDER SINCE 93'
Modern ------------------------- WU Azorius Titan Midrange
Commander ------------------- WUG Derevi, Empyrial Tactician
***Are you looking for cards priced below TCG NM "LOW" and with FREE SHIPPING? - Click HERE! for my sales thread - 485 Feedback 100% positive!***
Mmm. I'm sorry you feel that way. Butthurt is a very common behavioral description around here (and a common behavior, but I digress), used by staff and civilized user alike. I'm so used to seeing and using it now that I've taken it for granted that it wouldn't raise any eyebrows.
Myself now? Maybe. But the staff and my actions while I was a part of it? Not as much as you might think. Time and distance has provided me a bit of perspective. At this point, I'm more about protecting fairness and common sense. Of course I would wish the staff to be on the right side of that but in any instance they are not, then no, I won't be protecting them.
Sorry, I was assuming there was bad blood since in your sig you were decrying the mods and admins of this site as being unfair and encouraged other members to stand up to them. It's since been changed I see, but you'll forgive me if I interpreted it to mean you bore the staff some ill will as a result of your interactions with them.
Seemlessly integrated into the site's policies and rules. The very best example I can think of would be the policy regarding suspensions. The policy now of ever-increasing in length suspensions for repeat offenders was a suggestion made by members to replace the hardline policy of utilizing bans more often. The members wanted a system that would encourage shaping up not shipping out. And though it was a big change at the time, the staff implemented it. And now you'd hardly know the difference.
Archatmos
Excellion
Fracture: Israfiel (WBR), Wujal (URG), Valedon (GUB), Amduat (BGW), Paladris (RWU)
Collision (Set Two of the Fracture Block)
Quest for the Forsaken (Set Two of the Excellion Block)
Katingal: Plane of Chains
You got me on this one. I was heated after an exchange with the staff, and I expressed that in my sig. In retrospect, not the smartest thing I could have done since it obviously betrayed the reasons behind my intentions. I have nothing against the staff.
Anyway, I appreciate everyone's time discussing the issue. It was informational reading the staff's perspective on this topic.
BUDGET DECK BUILDER SINCE 93'
Modern ------------------------- WU Azorius Titan Midrange
Commander ------------------- WUG Derevi, Empyrial Tactician
***Are you looking for cards priced below TCG NM "LOW" and with FREE SHIPPING? - Click HERE! for my sales thread - 485 Feedback 100% positive!***
Indeed. shinbatsu, your <year membership no doubt gives you your own valuable perspective regarding this website. Still, if you truly feel passionate about this cause, I urge you to read through the history of MTGSalvation. See what has changed, how and why.
Many of us are generally happy with what the community has created.