Join TSR now and chat with students like youSign up now

TSR Moderation Discussion Watch

    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Xotol)
    We make it very clear that we don't accept insulting posts full stop. If you are being provoked, report the post and the mods will deal with it. The reason we do this is to stop completely off-topic insult wars taking place.
    When someone is getting warning points for replying to an insult, in a "treat those as you wish to be treated", where is the sense to punish them as harshly as the original flamer? There is no sense. It's just a dumb ass moderator abiding by some rules that he's been told. There are instances of the original flamer not even being punished. Discretion and an awareness of the surrounding situation would be most appreciated by everyone.
    • TSR Support Team
    • Very Important Poster
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by blue n white army)
    But then like most students I am probably connected to 2 or three different networks in a day. One of which is the university network which i'm on maybe 7 hours a day (there's a lot of tsr breaks lol).
    Once i'm on a uni network where presumably i'm not the only one accessing the site surely i can create as many accounts as i like and break rule after rule after rule ( if i wanted).
    For obvious reasons, I'm not going to mention any names; but there are a few certain troll who make it so damn obvious who they are. If I was going to troll on a forum, I'd do my best to hide my identity.

    With some, the posting style, content, etc. makes it obvious who they are.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by OU Student)
    For obvious reasons, I'm not going to mention any names; but there are a few certain troll who make it so damn obvious who they are. If I was going to troll on a forum, I'd do my best to hide my identity.

    With some, the posting style, content, etc. makes it obvious who they are.
    I really want to do an experiment now where i get given permission to troll and then create duplicate accounts and see how many you shut down haha
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by A Cat)
    When someone is getting warning points for replying to an insult, in a "treat those as you wish to be treated", where is the sense to punish them as harshly as the original flamer? There is no sense. It's just a dumb ass moderator abiding by some rules that he's been told. There are instances of the original flamer not even being punished. Discretion and an awareness of the surrounding situation would be most appreciated by everyone.
    Warning history will have a significant impact on the warning given. The reason one user may get no warning posts and another may get some for exactly the same type of post is that the latter is usually a repeat offender and has refused to listen to our infractions. There are plenty of times where a new user has broken the rules and immediately stopped when we've alerted them. On the other hand, there are plenty of times when users continue to break the rules even when we have told them, and that's where warning points will escalate to more severe levels.

    Once again, insulting other users is not acceptable in any circumstances. Even if someone else has insulted you. If you leave it to mods, they will deal with it appropriately. There is no personal agenda against anyone here.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Xotol)
    Warning history will have a significant impact on the warning given. The reason one user may get no warning posts and another may get some for exactly the same type of post is that the latter is usually a repeat offender and has refused to listen to our infractions. There are plenty of times where a new user has broken the rules and immediately stopped when we've alerted them. On the other hand, there are plenty of times when users continue to break the rules even when we have told them, and that's where warning points will escalate to more severe levels.

    Once again, insulting other users is not acceptable in any circumstances. Even if someone else has insulted you. If you leave it to mods, they will deal with it appropriately. There is no personal agenda against anyone here.
    I did not insinuate that there was a personal agenda, but rather the failings of moderation lie solely with the mods. You say insulting other users is not acceptable, but there is so much subjectivism going on with that sentence that I reject it completely. What is an insult, what is acceptable, these are things which the moderators have at their discretion, which I find is sometimes abused.

    To your first para, then why am I not banned? (yet) ?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by pinda.college)
    What I ask you is how would you like to see the moderation system improved? What do you not like about the current moderation system (I remind you to bear in mind Ape Gone Insane's message at the top of this thread before posting). Would you like better regulation and consistency of posts, perhaps elected mods would seem more democratic? Please share your thoughts and lets engage in some active debates. Hopefully some mods will also join in and voice their opinion.
    I've been a moderator on another website. We had a moderator's forum, and one of the topics discussed there was how to ensure that rules were applied reasonably consistently. We had discussions about it, and we had rows about it - some mods favoured laissez faire, others were strong on the discipline, some just wanted to do the job without it taking over their lives. We even had tools to monitor mod activity and performance. However, we always knew what our fellow mods were up to, we spoke up if a fellow mod made a mistake (premature thread closure was a common gripe), and we did it all quietly, behind the scenes. Mods who weren't a good fit to the job didn't stay long.

