Prevented from reporting insults

[N_Faker]

OP has also played against 15565 unique opponents as they apparently nearly only play random opponents.
I never checked the ratios, but I doubt that 33 reports compared to 15565 opponents is that much at all.

[ErikLevin]

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.

[wrldtrvllr]

I'm looking through the terms of service and privacy statements, and I really can't see anything that suggests that you can publicise details about my on-site activities in this way, which is clearly intended to make me look bad.

I can understand debating the reasons for the reports, or having concerns about communication etc. but this portion of your post I don't get. You made a public thread about not being able to send reports, and you want to complain about a moderator commenting on that very thread with information that might have been relevant to how this happened? This is the sort of thing you asked for.

The information was not relevant to what happened, which was supposedly a result of the five most recent reports only. Even if it had been, I do not see where they get the right to publicise private user data in this way. And it was obvious from the non-relevance of the information and the omission of all relevant context that the intent was to make me look bad.

Meanwhile, the user who posted really obnoxious insults in a game chat could do so with absolute impunity. One can only conclude that the administrators are much more upset by someone making a report that they disagreed with every three months on average than they are by someone posting childish insults.

[Ceaseless]

33 denunciations (in 5 years) out of 23216 games played, that's one every 704 games, which seems quite reasonable given the rather "competitive spirit", shall we say, of some people on BGA. So I think it's inappropriate to point to this particular figure and suggest that it's excessive, especially if half of these denunciations were justified.

You made a public thread about not being able to send reports, and you want to complain about a moderator commenting on that very thread with information that might have been relevant to how this happened?

And how exactly is it relevant? This info rubbed me the wrong way too, because without additional context it doesn't mean anything at best. Were these 33 reports made over 4 years or less? Over 23000+ games or less? Maybe 33 reports are just too much regardless of time period and number of played games. Maybe 50% success rate is too low. Does "not guilty" status automatically mean that report is not valid? After all, not guilty doesn't imply that reported player is innocent. And finally, how does this all tie into this message:"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)"?

So, yes, it would be better if we saw some additional concrete guidelines about reporting instead of stating some facts about a certain player. It would be even better, if there was some intermediary automated warning when a player is nearing a permanent ban on reporting.

Don't forget the duplicate reports, which were not included in that total, though the number of those were unstated. Though more information for context wouldn't have been a bad thing. Not sure how much information we can really expected in a public thread though, especially with the OP complaining about it being released at all. While my best guess is that the 5 reports thing was only part of the reason and may have even been an automatic message for these situations, I have no way to confirm that and it's basically speculation on my end.

[Ceaseless]

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.

Same points I made in the prior post for this too regarding the duplicates, etc.

As for your points. I like the idea of all users getting feedback on their reports, but in several cases that's not needed and would be tedious. I do wish the outcome of the reports was sent to them at least. Guess there's a similar workload issue to consider there too. I do agree penalties for misreporting should be clarified more. Idk if I'd go so far as to say only "obvious bad-faith" should be the only reason. Sending tons of failed reports can get very tedious, especially with duplicates. There's likely a lot of reports to go through, probably thousands over time, so efficiency can be a pretty big deal.

[N_Faker]

Don't forget the duplicate reports, which were not included in that total, though the number of those were unstated.

You have no basis for assuming this and stating it as fact.

[Ceaseless]

I'm looking through the terms of service and privacy statements, and I really can't see anything that suggests that you can publicise details about my on-site activities in this way, which is clearly intended to make me look bad.

I can understand debating the reasons for the reports, or having concerns about communication etc. but this portion of your post I don't get. You made a public thread about not being able to send reports, and you want to complain about a moderator commenting on that very thread with information that might have been relevant to how this happened? This is the sort of thing you asked for.

The information was not relevant to what happened, which was supposedly a result of the five most recent reports only. Even if it had been, I do not see where they get the right to publicise private user data in this way. And it was obvious from the non-relevance of the information and the omission of all relevant context that the intent was to make me look bad.

Meanwhile, the user who posted really obnoxious insults in a game chat could do so with absolute impunity. One can only conclude that the administrators are much more upset by someone making a report that they disagreed with every three months on average than they are by someone posting childish insults.

The five most recent reports comment you saw did not have to be the entire reason. They publicized information connected to a topic you brought up. Sending several failed reports, as well as additional duplicates on top of that, seem like relevant information to factor into this. They don't have to send everything, and given the reaction from you regarding them bringing anything up at all it seems less likely that they'd be inclined to release additional information on this subject. Jumping straight into bad faith accusations to them isn't the best idea.

[Ceaseless]

Don't forget the duplicate reports, which were not included in that total, though the number of those were unstated.

You have no basis for assuming this and stating it as fact.

No basis for what? Your comment makes no sense.

[N_Faker]

Don't forget the duplicate reports, which were not included in that total, though the number of those were unstated.

You have no basis for assuming this and stating it as fact.

No basis for what? Your comment makes no sense.

Do you not see what was quoted?

[Ceaseless]

You have no basis for assuming this and stating it as fact.

No basis for what? Your comment makes no sense.

Do you not see what was quoted?

Yes, and your reply to it made no sense at all.