Reducing the Number of Inappropriate Reports

[Glass*Soul]

In another topc, a sidebar has developed discussing the number of inappropriate reports that are generated on this board and some suggestions as to how they can be reduced. By inappropriate reports, I mean those motivated by something other than the violation of a rule or guideline. I imagine that both our harried staff and those members who find themselves being dogged by inappropriate reports would be relieved to see these reduced.

This is my reply to a suggestion made by beastt here (http://christianforums.com/showpost.php?p=42024641&postcount=199):

beastt: I like your suggestion that the number of times each member has made a report be logged and displayed.

May I also suggest that when the "report" icon is clicked that a form appear with fields for (1.) the exact rule or guideline broken by the post, to be chosen from a drop-down box, and (2.) an exact quote of the portion of the post that breaks the rule. Failure to fill in both fields would result in the "send report" function simply bouncing the reporter back to the form. As the ensuing staff discussions will, we have been led to believe, eventually be open to both reporter and reportee for input, any editorial comment beyond these bare facts need not be included in the report itself. I believe this could cut down on the number of reports dramatically as it will quickly teach all of us what is acceptable in the way of reports and what is not.

How difficult would this be to engineer?

Bunced then suggested that this would not be difficult to impliment.

Does anyone else have any suggestions? If possible, let's wiki any suggestions as we go along. If you feel you can't, I'll try to keep up.

* * * * *

I also added in a suggestion here (http://christianforums.com/showpost.php?p=42103280&postcount=2) for a way of allowing the membership to comment in reports without it becoming a rehashing of the subject matter of the thread that spawned the report.

* * * * *

Crazy Liz has suggested here (http://christianforums.com/showpost.php?p=42103127&postcount=1) that thinking about the situation in terms of "inapprpriate reports" may not be the best approach. She suggests a discussion on what moderation should entail as a better beginning point.

* * * * *

Letalis has indicated that any suggestions involving the need for coding are unlikely to be implemented any time soon. In light of this, I have made two further suggestions as to how staff might persuade members making reports to include the two elements mentioned above:

By means of a site wide announcement and follow-up PM's after reports are made. (http://christianforums.com/showpost.php?p=42139513&postcount=10)
By means of comments in the report itself. (http://christianforums.com/showpost.php?p=42142874&postcount=15)...keeping in mind, of course, that these suggestions are being made in hopes of making open reports more palatable to staff.

[Crazy Liz]

In another topc, a sidebar has developed discussing the number of inappropriate reports that are generated on this board and some suggestions as to how they can be reduced. By inappropriate reports, I mean those motivated by something other than the violation of a rule or guideline. I imagine that both our harried staff and those members who find themselves being dogged by inappropriate reports would be relieved to see these reduced.

This is my reply to a suggestion made by beastt here (http://christianforums.com/showpost.php?p=42024641&postcount=199):

beastt: I like your suggestion that the number of times each member has made a report be logged and displayed.

May I also suggest that when the "report" icon is clicked that a form appear with fields for (1.) the exact rule or guideline broken by the post, to be chosen from a drop-down box, and (2.) an exact quote of the portion of the post that breaks the rule. Failure to fill in both fields would result in the "send report" function simply bouncing the reporter back to the form. As the ensuing staff discussions will, we have been led to believe, eventually be open to both reporter and reportee for input, any editorial comment beyond these bare facts need not be included in the report itself. I believe this could cut down on the number of reports dramatically as it will quickly teach all of us what is acceptable in the way of reports and what is not.

How difficult would this be to engineer?

Bunced then suggested that this would not be difficult to impliment.

Does anyone else have any suggestions? If possible, let's wiki any suggestions as we go along. If you feel you can't, I'll try to keep up.

I would like to suggest that the basic purpose of moderation should be kept in mind in this discussion. I have reservations about the definition of "inappropriate report" used in the OP of this wiki.

Here's what I posted about that in the other thread:

I don't know if the relationship between reporting and the infraction system is still a live topic here, but having just come to this thread, I'd like to make some observations about this relationship.

First, someone asked up-thread what is the purpose of moderation? IIRC, the definition of the word "moderate" was mentioned. ISTM, the purpose of moderation is to promote civil discussion. It is not to shut down uncivil or undesirable discussion. It is not to punish people for breaking rules. It is a means of facilitating discussion by helping it remain moderate in tone (though not necessarily in content).