    TSR is much more sophisticated than the forum I mod'd. I'm sure our mods have all these measures in place, and more. We may not agree with every decision they make, but it's generally a thankless job, it's done by volunteers, and there are limits about how much consistency is possible or necessary. I say leave them to get on and do it.
    • PS Helper
    • Study Helper
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Xotol)
    One of the things I feel regular users should understand about modding is that a lot of what we do is a judgement call



    We don't have a hidden set of rules we play by. Every type of rule-breaking we warn for is displayed in the community guidelines or a section's specific guidelines. Can you give us an example of what you mean?

    Contradicted yourself there, though I'll admit my post was misleading.

    These judgement calls are exactly what I mean. Whilst I understand the situation, surely you can appreciate how frustrating it is for normal users? I'll hold my hands up and say I can't think of an alternative, but some transparency would go a long way to alleviating the resentment users feel when they receive a warning.

    An easy and common example would be the spam rule, the guidelines and rules simply say anything off topic, but the moderator who gives out a warning means any pictures they don't like.

    Or when a moderator has to make the call when a thread has strayed off topic, many users will be confused (despite being in the wrong) and not understand what was meant by off topic.

    Another example would be the differences in colloquial terms, for example some would find the terms Moron, *******ated, ******, or retarded to be as offensive as can possibly be, whilst others would not even see them as hyperbole. The moderators choose what terms are not allowed, there is no reference list for a regular user.


    I have alot of respect for the moderating team, and I don't say this to be resentful, but as one of the few people who has read the rules thoroughly, I can't help but feel a bit miffed that the majority of my warnings aren't covered in them.


    P.S.

    Completely agree that the perpetrators are rewarded and the victims of trolling/bullying/insults punished, but how can it be prevented? The trolls make a dual account and don't care about the ban, doubt there's much that can be done about it and users just have to learn not to engage.
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    Sorry this post is irrelevant, but someone on the 'Biology AS EMPA 2013' has provided people answers for task 1 and 2, the thread needs to be shut down immediately!
    • TSR Support Team
    • Very Important Poster
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Hal.E.Lujah)

    An easy and common example would be the spam rule, the guidelines and rules simply say anything off topic, but the moderator who gives out a warning means any pictures they don't like.
    How is the picture adding anything constructive to the discussion?
    • PS Helper
    • Study Helper
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by OU Student)
    How is the picture adding anything constructive to the discussion?

    There are many circumstances when a picture can add something constructive. A combination between a picture and text can have an extremely more illustrative affect, which is why most lectures involve power point as a minimum.

    Take this meme for example. The line on its own is fairly boring, but adding in a cultural reference makes it funny.

    Spoiler:
    Show

    Name:  tumblr_mdahhjzp9G1rkkrkho1_500.jpg
Views: 48
Size:  73.6 KB



    Or there are times when a picture can directly validate a point, for example if a discussion was going on about Sharia Law and someone wanted to point out that it was already in existence to someone who didn't quite get it:

    Spoiler:
    Show


    Name:  34010257.jpg
Views: 49
Size:  46.3 KB




    I wasn't saying that pictures always contribute to a discussion. But my point is there is no way a user can know if their picture will be deemed irrelevant by a moderator, it's made on a human judgement call. The simple truth is, the picture/meme use on the internet is a cultural norm' now, and TSR is actually alienating itself by refusing to adapt to that with at least some guidelines users can refer themselves to.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Hal.E.Lujah)
    There are many circumstances when a picture can add something constructive. A combination between a picture and text can have an extremely more illustrative affect, which is why most lectures involve power point as a minimum.

    Take this meme for example. The line on its own is fairly boring, but adding in a cultural reference makes it funny.

