Unfair moderations

[ojomojojojojo]

Does anyone else feel like the moderators have been a bit over the top or biased. For example I reported a player who referred to me as a certain b word twice and they gave the player -1 karma. On one of my good friends account, she said something like " I want a sugar daddy" as a joke among friemds they closed her for 2 weeks. She got so upset she closed her account. Another friend of mine got suspended for a day for saying "cum on" instead of "come on". She is literally not a native English speaker and simple spelled the word wrong. I am wondering where does the line draw on these moderations.

I am here less to complain and more to offer a solution to admin and moderators. One solution being, maybe more than 1 person can have a say in moderating each case. For instance, it goes to one moderator, then it goes to a different moderator for confirmation. If their decision is the same, the punishment is valid. I think a major problem is that different moderators can have strong opinions of different things or a biased towards certain players and it becomes very much unfair.

Another solution I have which I should have mentioned first actually, is for there to be a definite system in which the moderators are following when choosing penalty. If a player is calling a female a degrading curse word. Harsher penalty is definitely deserved than decreasing his karma from 100 to 99. If you want to make BGA a happy and friendly environment than players who are actually antagonizing other players should be at the forefront of these penalties.

What do people think of these solutions?

[Giordano Bruno 1974]

My opinion is that it's hard to know what to think when people complain about moderating decisions because they aren't always entirely honest about what happened or how many times they have been warned in the past. I've started checking people's karma scores in these kinds of threads to see how seriously I should take these threads. Since your karma is 100% you are worth discussing this with.

I haven't had any moderation problems myself but there seem to have been a few instances of people who may have got moderated a bit unfairly. I don't know if it is simply that mod decisions need a second pair of eyes so much as French speaking people making judgements about how offensive certain comments might be in English. Calling someone a "female dog" is pretty offensive whereas saying "crumbs people" is not.

I can understand though why mods don't want people making jokes about sugar daddies on the website. If it was just between friends then who reported this comment? The girl who got a temp ban for mispelling "come" is a bit unlucky, she perhaps deserved no more than a warning.

[compte obelète]

I know I not supposed to do this, but there was a reason why I insulted someone "unfair teams", got moderated for 24 hours, while the other "Tortue...34" still running whiteout any little sanctions, I think unfair teams are more worst then a classic first time insulting.

Yeah I know I a not supposed to said anything in that forum, but is quite "unfair" people always on teams whit someone else who is also strong (two strong vs 2 weaks) is literally consider a "mauvais perdant", and it literally enter into defeatist.

[Jest Phulin]

From the comments I have read, it does seem that a second set of eyes would be an improvement.

Note: I have not been involved in the moderation system (giving or receiving), and am not affiliated with BGA in any way other than being a premium member. I may be wrong about any or all of the assumptions in this post.

Ostensibly, the moderation system works like this:

• Player X reports against Player A. This is the last involvement Player X ever has, not even receiving notification of the outcome.
• The report is sent to a moderator who claims fluency in the language, along with the moderation histories of X and A.
• If A has been moderated before, the moderator looks for borderline cases to repeat moderation. If X has been moderated before, the moderator looks for more severe infractions.
• A case can easily arise where X and Y report against A. This is treated as X's report against A, and then Y's report against A. Y's report will then be more likely to be moderated against A, since A already has a report history (from X).
• The moderator looks for the general tone of a tiny bit of the chat log, and/or for words close to trigger words.
• If they decide to moderate, they chose a punishment based on loose guidelines.
• If moderated, Player A receives a report. Player X never receives the outcome of the report, and if unmoderated Player A never knows that they were reported.
• Player A can challenge the moderation by emailing the moderator who decided the case. However, if the challenge is in any way aggressive it is ignored immediately. Even non-aggressive requests for clarification are often not responded to.

Again, this is what I've gathered, mostly from people complaining about the system. A couple of remarks have been reinforced by BGA staff responding to the complaints.


If this is how the system works, there are some issues.
If the moderation policy is not well-written with tight guidelines, enforcement and punishment will not be consistent. This is a leading cause of being labeled "unfair."
Responding to a moderation is virtually worthless. If not seen as a challenge to the decision-making of the moderator, it seldom gives clarity to what behavior is objectionable.

Suggestions: (And yes, I realize this will require an overhaul and more work for the moderators.)

