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.
Equally surprising that 33 reports over many years and tens of thousands of games, of which
half were accepted, can be considered a ban-worthy amount in and of itself.
Rudeness and insults are by nature subjective. What is perceived as rude can depend on language, culture, jargon, and personal opinion and mood.
This policy sounds harmful to the site as it (if widely known at least...) discourages people from reporting "mild" or veiled or subjective insults at all, for worry that you will suddenly lose your ability to report any abuse at all. It also discourages people from reporting suspected cheating.
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.
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.