    Spoiler:
    Show

    Name:  tumblr_mdahhjzp9G1rkkrkho1_500.jpg
Views: 48
Size:  73.6 KB



    Or there are times when a picture can directly validate a point, for example if a discussion was going on about Sharia Law and someone wanted to point out that it was already in existence to someone who didn't quite get it:

    Spoiler:
    Show


    Name:  34010257.jpg
Views: 49
Size:  46.3 KB




    I wasn't saying that pictures always contribute to a discussion. But my point is there is no way a user can know if there picture will be deemed irrelevant by a moderator, it's made on a human judgement call. The simple truth is, the picture/meme use on the internet is a cultural norm' now, and TSR is actually alienating itself by refusing to adapt to that with at least some guidelines users can refer themselves to.
    100% agree with this, TSR needs to realise that a picture can paint a thousand words.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Hal.E.Lujah)
    Contradicted yourself there, though I'll admit my post was misleading.
    I did not. I was careful to put 'every type of rule-breaking post', and not 'every rule breaking post'. Yes, a lot of what we do is based on our judgement, but it is applied from the guidelines we have. These guidelines are visible to the whole community and everyone is encouraged to read through them.

    I can't speak for the whole mod team as I only have experience modding in D&CA (and I'm sure sections like Chat are very different), but, generally, if what you post isn't constructive to the topic at hand, then it is liable to be removed and alerted/warned. An imagine-only post that says something redudant or doesn't actually add to the discussion is spam. An insult (whether it's moron/retarded/***** etc) is almost certainly rule-breaking and the reason they might not have been removed is because a mod might not have come across the post, which is why we want people to use the report button. A several page off-topic argument (which I always see in Religion) is considered spam, but I almost never warn those users if they are actually discussing sensibly; I would only warn if they are repeat offenders in the past.

    All of the warnings you have received should come under the umbrella of terms we have for certain types of rule-breaking posts, and we try to make it clear in our warning comments why you're being warned. However, as I said before, we are currently in the process of improving our warning system, so things should improve soon.

    Ultimately, I can understand why you are frustrated at times, but that's why I ask for you (not you personally, but for the whole community) to understand the position we are in. If only there was some kind of machine that could take away human judgement and be perfect.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by pinda.college)
    100% agree with this, TSR needs to realise that a picture can paint a thousand words.
    Let's make it 100% pictorial. Words are so last-century.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Xotol)
    I did not. I was careful to put 'every type of rule-breaking post', and not 'every rule breaking post'. Yes, a lot of what we do is based on our judgement, but it is applied from the guidelines we have. These guidelines are visible to the whole community and everyone is encouraged to read through them.

    I can't speak for the whole mod team as I only have experience modding in D&CA (and I'm sure sections like Chat are very different), but, generally, if what you post isn't constructive to the topic at hand, then it is liable to be removed and alerted/warned. An imagine-only post that says something redudant or doesn't actually add to the discussion is spam. An insult (whether it's moron/retarded/***** etc) is almost certainly rule-breaking and the reason they might not have been removed is because a mod might not have come across the post, which is why we want people to use the report button. A several page off-topic argument (which I always see in Religion) is considered spam, but I almost never warn those users if they are actually discussing sensibly; I would only warn if they are repeat offenders in the past.

    All of the warnings you have received should come under the umbrella of terms we have for certain types of rule-breaking posts, and we try to make it clear in our warning comments why you're being warned. However, as I said before, we are currently in the process of improving our warning system, so things should improve soon.

    Ultimately, I can understand why you are frustrated at times, but that's why I ask for you (not you personally, but for the whole community) to understand the position we are in. If only there was some kind of machine that could take away human judgement and be perfect.
    It's interesting being a Wikipedia editor and seeing how Admins there deal with all these things. One thing that does happen on the 'pedia is that even small incursions of bad manners, like mild name-calling, etc, get pretty firmly cracked down on almost instantly. I suppose because of the world-wide nature of Wiki, the number of available admins monitoring discussion behaviour and editing behaviour per head of poster is maybe higher, plus they seem to be highly motivated. Maybe it's just easier as well as there is a lower volume of general trollage, although some debates become very extended and dramatic at times.

    It also seems clearer that most people get the rules, maybe because there are fewer very young editors around as a % of the editing population.