I know several members here who pride themselves in never having made a report. I also have seen many complaints in this thread about "spite reporting" and about reporting a post just to bring a thread up for discussion among the moderators without specifying a particular rule violation. Personally, I have made reports of this nature. I have also, on a few occasions, reported posts that seemed to me similar in tone or language to other posts that had been reported in order to bring to staff's attention the disparity in reporting, depending on the poster's POV. When many posts stating one opinion are reported, while those stating the opposite POV (often, posts made by those reporting their opponenets) the staff may not realize the slant.

When I was on staff, I tried to look at the context of each post before commenting on a report. There were many instances of bait-and-report that I tried to work with my team to create appropriate and effective moderation techniques. Sometimes the best way to moderate a thread was for a moderator to post something substantive in the thread that engaged the discussion in civil and moderate language.

If the purpose of moderators is to keep discussion civil and moderate in tone, then I submit that a report should be viewed as a simple request for moderator attention in a particular part of a thread. If the purpose of moderators is to punish rule violations by issuing formal warnings and infractions, then a report is viewed as an accusation and request for punishment and/or censorship.

Personally, I think before discussing the relative merits and demerits of the new infraction and warning system, a discussion about what reporting means does have some relevance, just to shift the perspective of the discussion enough to see that the focus on punishment, rather than on facilitation, might be the purpose of moderation. If this is the case, then changes in the infraction system may logically flow from this.

I think those who pride themselves in not making reports have demonstrated efforts to keep discussions civil and moderate without making accusations to the moderating staff. Those who have made reports just to ask for some moderator attention (on other forums, I used to report my own posts when I did this, but I don't think the software here allows a member to do that) also are making an effort to keep a discussion civil and moderate, rather than make an accusation and request for censorship and/or punishment. Both the members who pride themselves on never reporting and the members who make reports just bringing a thread to moderators' attention when it looks like some influence may be needed to keep the discussion civil are working toward the same goal. Complaining about this difference puts the focus of reporting on accusations, censorship and punishment - exactly the place neither group wants the focus to be.

I think backing up and discussing the basic purpose of moderation might be a more productive activity.

What do you think?

[Glass*Soul]

Here's another suggestion that I originally posted in another topic, but perhaps it fits more here:

I normally find your suggestions naturally agreeable, logically thought-out, thoroughly considered and brilliantly articulated.

<snip>

I think your ideas are great and I'm even willing to consider that maybe you're right on this issue and perhaps I'm wrong. But I'd like to hear how you arrive at this particular idea.

Thank you for the compliments. :blush:

I Hope you don't mind that I snipped the middle of your response. I simply agree with what you've said. :)

I'm afraid I posted my little idea the second it crossed my mind and did not articulate it very well. I was not at all implying that members should not openly debate at length, even in sharp disagreement with one another, in the forums.

I was attempting to reply to CaDan's musings as to how we might open the reports back up to all members for both viewing and comment without making them yet another venue for the airing of differences in regard to the subjects of the thread from which the reports emerged, rather than allowing them to serve their intended purpose of determining whether a rule has been broken and, if so, what steps should be taken in response.

I found myself picturing a court room, in which many people are allowed to have their say. Yet, they are not allowed to address one another willy-nilly. For instance, a witness is not allowed to directly harangue the defendant in the course of the trial. There may be other venues in which direct communication between the two of them would be appropriate, but the court room is not one of them. Instead, all comments are addressed to the court in a formalized fashion. (That may not be the proper terminology. I was hoping CaDan could help me articulate what I was trying to say.)

I then asked myself how we could encourage that sort of decorum in a report thread and it ocurred to me that insisting that all comments be addressed to staff, rather than member to member, might go some small way to addressing CaDan's concern, and that in turn might make open reports more appealing to the staff.

This, of course, would be only in the report threads. Elsewhere on the board, debate would continue unfettered.

Thank you for bringing to my attention how sketchy the presentation of my idea was. I was hoping that it might serve as a springboard for consensus-building on the subject, by offering a compromise where it would be most helpful to the report process and the least harmful to the openness of the board. If you feel it has potential, please dismantle it and make it better.

[Glass*Soul]

Crazy Liz: I read your comments above while at work today, so I've been thinking about them. Give me a few minutes and I'll try to articulate a response.

[Glass*Soul]

I would like to suggest that the basic purpose of moderation should be kept in mind in this discussion. I have reservations about the definition of "inappropriate report" used in the OP of this wiki.

Here's what I posted about that in the other thread:

My concern is that the current draconian warning and infraction system makes what you are suggesting above, which in a more open system might work beautifully, a rather nerve-racking proposition. Since the new system was announced, I feel ice-water down my spine every time I get an automated PM indicating that a post of mine has been reported. What's more, not being able to see what happens when a report is made leaves me quite reluctant to use the report function in some of the ways you've suggested, for fear I might be causing someone far more trouble than I ever intended.