• When a report is submitted, the chat log is stripped of player names. Instead of the log being
  <Alice>:I have something to say
  <Bob>: I have something to say about Alice
  <Charlie>:I want to talk too.
  the moderator will only recieve
  <P1>:I have something to say
  <P2>: I have something to say about P1.
  <P3>:I want to talk too.
  While the replacement of the author of a chat statement is trivial, extending that to messages (and accounting for misspellings/finger slips) is not.
• Reports should not include the report history of the participant. Guilt should not be determined by past behavior, although punishment should be increased for repeat offenders.
• Since reports are tied to activity that happened at a table, multiple reports at a single table should be bundled together. It is quite possible that multiple parties are in the wrong.
• Reports are sent to at least two separate moderators, who can respond "innocent | borderline | guilty | severe" or something similar. (Borderline being "I don't trust myself to make a clear decision on this matter, but can support an innocent or guilty decision from someone else.") If both moderators give the same or similar responses, punishment is either automatic or with tightly-defined guides.
• First time offenders get a detailed explanation of the decision. "While Player1 is in an unwinnable position, calling them a loser is not acceptable" vs "You engaged in insulting behavior." Repeats of the same type of offense do not need this extra step, but players who get moderated for two different types of offenses should have clarification.
• All players involved will recive notification of the outcome of the report, even if there was no punishment. This will let Player A know they engaged in behavior that was objectionable to someone, and Player X know if perhaps they are more sensitive than the moderators.
• Appeals are routed to a moderator not involved in the original decision. Only they can email the original moderator(s) if they need clarification. The first appeal always gets a response, even if it is a form letter of "the beginning of your appeal is aggressive in nature, it has been ignored without being fully read." Requiring responses on further communication would result in trolls, so there is no need for that.

Yes, a major overhaul and more work. In an ideal situation there wouldn't be a need for a moderation system. In an ideal world there wouldn't be a need for police to deter theft and violence either. But, since BGA wants a certain type of community, rules and enforcement are needed.

----
As a side not to all respondents in this thread: Please keep it civil and on-topic. General whining about a situation without identifying a specific item to take action on, or proposing a solution, is worthless. Insultive threads about moderation tend to be quickly locked, stifling further discussion.

[Jest Phulin]

I know I not supposed to do this, but

Then please don't. Please look at how many threads simply complaining about the moderation system have been locked. If progress is to be made, we need to stay civil and on-topic.

[compte obelète]

I know I not supposed to do this, but

Then please don't. Please look at how many threads simply complaining about the moderation system have been locked. If progress is to be made, we need to stay civil and on-topic.

I know, but sometimes, somes stuff are Not interpreted, like the game setings

[ojomojojojojo]

First off, Claude, can you please not post random off topic things here. No one knows what you are talking about.

Jest, I agree with everything you just said and I really hope the admin would take something like this into consideration and improve the moderation policies. I especially like the part about names being taken out of the equation to remove biased and just look at the matter at hand. Its very unfair to observe factors such as history when players are being mistreated. Imagine you are being abused at home and when you report it to police they ignore it because you have a few speeding tickets.

I hope this thread won't be locked and at least the things said here will be taken into account. We are all appreciating this website. The admin should take the users into consideration and not let pride get the vest of them. These are the people that are contributing to the success of the website.

[N_Faker]

• Player X reports against Player A. This is the last involvement Player X ever has, not even receiving notification of the outcome.
• If moderated, Player A receives a report. Player X never receives the outcome of the report, and if unmoderated Player A never knows that they were reported.

Report authors may view any reports they have sent via the profile pages of those they report. They may update themselves of the status of the report that way. They aren't notified of any changes in the report.

[Giordano Bruno 1974]

• Player X reports against Player A. This is the last involvement Player X ever has, not even receiving notification of the outcome.
• If moderated, Player A receives a report. Player X never receives the outcome of the report, and if unmoderated Player A never knows that they were reported.

Report authors may view any reports they have sent via the profile pages of those they report. They may update themselves of the status of the report that way. They aren't notified of any changes in the report.

I've only ever reported the one person. The report hadn't been dealt with a few days afterwards when I checked. I don't know what came of it. Maybe I was being oversensitive (though I doubt it having heard some other stories of people who did get karma hits / temp bans). But I would have liked to know what the outcome was, not necessarily the punishment (if any), just some kind of acknowledgement of whether I was right to report the player or not.

[N_Faker]

Suggestions: (And yes, I realize this will require an overhaul and more work for the moderators.)

• When a report is submitted, the chat log is stripped of player names. Instead of the log being
  <Alice>:I have something to say
  <Bob>: I have something to say about Alice
  <Charlie>:I want to talk too.
  the moderator will only recieve
  <P1>:I have something to say
  <P2>: I have something to say about P1.
  <P3>:I want to talk too.
  While the replacement of the author of a chat statement is trivial, extending that to messages (and accounting for misspellings/finger slips) is not.
• Reports should not include the report history of the participant. Guilt should not be determined by past behavior, although punishment should be increased for repeat offenders.

These suggestions will likely only be hindrances with questionable benefit. If a moderator's objectivity may be in question they should just defer the report to another moderator. "Guilt should not be determined by past behavior", yes.

• Since reports are tied to activity that happened at a table, multiple reports at a single table should be bundled together. It is quite possible that multiple parties are in the wrong.

It would be convenient if same table reports had links to each other. Anything more complex may just introduce errors.

• All players involved will recive notification of the outcome of the report, even if there was no punishment. This will let Player A know they engaged in behavior that was objectionable to someone, and Player X know if perhaps they are more sensitive than the moderators.

So many people engage in retaliatory actions, I do not believe it would be an improvement to notify the accused of 'not guilty' verdicts. If the accused engages in borderline objectionable behavior then a warning can be given.