Prevented from reporting problematic behaviour

[FrankJones]

Keep your nasty toned comments to yourselves. Nobody knows which username I reported; I didn't say it and it's not relevant anyway. The questions still remain:

How exactly am I supposed to know whether or not any report I make has convinced the moderation team? I obviously only bother to report what I see as clear violations of rules. If nobody gives me any response of any kind, until they suddenly prevent me from making any reports, how the hell do you expect me to know what, exactly, you did not find convincing?

I don't think what Jellby said was nasty. It was obviously a facetious remark.

[nik592]

How exactly am I supposed to know whether or not any report I make has convinced the moderation team? I obviously only bother to report what I see as clear violations of rules. If nobody gives me any response of any kind, until they suddenly prevent me from making any reports, how the hell do you expect me to know what, exactly, you did not find convincing?

As has been said, this is something of an issue, and I don't think this user is the first to complain about feedback on reports, particularly when the report is dismissed. As Shivaware says, I don't see why there can't be some kind of area on BGA where you can see the feedback on a report as it pertains to you. I know there is some degree of the reporter is not necessarily given information on the punishment meted out (if that happens), which I think is reasonable.

That said, explaining WHY a report was not convincing is a lot harder. They can say, "this rule does not mean that" and with some people, they will just want to argue back and convince you they were in fact right, and their reading of the rule is the correct one. As it is, there are several discussions on these forums about interpretations of certain rules and people obviously see things differently. Sometimes you have to agree to disagree. But in those cases, red thumbs still exist - you don't like a user? Block them then. Now they're not your problem (unless you happen to meet them in a tournament).

But in this specific case? I feel like this is taking two different rules and trying to combine them in a way that I don't think is correct. While there is a point in the CoC about triumphalism, I suspect this is more about typical "hahaha, I am so much better than you, you're terrible" kind of comments, as opposed to someone having a username that MIGHT be able to be read as indicating they're a better player than others.

If you try to report someone for their username, the specific option you choose says:

"Blah Blah has an inappropriate avatar and/or username (pornography, politics, advertisement)"

While I don't think the three listed items are the only things you can report on (I think general offensive words can also be denied), I don't think you can do triumphalism in a username. I mean, the definition says "excessive exultation over one's success or achievements" which implies it kind of has to go along with a win. And if you're not winning, then your username suggesting you're a wonderful player in some way doesn't really mean anything does it? Personally, I probably wouldn't notice that someone's username was that unless it was really obvious, and if I went on to beat them, I'd probably have a little laugh to myself, and if they beat me, I'd probably (somewhat tongue-in-cheek) think, "well, fair enough". You MIGHT be able to argue it based on some kind of comment that references the username - eg. "that's why they call me thebestplayerintheuniverse, because I always win, hahaha". But on the username itself? I don't think so. Sure, just my opinion, but based on some other comments here, I don't think it's ONLY my opinion. I haven't seen anyone else yet saying that they think reporting someone for a "triumphalist" username would be reasonable. That's not to say there isn't, but it does seem to be a minority.

[MarkSteere]

You seem to have overly broadly interpreted the Triumphalism clause.

"Engage in provocation / triumphalism / defeatism... anything which is not fair play."

I don't think this applies to usernames. Even a name like IAlwaysWin wouldn't seem to violate the clause, because they might not win. In case they really did always win, maybe they earned bragging rights. But still not a violation.

The clause seems to cover statements made during play, like saying "I always win," after locking in a victory.

Some people study codes of conduct, see "violations" around every corner, don't tolerate humor, and try to use the moderators as their own personal police force to punish the "offenders."

Apparently, you haven't identified any actual "clear violations." But you HAVE demonstrated a clear pattern of making bogus complaints.

The question of "How do I know...?" may be a valid question, in general. But in your case, you have lost credibility with the moderators. They know who you are, they know what you're doing, and they're at the point where they don't even want to hear from you - at least not for a while.

My advice? Take a deep breath, and try to calm down. Don't take offense at perceived slights. And don't report any more "violations." Ever.

[Meeplelowda]

If the OP is truly trying to report just a USERNAME as violating the CoC for "triumphalism"--not profanity, not lewdness, etc.--it would not surprise me if they have submitted at least 5 other specious reports.

[Grimwold]

Or more ...

[wrldtrvllr]

So much baseless speculation, so many really nasty, snotty comments and so little in the way of actual responses to my question. I conclude that there is indeed no way to know whether or not the moderators agreed with any report, and so with any report you make, you risk being prevented from further reporting without warning or explanation.

[ChiefPointThief]

So much baseless speculation, so many really nasty, snotty comments and so little in the way of actual responses to my question. I conclude that there is indeed no way to know whether or not the moderators agreed with any report, and so with any report you make, you risk being prevented from further reporting without warning or explanation.

So I’m assuming you didn’t hear back from bga after this thread?

https://boardgamearena.com/forum/viewto ... 26#p177126

What was the resolution?

[Grimwold]

Keep your nasty toned comments to yourselves. Nobody knows which username I reported.
(...)

Liar, in the previous page

Out of curiosity, did you try to report a user that had "best" in their username?

That's "the one".
Clearly triumphalist. Obviously blatant.

Kayvns knows, you confirmed it.
Everyone who goes to your profile and do a research on 'Best' will get it, because there is only one ...

So much baseless speculation, so many really nasty, snotty comments and so little in the way of actual responses to my question. I conclude that there is indeed no way to know whether or not the moderators agreed with any report, and so with any report you make, you risk being prevented from further reporting without warning or explanation.

You lied telling no one knew the name of the profile.
You saying the comments are 'nasty, snotty' is also a lie.
So, when ou pretend to have a question, probabilities show it's just another lie.

Well, congrats, you managed to have your 15mn of glory on this forum, again.
*
You managed to report a player here so any other reading your comment could find him ... and the moderators allowed you to do so.

Well played. Be proud. You set up a 'precedent' for everyone wanting to shame a player on public forum.

*moderator edit: please do not insult others

[ChiefPointThief]

Well played. Be proud. You set up a 'precedent' for everyone wanting to shame a player on public forum.

This has always been the case anyway. As long as you don’t say someone else’s name. Where is this line drawn? Shouldn’t one be able to talk about their experiences here? Unless you play solo mode only your experiences will involve other people.

[Meeplelowda]

Well played. Be proud. You set up a 'precedent' for everyone wanting to shame a player on public forum.

This has always been the case anyway. As long as you don’t say someone else’s name. Where is this line drawn?

No, it's not just "as long as you don't say the name," because then you get juvenile situations where people test boundaries trying to figure out ways to uniquely identify someone without saying their name. The policy is about calling a specific player out, not the manner in which you do it. Case in point: someone recently posted suspicions about a player and said how many times they'd played them over the years. There was only one person in their profile who matched if he was telling the truth. My one moderation years ago was for using initials to indicate a player, rather than their full username. I thought that it was ok because the general public wouldn't know who it was, but people who closely followed the Tournaments sub-forum would. I accept that it crossed the line.

The line is drawn at being an adult and self-policing and not playing the game equivalent to "I'm not touching my sister like you told me not to. The stick I'm poking her with is touching her."