My suggestions are being made, not in light of an ideal, but in light of the system that has been dictated to us. When each and every one of us has only four infractions between ourselves and being banned, and we cannot see what happens when reports are made, the report system needs to be used very, very gingerly.

I would love to have the discussion you are proposing. I suppose I would enjoy it even more if there were any suggestion that it is wanted by those who have the power to implement whatever good ideas it might produce. Is that possible?

Truthfully, I have no idea how to proceed.

If all my suggestions do is demonstrate that we're in a bad place, as far as the governance of this board is concerned, if such awful ideas are being proposed, then I suppose they've done some good. :( :scratch:

[Crazy Liz]

My concern is that the current draconian warning and infraction system makes what you are suggesting above, which in a more open system might work beautifully, a rather nerve-racking proposition. Since the new system was announced, I feel ice-water down my spine every time I get an automated PM indicating that a post of mine has been reported. What's more, not being able to see what happens when a report is made leaves me quite reluctant to use the report function in some of the ways you've suggested, for fear I might be causing someone far more trouble than I ever intended.

My suggestions are being made, not in light of an ideal, but in light of the system that has been dictated to us. When each and every one of us has only four infractions between ourselves and being banned, and we cannot see what happens when reports are made, the report system needs to be used very, very gingerly.

I would love to have the discussion you are proposing. I suppose I would enjoy it even more if there were any suggestion that it is wanted by those who have the power to implement whatever good ideas it might produce. Is that possible?

Truthfully, I have no idea how to proceed.

If all my suggestions do is demonstrate that we're in a bad place, as far as the governance of this board is concerned, if such awful ideas are being proposed, then I suppose they've done some good. :( :scratch:
That makes sense.

I certainly don't want to cause anyone to fear needlessly.

I'd much rather work on better moderation that might mitigate the need for punishment, but if that's not possible, I don't know what to suggest.

I think the more rules we mke, the harder it will be to return to humane moderation, rather than adding rule after rule as bandaids to cover a flawed system.

Since the takeover of the board, there has been no posting of ideals the owner is striving for. The anecdotal evidence is that Mr. Dodd's ideal is whatever will make the most money. While I'm able to make suggestions from a community-building POV, a POV of Christian ethics (under various theories), an organizational development POV, a conflict management POV, and various other viewpoints that were valued by previous management, I know nothing about how to make a website more profitable. It's quite possible that ads are viewed and/or clicked more often when there is a lot of drama, compared to when there is a lot of serious and respectful discussion of controversial topics.

I have, for several years, pointed out that a community, a membership organization and a proprietorship each have different objectives, and so long as CF claimed to be all 3, there would be conflicts. I called upon Erwin either to commit to hosting a community or to stop calling the forums a community. Since the takeover, it has been made apparent that CF is a proprietorship and not a membership organization or a community. I again realize why I decided a couple months ago that I no longer had anything to say about CF policies. I apologize for butting into the policy discussions today, and will again bow out.

[Glass*Soul]

That makes sense.

I certainly don't want to cause anyone to fear needlessly.

I'd much rather work on better moderation that might mitigate the need for punishment, but if that's not possible, I don't know what to suggest.


I think the more rules we mke, the harder it will be to return to humane moderation, rather than adding rule after rule as bandaids to cover a flawed system.

Since the takeover of the board, there has been no posting of ideals the owner is striving for. The anecdotal evidence is that Mr. Dodd's ideal is whatever will make the most money. While I'm able to make suggestions from a community-building POV, a POV of Christian ethics (under various theories), an organizational development POV, a conflict management POV, and various other viewpoints that were valued by previous management, I know nothing about how to make a website more profitable. It's quite possible that ads are viewed and/or clicked more often when there is a lot of drama, compared to when there is a lot of serious and respectful discussion of controversial topics.

I have, for several years, pointed out that a community, a membership organization and a proprietorship each have different objectives, and so long as CF claimed to be all 3, there would be conflicts. I called upon Erwin either to commit to hosting a community or to stop calling the forums a community. Since the takeover, it has been made apparent that CF is a proprietorship and not a membership organization or a community. I again realize why I decided a couple months ago that I no longer had anything to say about CF policies. I apologize for butting into the policy discussions today, and will again bow out.

My frustration is largely that this isn't truly a policy discussion. The members here are in no position to discuss policy. Maybe we have some tiny bit of influence. I don't know. Maybe not.

