Prevented from reporting insults

[ChiefPointThief]

If you're willing to take some feedback from a different viewpoint, I think #3 is a bit harsh. You publicly asked for rationale on why you can no longer report and your activity is directly related to that.

Is how many reports op made throughout their history relevant to this ban? Is the % of guilty/not guilty reports relevant? Is the fact that op submitted multi reports before relevant to this ban? No, no, and no.

Nothing in the privacy statement claims they will keep that secret and, even if it did, you publicly requested some clarification. I don't think it was done in bad faith.

Hmm. This isn't the first time someone suggested that op asked for this. Did they? I even reread all their post leading up to the mods response. Maybe I'm missing something. All op said was that they thought they were submitting reports that followed the terms and that they were never warned that they weren't. They also expressed how there is no way to actually go against this ban because you don't have access to your reports. Nowhere did I see them ask for mods to post information about them that has nothing to do with the message they received for the ban. Several simple questions about the moderation policy are repeatedly ignored by the staff on a daily basis but yet there is time to post irrelevant stats about a users report history?

[Lady_Jane]

Is how many reports op made throughout their history relevant to this ban? Is the % of guilty/not guilty reports relevant? Is the fact that op submitted multi reports before relevant to this ban? No, no, and no.

yes, of course it's relevant. It speaks directly to the pattern of reports op was speaking about in their first post. how would that not be relevant?

Hmm. This isn't the first time someone suggested that op asked for this. Did they? I even reread all their post leading up to the mods response. Maybe I'm missing something. All op said was that they thought they were submitting reports that followed the terms and that they were never warned that they weren't. They also expressed how there is no way to actually go against this ban because you don't have access to your reports. Nowhere did I see them ask for mods to post information about them that has nothing to do with the message they received for the ban. Several simple questions about the moderation policy are repeatedly ignored by the staff on a daily basis but yet there is time to post irrelevant stats about a users report history?

No, op didn't ask for the information. Someone complaining about something being unfair is not going to ask for information that disputes that. However, once they posted about their reports, they really had no reasonable expectation for the information to stay private either.

[ChiefPointThief]

Is how many reports op made throughout their history relevant to this ban? Is the % of guilty/not guilty reports relevant? Is the fact that op submitted multi reports before relevant to this ban? No, no, and no.

yes, of course it's relevant. It speaks directly to the pattern of reports op was speaking about in their first post. how would that not be relevant?

Because the ban is for the last 5 reports so that is what matters here. Their entire history has nothing to do with the policy in question. It comes off as character assassination. Even in looking at the op history prior to the last 5 reports it isn't that bad. We can conclude that the last 5 reports were not guilty (according to some mod). Considering that you cannot be found guilty more than once wouldn't that mean all duplicate reports would be not guilty either way? So op history prior to the last 5 reports is something like 17 of 25.

No, op didn't ask for the information.

I'm glad we agree on this! I could list a ton of information people have asked for though (myself included) that never gets answered even though mods view these threads around the clock. People in this thread asked for more transparancy and for reports to be accessible. On several occasions I have seen people raise questions about certain policies that don't make sense and have their post removed. It comes across like bga is actually ashamed of their own policies.

Someone complaining about something being unfair is not going to ask for information that disputes that. However, once they posted about their reports, they really had no reasonable expectation for the information to stay private either.

Did they explain how op last 5 reports were not accurate enough? Did they dispute op claim that they didn't receive an outcome on their reports? Did they dispute that these reports were over a duration of a year?

[Lady_Jane]

I feel like you’re making several assumptions and we’re definitely looking at it differently.

Because the ban is for the last 5 reports so that is what matters here. Their entire history has nothing to do with the policy in question.

I would guess (although also assuming) that the 5 reports message is a templated message that everyone getting this restriction gets. So I wouldn’t take it to mean that the decision was based on ONLY the last 5 reports. I would only infer that they’ve met some minimum of 5 consecutive “not guilty”.

It comes off as character assassination.

I disagree. I believe it provides some context to the original post. I don’t see how it could be considered character assassination, especially if you believe, as your next comment states, that the history isn’t that bad.

Even in looking at the op history prior to the last 5 reports it isn't that bad.

This is subjective, isn’t it? I was curious, so I looked at my own history, and my rate is less than half of op. This doesn’t mean that op’s reporting is necessarily excessive. It could be that we have different bars for what’s insulting or even that I’m too lazy to go through the effort of reporting. Or it could be simply that we’ve played different people and happen to have had different experiences. It could also be that op’s reporting is excessive though. There’s no way to know what’s reasonable without being on the side where we’re seeing all of the incoming reports.

