Moderation statistics :)

How so? They have just said "No. Don't want to start a fight", implying that the stats would certainly create one (which is pretty damning). As others have pointed out, if senior management in a company did this, the company wouldn't last long.

This thread is just becoming hilarious and pathetic.
Someone asks for some basic numbers and stats which most other forums present.

This thread is just becoming hilarious and pathetic.
Someone asks for some basic numbers and stats which most other forums present. The result? Mods try to deny basic facts and desperately scrounge for a reason not to. Because that doesn't make the moderation look terrible at all

I think they've done a remarkable job of treating OP's arguments with exactly the degree of respect they deserve.

Do they? I don't know of any forum that does.

I've asked twice, but I've yet to be given an example of the many other forums that offer this data...

That's a crap excuse of a reply Explain how their points are valid etc. Just saying "It's good" is why I asked for you to expand on it.

Everyone has mentioned the benefits, and would it really be all that hard or long to do? Of course not. It would make people contend moderation less,

I think the fact that you haven't been black carded yet for wasting everyone's time here over something that really does not matter is pretty indicative of the mods not being the corrupt biased secret police-like villains that you're making them out to be.

Equals ****ing pipe.

Actually a lot of subreddit communities have a massive issue with downvotes - with some even removing them. I was just listening to a panel of community managers for CMAD talk about self-moderation and upvotes/downvotes - one guy said explicitly not to do it.

Upvotes and downvotes are great in theory, but they don't really work on TSR - especially in the debate forums as a lot of discussion on TSR is subjective. This means that the pos/neg rep would probably end up balancing out anyway and there's no point in that. If people are being negged all the time then it discourages them from posting and contributing to discussions, just because their opinion is unpopular to some. The current system allows users to give a thumbs up 'you're making a good post' to the poster, it also allows other users to see if it's a quality post in the eyes of others.

Post rep is often one of the first removed part of the forum software - saying this as a forum admin of another website.

Additionally - the amount of work you've suggested throughout the thread is stupid. I have enough going on to not have to deal with a mass of paperwork just to be more 'transparent' to the wider community - a lot of which would probably not even care. We have a place where you can appeal stuff and quite simply if you don't want cards then don't break the rules. Frankly read your post and consider whether you should hit that submit button.

Considering you work for a "multi million pound" organization you should be well aware of the positive correlation with beaurocracy and the size of a company ie: the bigger it is the longer things take to get done

But even at a small company like tsr there is still a huge amount of red tape because there are always risks that you don't want to have..

Considering reddit has a reputation system with up and downvotes and dwarfs TSR, I feel that the CT are using rather specious reasoning.

Everyone has mentioned the benefits, and would it really be all that hard or long to do? Of course not. It would make people contend moderation less,

But thinking about it, you mods know there is a problem. The entire moderation technique has changed (cars over warning points) thus there was clearly an issue with moderation. Hows the new system working out? Maybe some active input from the community would help seeing that they are the ones you moderate after all.

Oh right, that is far too good an idea isn't it.

Everyone being geoking? The only benefit given so far seems to be transparency, or variations on that. The point isn't whether it would take long first and foremost, it's whether it would actually be worth doing - and no-one, as far as I can see, has addressed the issue that the stats would be completely meaningless unless you could see AAM and/or everyone's community record.

The changeover to cards doesn't mean there was a problem before, it just means this new system offered some benefit or improvement that the old one didn't.

You want to give feedback/input? Great, go ahead, no-one is saying you shouldn't. Hey, there's even a section for it - the one this thread is in, in fact.

Which part of "you can bring back as much or as little data as you want" are people not understanding? The data is all there, in a thing called a database separated into smaller things called tables. A statement in a language called SQL can extract all of this information, whether it's just a basic summary, or more detailed explanations - the ones that people get issued on their reports.

The fact that you lot are all saying "Stats are useless, therefore we don't need to change anything" shows a very, very close minded attitude and you lot are most certainly not trying to think about how you could improve transparency at all.

Which part of "you can bring back as much or as little data as you want" are people not understanding? The data is all there, in a thing called a database separated into smaller things called tables. A statement in a language called SQL can extract all of this information, whether it's just a basic summary, or more detailed explanations - the ones that people get issued on their reports.

The fact that you lot are all saying "Stats are useless, therefore we don't need to change anything" shows a very, very close minded attitude and you lot are most certainly not trying to think about how you could improve transparency at all.

You're completely missing the point. I'm not saying it's not possible, and I'm well aware of how data is stored and queried

What I'm asking you is how do you propose they mean anything, without you being given access to people's community records, the rule breaking posts themselves, or the AAM where the card was discussed?

You could be told how many cards were issued, how many were reversed, how many people were banned etc etc, but that's not the point at all. Why would this in it's own right be remotely meaningful information, and not just a bunch of mildly interesting stats?

No-one is saying that stats are useless, therefore nothing needs changing - what we're saying is that without context, the stats are pretty meaningless: so you've got an option: either everything gets reproduced (Defeating the point of removing it in the first place) or the mods produce a load of paperwork to give that context (meaning it's not a quick process) - and as yet, neither you or anyone supporting this proposal has come up with a solution to that.

How about:
Card Issued | Offense | Explanation | Date

And at the end have a summary that includes totals etc.

How about:
Card Issued | Offense | Explanation | Date


And at the end have a summary that includes totals etc.



See above. I don't see why "everything" would be reproduced....What's your logic behind that?

Unless you're shown the post also, surely that doesn't really clarify anything?

So then you need the paperwork doing to produce the explanations if you want anything you can really draw info from (if you want to propose changes to for instance what is considered offensive, you need what was seen as offensive, not just the card comment "Don't make offensive posts"). You'd need to reproduce the rule-breaking bits in part at least if you want to draw any conclusions about the moderation standards - say in that you see 8 card issued in quick succession for offensiveness: without the context you don't know whether that's the mods being too trigger happy in calling things offensive, or an increase in people being genuinely offensive.

Okay well at least we've got ideas rolling, how about:

Card Issued | Offense | Explanation | Date | Contested | Overturned
Yellow Bullying Blah 200BC Yes No

So say 20% of the cards were contested, but only 5% overturned. What use is that data? You have no idea what the post was still, nor the point of discussion as to whether it should be reversed or not.

The percentage of cards contested isn't an indication of poor modding, nor is the number overturned, unless they're both given some context and meaning.