In some miniscule, crazy way, dealing with CF under LeeD's ownership gives me a taste of the (seeming) powerlessness in the face of an implacable system of governance that spawned Jesus' teachings about turning the other cheek, walking the extra mile and giving up your cloak when your coat is required of you -- the sort of things that just might, chance against chance, put a chink in the armor of a totally slammed-shut system and crack it open so something transformative and redemptive can happen.

Yes. It's just a website. It isn't Rome. I can walk away any time. But that's where the crazy part comes in. This place is chocked full of Christians. So I keep hoping to see something...I don't know...uniquely Christian happening here. I want to see tiny, well-thought-out, utterly subversive acts of kindness and self-sacrifice finding a chink in the armor of this place.

I want to see it work. Right in front of me.

I think, if it would happen, if it would unfold, it would eventually begin to look more like your suggestions than mine. :( But not right away. Not yet. For now, I was just envisioning that if we could get the number of reports being made down to a minimum and find a way to keep the report discussion moderately formalized, then the idea of letting everyone in on it might be at least palatable, and maybe there would be some chance, albeit a tiny one, of getting reports more open.

I don't know....

I'm not very good at this... :(

[Moriah_Conquering_Wind]

a taste of the (seeming) powerlessness in the face of an implacable system of governance that spawned Jesus' teachings about turning the other cheek, walking the extra mile and giving up your cloak when your coat is required of you -- the sort of things that just might, chance against chance, put a chink in the armor of a totally slammed-shut system and crack it open so something transformative and redemptive can happen.

Yes. It's just a website. It isn't Rome. I can walk away any time. But that's where the crazy part comes in. This place is chocked full of Christians. So I keep hoping to see something...I don't know...uniquely Christian happening here. I want to see tiny, well-thought-out, utterly subversive acts of kindness and self-sacrifice finding a chink in the armor of this place.

I want to see it work. Right in front of me.

Kinda glad it came to this thread and saw this. You have hit the nail on the head about why Moriah keeps taking the constant stream of abuse from this place and cannot simply log off and walk away. Of course while that encompasses the policy system it also extends far beyond and outside of that to the daily interaction of the members here and how each treats one another. And of course anyone who knows Moriah well enough knows its definitions and expectations can only properly be described as twisted or sick, because it will not perceive the "pay dirt" of evidentiary Christlikeness unless or until it encounters an enduring love strong enough to not only withstand, lastingly and effectively, the inevitable hell and fury potentially unleashed by its inhabitants in due course but to make visible strides in overcoming that evil with verifiably divine caliber good of genuine Christlike quality (e.g. not the cheap human counterfeit & substitute which returns perceived misconduct with telling someone off, picking at every flaw real or imagined in their character, turning on them in public with scathing words designed to flay and belittle simultaneously, fending their just protestation off with despicable self-exonerations, and calling that "love") so as to actually GET somewhere (for a change) as a potential instrument of grace and vessel piloted by the Holy Spirit. (*whew* that bes one heckuva run-on there...)

Tall order for a website full of strangers on the internet, eh?
Well not if any of them truly bes indwelt by the actual (and inexhaustible) Spirit of Christ. As for the considered unreasonableness of the quest, well, it figures it bes doing no better in 3-d world, might as well give the virtual portal a shot seeing as how it opens into so many different geographical locations and potentialities all at once. ;)

But seriously, this bes a sick little endeavor, really, and a sick game its Inhabitants have played with it for 24 years, and a mobile prison, so why bes it posting here again? :scratch: ........... sorry, carry on folks, as ye were ........... just ignore the interruption ...... LOL .......... here we shall fumigate the hall and make it usable once more .......... :liturgy: :liturgy: :liturgy:

[Moriah_Conquering_Wind]

Now then, more on topic than before:

The drop-down sounds like an excellent idea. at least have various categories of violation from which to choose and then the reporting party can fill in a brief space what the issue bes in detail.

[Letalis]

Some good thoughts in this thread. I do have a suggestion: it might be better not to rely on coding solutions. I say this only because the techs have a lot on their plate, and coding issues can take a while to implement.

[Glass*Soul]

Some good thoughts in this thread. I do have a suggestion: it might be better not to rely on coding solutions. I say this only because the techs have a lot on their plate, and coding issues can take a while to implement.

Then perhaps an announcment could be made instructing the membership in the proper posting of reports. Then staff could compose two paragraphs to send to members who have lodged a report, one reinforcing a well-supported report and one reinstructing a member who has made an overly vague report.

Something along this line:

"Thank you for including a citation of the rule or guideline that you feel was violated and a quotation of the applicable portion of the post in your recent report."