We can conclude that the last 5 reports were not guilty (according to some mod). Considering that you cannot be found guilty more than once wouldn't that mean all duplicate reports would be not guilty either way? So op history prior to the last 5 reports is something like 17 of 25.

I don’t think I’m following this part? They didn’t say how many reports were duplicates, only “multiple instances.” How are you determining these numbers?

I'm glad we agree on this! I could list a ton of information people have asked for though (myself included) that never gets answered even though mods view these threads around the clock. People in this thread asked for more transparancy and for reports to be accessible. On several occasions I have seen people raise questions about certain policies that don't make sense and have their post removed. It comes across like bga is actually ashamed of their own policies.

This part I don’t disagree with, but I would offer 2 thoughts…
There are seemingly an endless supply of forums with people voices frustrations and/or asking for information. I can’t imagine mods trying to respond to each. It would be like having to answer every report twice, and sometimes multiple times since I often see the same person post in multiple didn’t forums/threads.

I see this complaint often, that people can’t get information from mods, so have to assume there’s some truth to it, but I have a hard time understanding it. On the two occasions I’ve needed help or to question something, I’ve simply found the email through the contact us page and emailed. Both times I received a response and remedy in less than 48 hours.

On several occasions I have seen people raise questions about certain policies that don't make sense and have their post removed. It comes across like bga is actually ashamed of their own policies.

Rules on questioning moderations in forums are posted clearly, which again, I can understand and would probably do the same to avoid moderating everything twice. I’ve seen other posts removed for language, mentioning users specifically, etc., which break rules/policies for other reasons, but never for an otherwise benign post, simply questioning a policy. So I don’t see anything that would make me think they’re ashamed.

[wrldtrvllr]

I feel like you’re making several assumptions and we’re definitely looking at it differently.

Because the ban is for the last 5 reports so that is what matters here. Their entire history has nothing to do with the policy in question.

I would guess (although also assuming) that the 5 reports message is a templated message that everyone getting this restriction gets. So I wouldn’t take it to mean that the decision was based on ONLY the last 5 reports. I would only infer that they’ve met some minimum of 5 consecutive “not guilty”.

If the message is "Sorry but the 5 last reports you submitted to moderation did not manage to convince our moderation team (no ToS violations, or not accurate enough). You cannot write any other reports for now", what possible reason would there be for anyone to assume that it actually means something else?

It comes off as character assassination.

I disagree. I believe it provides some context to the original post. I don’t see how it could be considered character assassination, especially if you believe, as your next comment states, that the history isn’t that bad.

It didn't provide any context. Context would have been the reasons why they did not agree with the five most recent reports (and I would not have consented to any of the content of any of the reports I've made being publicly shared anyway). Stating my account information without specifying the age of the account, the number of games I've played, the number of reports any typical user might make, the proportion of reports overall that are not accepted, anything like that, made it evident that this was not intended to be helpful. Disinterring reports I made two years ago without bothering to mention that they were two years ago was even worse. Frankly I found it despicable. I absolutely did not consent to that kind of use of my personal data, and nothing that I can see in the privacy statements suggests that this is legitimate.

Even in looking at the op history prior to the last 5 reports it isn't that bad.

This is subjective, isn’t it? I was curious, so I looked at my own history, and my rate is less than half of op. This doesn’t mean that op’s reporting is necessarily excessive. It could be that we have different bars for what’s insulting or even that I’m too lazy to go through the effort of reporting. Or it could be simply that we’ve played different people and happen to have had different experiences. It could also be that op’s reporting is excessive though. There’s no way to know what’s reasonable without being on the side where we’re seeing all of the incoming reports.

Indeed. And that is exactly the kind of context that was not provided when they shared my account data.

[Mathew5000]

The last few posts (from ChiefPointThief and MrsHayden) make some interesting points but are peripheral to the really great observations and suggestions made earlier in this thread by ErikLevin and h_illes:

I would urge BGA or the mod team, whoever is calling the shots about this, to reconsider their policies. Those would be my suggestions:
- All users must get feedback about all their reports
- Any bannable limits to reporting must be documented
- Perma-banning people from reporting should be reserved to obvious bad-faith users, like submitting abusive reports.
- Restrictions based on submitting "too many" reports (but in good faith) should be temporary, if they exist at all.

He had 33 reports over 24000 games played, which makes it about 1 report per 700 games. No way that's beyond reasonable. If you think it is too many, that shows you are understaffed for handling moderation reports, and you should look into that instead of attacking the OP.

Also, if you block someone from reporting harassment for whatever reason, that goes against the policy of keeping the site family-friendly.

Also, you should be transparent about how reports are handled and what are the possible consequences, because right now it just looks like you are using site policies selectively as random excuses to not do your job instead of a site-wide, consistent, transparent approach.

