Prevented from reporting insults

[N_Faker]

Users are explicitly required to include the offending chat messages in their report. Then and now, the only difference is that users were required to copy/past them into the report themselves while now they are required to select the messages to attach to the report.

Anything outside the report or duplicates thereof would be inconsequential.

So mods are having to review chats, games, etc.

No, even if they said something that would be moderated elsewhere, it doesn't matter. If the users at the table took no issue then, then there is no issue.
-

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

I was a moderator. I do mean seconds, as in 10 seconds.

[ChiefPointThief]

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.

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.

And you won't see these post questioning the policy because they remove them But I pop into the forums frequently and I've seen the same issue be raised by several posters and they were all erased which leads me to believe bga REALLY doesn't want that topic being discussed.

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

This is subjective, isn’t it? 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.

From a context standpoint sure. None of us know what type of reports op was submitting. That is part of the point though. The response didn't really give any context. Our exchange is a perfect example of how you could look at a not guilty verdict with a grain of salt. We both read the exact same message from the admin and came up with two different verdicts. Just like two different mods could do the same.

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?

Correct! They didn't say exactly how many were duplicates. Multiple could mean any number more than 1. That is why I said "something like" and just used 3 (a median #). Op has 33 total reports. Their history prior to this offense is 28 reports. Considering at bare min 2 are multi reports (i used 3) that would mean about 17 of 25 of their reports were guilty. You also have to consider questionable non guilty verdicts. From a statistically viewpoint it isn't as bad as it was made out to seem if op report "pattern" is being questioned. Just because I saw through what I believed was character assassination doesn't mean it wasn't an attempt.

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.

This is the case and I said the same thing . Considering this I don't understand bga complaining about # of reports when they want people to submit a report because someone said "play" to them.

https://boardgamearena.com/doc/Moderati ... d%20guilty.

So mods are having to review chats, games, etc.

No, even if they said something that would be moderated elsewhere, it doesn't matter. If the users at the table took no issue then, then there is no issue.

Yeah I've seen several situations that indicated mods don't even look at the entirety of the situation. My friend was moderated for saying something about herself

[N_Faker]

So mods are having to review chats, games, etc.

No, even if they said something that would be moderated elsewhere, it doesn't matter. If the users at the table took no issue then, then there is no issue.

Yeah I've seen several situations that indicated mods don't even look at the entirety of the situation. My friend was moderated for saying something about herself

Unless there are strong reasons to believe that it was self-deprecation, I would probably say that it is a fair judgement.

[ErikLevin]

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.”

It was stated here:

That's a bit of an exaggeration, no? They said you can't report for now and you took that to mean "never again"?

It is a permanent block on reporting.

"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."

This is applied automatically after 5 reports in a row are judged as 'not guilty'.

The context that the ban is permanent is important to all my points in my post.

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.

To be clear, I am assuming nothing of the sort. We have not seen anything in this thread suggesting otherwise, but it doesn't matter. My points are not about OP in particular, but about the policies in general.

This is what we have been told, in this thread:
- Users do not get any feedback whatsoever on submitted reports.
- When 5 reports in a row have been closed as "not guilty", a user is banned from submitting any more reports.
- This ban is permanent.
- There is no prior warning or feedback before the ban.

If these statements are correct, well, see my original post for how I feel about that.
If any of these statements are a misunderstanding, it would be great if BGA / the mods would come forward with clarifications.

[N_Faker]

Also in regards to duplicate reports. In many cases a user may be reported multiple times for the same offense by multiple people, after it has been processed, 1 report will be 'guilty' while all other reports will be closed as 'not guilty'. I'm unsure if this was altered not to count toward the 5 'not guilty' limit in the end. And may be a point of review in regards to OP.

[Lady_Jane]

thanks to everyone for info/clarifications. i stand corrected on several points

[h_illes]

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.

15000 for the number of BGA users is off by several magnitudes, even if you want to consider only 'active' users.

Your methodology is also flawed. You take one player, then project the number of games they played to all users. This will have a large error unless the single user you consider happens to be about average, abd the OP definitely plays more than the average with 24000 games over 4 years. Instead, it would be more accurate to consider the total number of games played by all players. It says on the 'about BGA' page that ~7.5 million games are played per month. With 1 report per 700 games, that would bring it to ~360 reports per day, and going with the former mod's 10 second per report estimate, dealing with that would take 1 hour of moderation work per day. I stand by my statement that that is no way beyond reasonable.

[N_Faker]

...and going with the former mod's 10 second per report estimate...

That is specifically for 'insult' reports, of which the majority or reports are.

[Lady_Jane]

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.

15000 for the number of BGA users is off by several magnitudes, even if you want to consider only 'active' users.

Your methodology is also flawed. You take one player, then project the number of games they played to all users. This will have a large error unless the single user you consider happens to be about average, abd the OP definitely plays more than the average with 24000 games over 4 years. Instead, it would be more accurate to consider the total number of games played by all players. It says on the 'about BGA' page that ~7.5 million games are played per month. With 1 report per 700 games, that would bring it to ~360 reports per day, and going with the former mod's 10 second per report estimate, dealing with that would take 1 hour of moderation work per day. I stand by my statement that that is no way beyond reasonable.

Correct. I knew expanding op's numbers to all users wouldn't necessarily be accurate, which is why I cut the number in half, to go with a very low estimate. Interestingly, if you look at your calculation and mine, they are very similar (340 vs. 360/day) but with yours slightly higher. Still, projecting a similar reporting rate to all users is no less flawed than projecting a similar number of games. Regardless, it's a moot point now, since n_Faker clarified the amount of time they take and I already stated that I stood corrected.

[h_illes]

Still, projecting a similar reporting rate to all users is no less flawed than projecting a similar number of games. Regardless, it's a moot point now, since n_Faker clarified the amount of time they take and I already stated that I stood corrected.

I am not assuming that everyone submits reports at the given rate. If they actually do, then my calculation is a good estimate; otherwise, if some (in reality, likely most) users submit reports at a lower rate, my calculation merely provides an upper bound, and then the situation is even better.

Also in regards to duplicate reports. In many cases a user may be reported multiple times for the same offense by multiple people, after it has been processed, 1 report will be 'guilty' while all other reports will be closed as 'not guilty'. I'm unsure if this was altered not to count toward the 5 'not guilty' limit in the end. And may be a point of review in regards to OP.

It would be total nonsense and completely unfair if such reports count towards the limit. However, without any official clarification, we can't tell for sure.

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

xate, please provide some clarifications on how 'not guilty' decisions are counted.