"Staff wishes to encourage you in future, when making a report, to include a citation of the rule or guideline you feel was violated and a quotation of the applicable portion of the post. Thank you."

[Crazy Liz]

Then perhaps an announcment could be made instructing the membership in the proper posting of reports. Then staff could compose two paragraphs to send to members who have lodged a report, one reinforcing a well-supported report and one reinstructing a member who has made an overly vague report.

Something along this line:

"Thank you for including a citation of the rule or guideline that you feel was violated and a quotation of the applicable portion of the post in your recent report."

"Staff wishes to encourage you in future, when making a report, to include a citation of the rule or guideline you feel was violated and a quotation of the applicable portion of the post. Thank you."
Unfortunately, I have been informed that staff are not allowed to do anything like that.

[Glass*Soul]

Unfortunately, I have been informed that staff are not allowed to do anything like that.

Really? What reason was given?

Is it that they are not allowed to give feedback as to how members utilize the functions of the board, or in regard to the making of reports in particular?

[Crazy Liz]

Really? What reason was given?

Is it that they are not allowed to give feedback as to how members utilize the functions of the board, or in regard to the making of reports in particular?
You can see it here:

http://christianforums.com/showpost.php?p=42137496&postcount=12

I've asked for the actual policy to be posted here:

http://christianforums.com/t6664441-secrecy.html

[Glass*Soul]

Very interesting.

Well, not to be defeated, here's another suggestion:

My understanding is that eventually the reporter and reportee will both be allowed to access the report threads. The first moderator to deal with the thread could then use that venue to give feedback to the reporter, via pre-written scripts similar to those I suggested above, as to whether they did indeed include the two desired elements in the report.

[Crazy Liz]

Very interesting.

Well, not to be defeated, here's another suggestion:

My understanding is that eventually the reporter and reportee will both be allowed to access the report threads. The first moderator to deal with the thread could then use that venue to give feedback to the reporter, via pre-written scripts similar to those I suggested above, as to whether they did indeed include the two desired elements in the report.
Will it be necessary to give that kind of feedback to the reporter if they can see all the discussion in the report thread?

I am concerned that such a procedure might take away from a fair and thorough consideration of the post, and all reasons why moderation might be needed in a particular thread.

[Glass*Soul]

But seriously, this bes a sick little endeavor, really, and a sick game its Inhabitants have played with it for 24 years, and a mobile prison, so why bes it posting here again? :scratch: ........... sorry, carry on folks, as ye were ........... just ignore the interruption ...... LOL .......... here we shall fumigate the hall and make it usable once more .......... :liturgy: :liturgy: :liturgy:

Absolutely no need for fumigation, ever ever. :hug:

Thank you for your words. This has been, if not the queen of bad days, one of her retinue. It has cheered me up a little to sense that my post has resonated with another.

[Glass*Soul]

Will it be necessary to give that kind of feedback to the reporter if they can see all the discussion in the report thread?

I am concerned that such a procedure might take away from a fair and thorough consideration of the post, and all reasons why moderation might be needed in a particular thread.

I have no idea what report threads look like right now. If they include a copy of the report itself, this could be included in that post as a little addendum.

If reports are part of a benign process which truest purpose is to elevate the level of dicussion on the board, then we would not need to do anything of this sort at all.

However, if reports are part of a system of punishments with the final outcome the quick banning of members, then we need to do something to insist that reports be made only in response to an actual nameable rule violation, so that members are not caught up into such a potentially draconian process for having posted something vaguely "disturbing," as happened to beastt.

[Lindon Tinuviel]

C'mon guys... you can insist all you want, but nothing's going to change. That's not the way things run here.

You want to effect some change, you'll have to either impact LeeD's pocketbook or appeal to his better nature. You can see where the second option has gotten us.

[ravenscape]

Very interesting.

Well, not to be defeated, here's another suggestion:

My understanding is that eventually the reporter and reportee will both be allowed to access the report threads. The first moderator to deal with the thread could then use that venue to give feedback to the reporter, via pre-written scripts similar to those I suggested above, as to whether they did indeed include the two desired elements in the report.
My understanding is a little different. I've seen people, including some staff members at my level, say they think both reporters and reportees will have access to the reports once the technical gurus do their magic. But, my understanding is that only the reportee will have access. Not the reporter.

[Glass*Soul]

C'mon guys... you can insist all you want, but nothing's going to change. That's not the way things run here.

You want to effect some change, you'll have to either impact LeeD's pocketbook or appeal to his better nature. You can see where the second option has gotten us.

Who's insisting?