We had one response in this thread from BGA administrator xate; it would be great for a further response from BGA in this thread to say whether on a going-forward basis any BGA policies will be altered as a result of the concerns raised above.

You have made 33 reports of which half were deemed Not Guilty.

In addition to this, there were multiple instances where the reports were duplicates of other reports from you, where we had already moderated and already deemed either Guilty or Not Guilty, and you again reported the same player for the same reason multiple times. This wastes the valuable time our volunteer moderators spend looking into cases and is unfair both to them and to the rest of the players waiting for the reports they submitted to be reviewed.

[RobertBr]

The last few posts (from ChiefPointThief and MrsHayden) make some interesting points but are peripheral to the really great observations and suggestions made earlier in this thread by ErikLevin and h_illes:

I would urge BGA or the mod team, whoever is calling the shots about this, to reconsider their policies. Those would be my suggestions:
- All users must get feedback about all their reports ...

...

I've been on the site a long time and I remember this specific issue being publicly addressed by the old site admins. They said that they did initially do this, but that their experience was that every single user, almost without exception, who engaged with them did so in bad faith. And, to a large extent, as someone who was around when contesting on the forum was permitted, that certainly looked to be the case. The draconian moderation, they argued, was forced upon them. And I think its worth noting that the OPs original posting is clearly misleading in this case.

[Lady_Jane]

The last few posts (from ChiefPointThief and MrsHayden) make some interesting points but are peripheral to the really great observations and suggestions made earlier in this thread by ErikLevin and h_illes:

I like this word (peripheral). Admittedly, I had to look it up to be sure of it’s meaning . However, my arguments remain the same here. I feel that these suggestions and assertions are, in some cases short sighted, and in others unfair judgements and assumptions.

Many of the suggestions/comments allude to hiring more moderators, adding work to moderators, etc. I’d like to address these by adding some perspective. Op has had a BGA account just over 4 years with 33 reports (minimum, dependent on how you interpreted the mod’s response). This averages out to about 8 reports per year. BGA has over 15000 users. Even if we cut that number in half, we’d be talking about almost 62,000 incoming reports each year, or 170 each day.

Now, according to the contribute to BGA page, where you can volunteer to be mod (because they are in fact volunteers), it says you have to complete at least 30 reports a week. This means we would need up to 40 mods volunteering just to handle the incoming reports (in other words, putting aside for a moment the suggestions of additional tasks).

Let’s say BGA were to adjust their “staffing” as suggested. Assuming most shifts are 8 hours, we’re talking about over 20 reports per hour. How many mods would you suggest they hire in order to handle the requested changes you’re suggesting? How much would you suggest they charge for users to use the site in order to cover these staffing expenses?

This is only my personal feeling, but I would prefer to pay less and brush off the nonsense of these impolite (replace with more appropriate word, that would only be removed by mods if I used it ) players, than to pay more for increased feedback.

- All users must get feedback about all their reports

Aside from the additional work, what do we aim to accomplish by this? If someone is upset about an interaction with another player, enough so to report them, how would they feel if they received a response that what they reported wasn’t considered rude or insulting? Or that their overall reporting is essentially too sensitive? Wouldn’t that just increase the number of unhappy individuals or those who post in the forums complaining/questioning?

- Any bannable limits to reporting must be documented

Do you mean posted on the site as policy? Or documented where? I agree that it should be posted somewhere, if that’s what you mean.

- Perma-banning people from reporting should be reserved to obvious bad-faith users, like submitting abusive reports.

I think it’s hard to determine what a good-faith user/report is as opposed to a bad-faith one. Some people are more sensitive than others, some have a hard time seeing their own behavior from another’s perspective, and I think we all from time to time can have a moment where something triggers us in a way that makes a situation feel much bigger than it is. I would have a hard time assuming someone isn’t reporting genuinely.

I feel like only restricting someone after 5 reports that don't meet their criteria for action is a good way of mitigating this.

- Restrictions based on submitting "too many" reports (but in good faith) should be temporary, if they exist at all.

[/quote]
I’ve asked this question previously (another user has as well) in this thread and haven’t received a response, but why are we assuming it’s a permanent ban? The message said “for now.”

He had 33 reports over 24000 games played, which makes it about 1 report per 700 games. No way that's beyond reasonable.

Again, reasonable is subjective and we don’t know the average frequency to compare.

If you think it is too many, that shows you are understaffed for handling moderation reports, and you should look into that instead of attacking the OP.

This is unfair and an exaggeration. There was nothing in that post that seemed to attacked op. It was simply context on their reporting habits. To say someone’s not doing their job is ridiculously jumping to conclusions without having all of the necessary information to judge the situation.