    The admins seem to have a very large battery of available techniques available to them on Wikipedia, including all the usual ones like secret admin-only discussion areas and threads, but also lots and lots of monitoring tools. They seem to be able to diagnose and kill off duplicate users very rapidly.
    • PS Helper
    • Study Helper
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Xotol)
    I did not. I was careful to put 'every type of rule-breaking post', and not 'every rule breaking post'. Yes, a lot of what we do is based on our judgement, but it is applied from the guidelines we have. These guidelines are visible to the whole community and everyone is encouraged to read through them.

    I wasn't insulting you, relax, if there's a distinction between every type and every -blank- I'm afraid I can't see it :dontknow:


    Anyway,


    All of the warnings you have received should come under the umbrella of terms we have for certain types of rule-breaking posts, and we try to make it clear in our warning comments why you're being warned. However, as I said before, we are currently in the process of improving our warning system, so things should improve soon.

    Ultimately, I can understand why you are frustrated at times, but that's why I ask for you (not you personally, but for the whole community) to understand the position we are in. If only there was some kind of machine that could take away human judgement and be perfect.

    That's exactly the issue for me, the warning system works by giving out warnings based on the ignorance of users. A user has to be given warning points before they actually learn about the rule.


    I completely understand the predicament, I just wanted to point out why there is that feeling of constant resentment. I genuinely have no idea if it even can be improved, but I know personally I will continue to feel disgusted by warnings rather than alerts to discrepancies not covered in any rules or guidelines, and I would probably discourage users to waste time reading them in their current state. All that's actually covered in them are basic mannerisms.


    As said, lots of respect for what you do, and how well most moderators I know do it. I know I didn't have the dedication to commit to such a frustrating and time consuming job
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Hal.E.Lujah)
    I wasn't insulting you, relax, if there's a distinction between every type and every -blank- I'm afraid I can't see it :dontknow:


    Anyway,




    That's exactly the issue for me, the warning system works by giving out warnings based on the ignorance of users. A user has to be given warning points before they actually learn about the rule.


    I completely understand the predicament, I just wanted to point out why there is that feeling of constant resentment. I genuinely have no idea if it even can be improved, but I know personally I will continue to feel disgusted by warnings rather than alerts to discrepancies not covered in any rules or guidelines, and I would probably discourage users to waste time reading them in their current state. All that's actually covered in them are basic mannerisms.


    As said, lots of respect for what you do, and how well most moderators I know do it. I know I didn't have the dedication to commit to such a frustrating and time consuming job
    I agree with the point in bold being a problem. Without violating the rules about discussing actual warnings, then I know that at least one type of offence is always dealt with a warning on first occasion, despite in my eyes it being ease to unbeknowingly break the rule, or if the rule is broken is a judgement call.
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by science-oliver)
    Sorry this post is irrelevant, but someone on the 'Biology AS EMPA 2013' has provided people answers for task 1 and 2, the thread needs to be shut down immediately!
    If it's still there report the post or create a post in "Ask a Moderator."
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Fullofsurprises)
    The admins seem to have a very large battery of available techniques available to them on Wikipedia, including all the usual ones like secret admin-only discussion areas and threads, but also lots and lots of monitoring tools. They seem to be able to diagnose and kill off duplicate users very rapidly.
    There are Mod forums which are actually very active, Supermods and Admin also have access to IP tracking and other tools that mean a surprising amount of dupe accounts are banned that normal members very rarely see as they don't often get above 5-10 posts.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Idle)
    There are Mod forums which are actually very active, Supermods and Admin also have access to IP tracking and other tools that mean a surprising amount of dupe accounts are banned that normal members very rarely see as they don't often get above 5-10 posts.
    I thought some more about the Wikipedia comparison. Generally, the standard of adminning is very high on it. I guess some of the other reasons (apart from the technical ones you mention) are that Admins on WP are democratically voted in and can be democratically voted off the job again; that there are elaborate and democratically decided-upon sets of rules and that the tag 'WP:some rule page' allows everyone to speedily see why an Admin has said something or ruled something and to discuss the finer points.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Wah wah wah another thread turned into a rant on sexism, give me a break.
 
 
 
Poll
Which pet is the best?

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Quick reply
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.