Beastt and CaDan both brought up interesting problems with the report system. Beastt had a post reported for a vague accusation that it was "disturbing." CaDan liked that reports were open after the reforms and wondered how we could recapture that without them becoming yet another venue for topcal debates. I'm tossing out some suggestions aimed at those questions -- not because they're particularly wondrous suggestions but because I'm hoping that if I can get staff and membership talking about it maybe a consensus of some sort can be reached and something positive can happen. Of course I think the odds are it's utterly futile. Still, there may be a small little chance. If not, at the very least, we'll manage to demonstrate that.

Either way, I'm about to freeze, so I'll probably be logging off soon.

[Lindon Tinuviel]

You too? It's 8 degrees here... and THAT WIND!

Due to the rules implemented by the highest levels of Staff, I've given up hope that there can be any change without revolution.

Due to the obeisance of the Membership in most of the forums, I've given up hope that there can be revolution.

In short, the only hope we have is for a natural disaster.

[Glass*Soul]

I'm probably going to be away from my computer most of the time for a while, due to a family situation, so I doubt I'll be participating in this topic for the next few days. After that, who knows...

I'll leave the board with a few questions for now.

Are some members abusing the report system? Do staff or members see this as a significant problem? If so, would it be helpful if the membership in general were to join the staff in attempting to find a solution?

If a way can be found to allow greater membership participation in the reports process without creating a contentious or confusing situation, would that be of interest to the staff or membership? If so, would it be helpful if the membership in general were to join the staff in attempting to find a solution?

[ravenscape]

A couple years ago, in a thread that I think The Bear started on the topic of spite reporting/report abuse, I suggested that there be a limit on the number of reports a member can make in 24 hours, much like the limit on reps. Maybe if a person knew that they had 3 or 5 or whatever reports they could make max that day, they'd save them up for real need.

This idea has problems, like limiting the reporting during troll invasions, but I still think it might be workable.

[Lindon Tinuviel]

Do away with the mandatory actioning of every Report, and you'll do away with the spite reporting / report abuse.

[ravenscape]

What do you mean by mandatory actioning?

[Lindon Tinuviel]

Maybe "actioning" wasn't the right word. But you have to look at, and act upon, every Report that comes in.

Stop doing that, let everyone know that you've stopped doing that, and you'll find the Report button being used less frequently and for more legitimate purposes.

[synger]

Interesting suggestion. How would we pull out the "legitimate" reports from the "dross", if the moderator team doesn't look at them, though? Even on reports that end up being no-violation, we have at least three mods look at it and agree that it's no-violation. I'm not sure how we could create some sort of screening/reviewing process to find the legitimate reports that would be any less involved than our current process.

[Lindon Tinuviel]

Interesting suggestion. How would we pull out the "legitimate" reports from the "dross", if the moderator team doesn't look at them, though? Even on reports that end up being no-violation, we have at least three mods look at it and agree that it's no-violation. I'm not sure how we could create some sort of screening/reviewing process to find the legitimate reports that would be any less involved than our current process.

Ah, it's the same old thing I've been suggesting--stop "working Reports", start "working the Forums". By all means, look at the Reports. They're a good barometer. But do the Moderating in the real Forums with the real Members.

[synger]

Ah, the "walk-around modding" model? Yes, I agree with that. Forums and threads that staff actually monitor and participate in generate far fewer reports. It's like the "beat cop" idea, in a way.

Great in theory, hard to do in practice. That doesn't mean we shouldn't do better, of course. But a gentle reminder now and then that we belong in the threads definitely helps.

In some ways, having the report folder right under your main category forum helped with that. I know that I, for one, was more likely to back "up" out of reports when I was done and then go "down" into one of the discussion forums. Now that the report forums are separated from discussion forums again, it's not as obvious. Like the difference between having a clear candyjar right on your desk vs. an opaque one on the shelf across the room. When it's right there, you don't think much about taking one. When it's elsewhere, you have to make a much more deliberate choice.

Another trouble is that working reports is like doing the laundry. It never gets completely done... there's always another load to do.

But when we can do it, it is definitely effective.

[Lindon Tinuviel]

Ah, the "walk-around modding" model? Yes, I agree with that. Forums and threads that staff actually monitor and participate in generate far fewer reports. It's like the "beat cop" idea, in a way.

Great in theory, hard to do in practice. That doesn't mean we shouldn't do better, of course. But a gentle reminder now and then that we belong in the threads definitely helps.