It’s also confusing to me that everyone who posts that this was attacking or trying to make op look bad, is also stating that 1/700 reports is not bad. If they’re not stating anything bad, why are we reading it as bad?

Also, you should be transparent about how reports are handled and what are the possible consequences, because right now it just looks like you are using site policies selectively as random excuses to not do your job instead of a site-wide, consistent, transparent approach.

I was with you on this one, up until “it just looks like…”

The moderation policy lists rudeness as a valid reason for a report. Examples that are listed include "zzzzzz", "faster!", "hurry up!", "play!".

If this is the case, I’m unsure of what type of reports are being submitted and found not guilty.

It is surprising to hear that users can permanently lose their ability to report abuse based on only 5 good-faith reports that a moderator simply didn't agree with / didn't find the evidence compelling.

Now we’re assuming that op’s reports are in good faith, and again that the ban is permanent.

Rudeness and insults are by nature subjective. What is perceived as rude can depend on language, culture, jargon, and personal opinion and mood.

Exactly

I completely understand that as a mod you get exasperated when looking at the tenth report of the day which is conspiracy theory nonsense. But a 5-strikes blanket response with no feedback seems disproportionate.

Somewhere in this thread, someone suggested that there should be a warning before the ban, such as after the 3rd or 4th insufficient report. This I think could be helpful. However, you would have weigh this with (as previously stated) the idea that the majority will likely take issue with being told this.
I feel like only restricting someone after 5 reports that meet their criteria for action is a good way of mitigating this.

- Restrictions based on submitting "too many" reports (but in good faith) should be temporary, if they exist at all.

I’ve asked this question previously (another user has as well) in this thread and haven’t received a response, but why are we assuming it’s a permanent ban? The message said “for now.”

He had 33 reports over 24000 games played, which makes it about 1 report per 700 games. No way that's beyond reasonable.

Again, reasonable is subjective and we don’t know the average frequency to compare.

If you think it is too many, that shows you are understaffed for handling moderation reports, and you should look into that instead of attacking the OP.

This is unfair and an exaggeration. There was nothing in that post that seemed to attack op. It was simply context on their reporting habits. To say someone’s not doing their job is ridiculously jumping to conclusions without having all of the necessary information to judge the situation.

It’s also confusing to me that everyone who posts that this was attacking or trying to make op look bad, is also stating that 1/700 reports is not bad. If they’re not stating anything bad, why are we reading it as bad?

Also, you should be transparent about how reports are handled and what are the possible consequences, because right now it just looks like you are using site policies selectively as random excuses to not do your job instead of a site-wide, consistent, transparent approach.

I was with you on this one, up until “it just looks like…”

The moderation policy lists rudeness as a valid reason for a report. Examples that are listed include "zzzzzz", "faster!", "hurry up!", "play!".

If this is the case, I’m unsure of what type of reports are being submitted and found not guilty.

It is surprising to hear that users can permanently lose their ability to report abuse based on only 5 good-faith reports that a moderator simply didn't agree with / didn't find the evidence compelling.

Now we’re assuming that op’s reports are in good faith, and again that the ban is permanent.

Rudeness and insults are by nature subjective. What is perceived as rude can depend on language, culture, jargon, and personal opinion and mood.

Exactly

I completely understand that as a mod you get exasperated when looking at the tenth report of the day which is conspiracy theory nonsense. But a 5-strikes blanket response with no feedback seems disproportionate.

Somewhere in this thread, someone suggested that there should be a warning before the ban, such as after the 3rd or 4th insufficient report. This I think could be helpful. However, you would have weigh this with (as previously stated) the idea that the majority will likely take issue with being told this.

[N_Faker]

A chat message report takes seconds to process. A single moderator would be able to handle them all easily.

The only reports that are work intensive are the cheating reports, and BGA has largely done away with processing them as far as I see. I don't blame them.

[Lady_Jane]

A chat message report takes seconds to process. A single moderator would be able to handle them all easily.

I'm sorry, but I have a hard time believing this, unless you're talking 180 - 600 seconds?

I'm sure there are some that are super quick, and others that are no where near it. If you spend 5 minutes reading the forums you can see post after post of people portraying a situation in one way, and then we look at the game in question or their history and see it's completely different. I would imagine it's the same for reports. So mods are having to review chats, games, etc.

My point though, was that adding steps such as responding to every report and engaging with those who don't agree, would add time. Then add more time for those who suggested they should respond to every request for information in the forums. Before you know it we've given each moderator a full time job (despite being unpaid). I mean look at how much back and forth we can do on this one simple topic.