In some ways, having the report folder right under your main category forum helped with that. I know that I, for one, was more likely to back "up" out of reports when I was done and then go "down" into one of the discussion forums. Now that the report forums are separated from discussion forums again, it's not as obvious. Like the difference between having a clear candyjar right on your desk vs. an opaque one on the shelf across the room. When it's right there, you don't think much about taking one. When it's elsewhere, you have to make a much more deliberate choice.

Another trouble is that working reports is like doing the laundry. It never gets completely done... there's always another load to do.

But when we can do it, it is definitely effective.


I don't mean to get into a debate about it, but to me, that would depend on your definition of "effective".

This is only my experience, but probably three-quarters of the boards I frequent use the "walk around" method, so it's certainly not terribly difficult to implement.

[Crazy Liz]

Yeah Lindon. I agree.

Since you have your reps turned off I have to say it in public. :doh:

[Lindon Tinuviel]

Oh... you know better than to say anything in public! You'll get into trouble!

[Crazy Liz]

:amen:

[Crazy Liz]

I just posted this response in another thread & thought maybe it might be an interesting perspective from which to look at the problem of "inappropriate reports."

Its more than just staff being able to make distinctions. I would say in our area that 90% of the reports that are made are not by staff but by members who get hurt or upset. It is all about communication and getting down to the fact that we are a community and that we must work together to achieve goals. Fighting with each other doesn't do anything for us but to push progress back.

Clear concise and positive communication is what will move this community forward.
True. But when staff act on those 90% of reports, do they keep in mind why certain kinds of posts hurt or upset people?

Do staff know how to suggest to members other ways of expressing their opinions that might not be so hurtful or upsetting?

Do staff know how to say to a member, "That person has a right to express his/her opinion, and perhaps if you looked at the post from a different POV you might not take it so personally."

One of the problems with the anonymous report system is that while staff is usually aware the person making the report is hurt or upset, they have no tools to work with that person. They make a judgment about how to deal with the reportee, and the reporter gets no helpful feedback.

[arborvita]

subscribing....
Will be back later

[ravenscape]

Answering strictly for the Support Team, because I don't have the direct experience to answer for other teams. But I suspect other teams have similar if not identical practices and processes.

True. But when staff act on those 90% of reports, do they keep in mind why certain kinds of posts hurt or upset people?
Yes.

Do staff know how to suggest to members other ways of expressing their opinions that might not be so hurtful or upsetting?

We know that we need to explain why a particular manner of expression runs acropper of the rules, and we often suggest other ways to express opinions. Do we do it right and get results every time. I'm afraid not. It's an area where we can improve.

Do staff know how to say to a member, "That person has a right to express his/her opinion, and perhaps if you looked at the post from a different POV you might not take it so personally."
This we could do more, definitely.

One of the problems with the anonymous report system is that while staff is usually aware the person making the report is hurt or upset, they have no tools to work with that person. They make a judgment about how to deal with the reportee, and the reporter gets no helpful feedback.

Open reports made it much easier to work with both the reporter and the reportee on their misunderstandings, disagreements, and disputes. Unfortunately, perhaps because the reports were fully open, they often became circuses or verbal brawls rather than a place to reach understanding.

But, in many cases I saw that members changed their posting habits on the basis of the input they received in reports, whether from the Support Team itself, or from other members.

It's looks impossible to have that same kind of opportunity for greater understanding in even a partially open report system. But maybe looks are deceiving. Maybe the team members can bridge the communication gaps if we work at it.

The trade-off is this: The harder we work at reports, the less time we have to post in the forums we moderate.

[Crazy Liz]

It's kind of hard to get specific in policy discussions when your post can be deleted for "discussing staff actions."

It's not easy to discuss policy without discussing the staff actions that result from a policy.

[Amoranemix]

I have responded in this thread to posts from DISCUSSION OF ANNOUNCEMENT: New Infractions & Warning System (http://christianforums.com/t6400648-discussion-of-announcement-new-infractions-warning-system.html) that concern reports. The discussion about reports that took place there was deviated to here on January 1.

As long as we're on the topic of people who make frivolous reports let's take a look at an example. "I know I am making more work for us, but I am really disturbed by this post, and I think it should be looked at."
Now, of course, I have no idea who wrote this but there are a few things that can be deduced. The person making the report says they're making "more work for us", so this would seem to indicate that it's a staff member.Another inequality that disadvantages ordinary members compared to staffers is that the staffer can identify the ordinary member that reported him/her, but to the ordinary member the staff reporter is usually anonymous

Do staff members not receive the slightest hint of training anymore? Such a report should be instantly passed over without so much as a look at the post in question because the person placing the report doesn't seem to have any idea what or if, there was a violation at all. They just know that "they're disturbed" by the post. How can anyone ever be held to such an arbitrary and subjective standard?We were told that staff receive training that should benefit the members. If that is true, then most staffers seem to be bad students.

Can they please PM me and point me to where the rules prohibit posting any message or comment which "might disturb another member"? I don't mind saying that I'm a bit "disturbed" that anyone, especially a member of staff, would make such a pointless report.That is not required. They can simply decree the statement is a flame so that it is a rule violation and then they are entitled to delete it.
However, it is difficult to moderate well with bad rules. So staff may have to rely on other things when the rules fail them.

beastt: I like your suggestion that the number of times each member has made a report be logged and displayed.

May I also suggest that when the "report" icon is clicked that a form appear with fields for (1.) the exact rule or guideline broken by the post, to be chosen from a drop-down box, and (2.) an exact quote of the portion of the post that breaks the rule. Failure to fill in both fields would result in the "send report" function simply bouncing the reporter back to the form. As the ensuing staff discussions will, we have been led to believe, eventually be open to both reporter and reportee for input, any editorial comment beyond these bare facts need not be included in the report itself. I believe this could cut down on the number of reports dramatically as it will quickly teach all of us what is acceptable in the way of reports and what is not.

How difficult would this be to engineer?There should also be a record 'other' that can be chosen. I agree with Crazy Liz that not all reports that aren't pointing out a rule violation are bad.
I too think displaying the number of reports members make can be potentially beneficial. Perhaps starting a poll on that could be useful. The poll feature having been removed from this forum, a poll could be started at Suggest New Features (http://christianforums.com/f396-suggest-new-features.html).

I've never understood why such a system would be a problem for anyone unless they're ashamed of the number of reports they make, in which case, they need to apply some personal restraint. I think it would help to cut down on frivolous reports and to provide a warning to be very careful when responding to posts from people with an inordinately large number of reports to their credit.The more statistics staff have on people, the more statistics they can abuse. The meaning of the number should be clearly communicated or the number ignored by staff. We have no guarantee that either will be the case.

CaDan ?? : As to the reports issue, I think the open reports experiment showed some promise. The problem was mostly that fighting moved into new venues. But knowing that there were open complaints also caused some people to modify their behavior. How to capture the good that happens with open reports without the problem of simply extending fights into a new venue is a difficult question, but it is one we should explore.
Glass*Soul 214 : OK. Here's a suggestion. We could allow the reports to be open to all, but all comments must be addressed to staff. Members would not address one another. This might allow the necessary community feedback while somewhat discouraging further fighting between members.
I am not convinced, that would make much difference. Technically, what is the difference between addressing person A or person B ? A statement like “John, your accusation is ridiculous. You were the one harassing me in that thread.” could be modified into “Dear moderator, John's accusation is ridiculous. He was the one harassing me in that thread.”

I think a potentially fruitful alternative approach could be to involve the problem report posters in the search for a solution. It would require the reports to be opened. Then the problem posters can be identified and with the necessary amount of tact be coerced to participate in the search for a solution. Even more generally, finding a solution to the quibbling in reports would be easier if reports were open, so that the problem can actually be seen.

So what's so wrong with members discussing their differences? Isn't that what all of the debate sections are all about? If we can't allow people to discuss their differences then how can we even pretend that this is any kind of a community? Some people will always push the limits and even cross the lines.Members may discuss their differences, but should do so in a civil manner and what they are discussing should also be on topic. That restricts what and how it can be discussed in reports. I think it would be useful to take a typical problem reports, dissect it and identify the problems so that solutions can be developed. As it is we don't have a clear picture of the of the problem of bickering in reports. I debated someone in a report about whether a post was rule violating or not. By doing so we were providing staff with information on which to base a ruling, which was I think useful (I won :P), but we weren't bickering or continuing the debate of the parent thread.

This is excellent and makes total sense (to me). I've never understood why it's such taboo for the people enjoying a thread to well... actually enjoy it and discuss what they wish instead of being mandated to the nth-degree by staff who often seem to not be able to see past the rules.Staff are able to see past the rules quite easily.

Personally, I think before discussing the relative merits and demerits of the new infraction and warning system, a discussion about what reporting means does have some relevance, just to shift the perspective of the discussion enough to see that the focus on punishment, rather than on facilitation, might be the purpose of moderation. If this is the case, then changes in the infraction system may logically flow from this.It is quite common for people to discuss solutions before having identified the problem. Can we formulate what reports are for ? No, but that doesn't stop us from discussing how to reduce inappropriate reports.