Moderation Penalties Transparency Thoughts

Hi all,

I would like to seek feedback from the community what their thoughts are on a system where users don't know how penalties are applied.

Some of us long time users would appreciate more transparency in relation to moderation penalties; how long do these 'points' apply for? Are different offenses treated differently?…

The underlying issue is that long time members have invested so much time in this site, it would be nice to get a idea what constitutes a permanent ban?

Poll Options

  • 30
    More transparency required
  • 78
    Happy with current policy
  • 9
    Neutral

closed Comments

  • +2

    Moderators please keep this topic as its not a TWAM issue- when there is no clear guidelines how penalties are applied.

  • it would be nice to get a idea what constitutes a permanent ban?

    The majority of permanently banned users are spammers or ghost accounts of existing users (I'd say 99%). Most don't even bother to come back and start a Talk with a Moderator request.

    The other 1%, would be multiple infractions of attacking other users (personal attacks) OR sockpuppeting. However, please note, due to privacy we won't discuss why a certain user is banned.

    I'll see if I can pull some stats.

    EDIT: Here are March's moderation stats + reports

    • I'm concerned about the other 1%:

      How much is too much in relation to multiple attacks? I once received a response that there is a point system?

      I'm scared as this policy favors the big deal posters whereas people like me are not worth anything to this site. Perhaps this mentality has merits as end of day Ozbargain is a business?

      • I once received a response that there is a point system?

        Not points, but we have internal guidelines in place. First infraction for some issues gets a warning. Continual infractions will incur bigger penalties. However, we'd rather sort any issues in TWAM (and most are).

        I'm scared as this policy favors the big deal posters whereas people like me are not worth anything to this site. Perhaps this mentality has merits as end of day Ozbargain is a business?

        Everyone is treated the same. However, we don't put up with bullying or personal attacks.

        We've created a mental health page based a bit on this. Occasionally we receive messages of upset users on the verge of a breakdown or in tears. If I could visit every person in real life and explain how their words have affected others I would. No place for this on OzBargain or in real life.

        • Do these infractions get reset after a time period?

          Why is there zero reversals on penalties/ chance to discuss? I know other sites let users explain their behavior/posts.

          Yeah I noticed the mental health page; but its interesting as I saw bullying of a users mental health yet not a single post was removed.

        • @GameChanger:

          Why is there zero reversals on penalties/ chance to discuss?

          All users are welcome to discuss in TWAM. We often shorten the penalty if the user explains things or at the very least acknowledges the issue and what they intend to do in the future to not repeat it.

          When a user is banned they will often get a Private Message with a link to the comment or post that caused it.

          Yeah I noticed the mental health page; but its interesting as I saw bullying of a users mental health yet not a single post was removed.

          If you feel there is a comment that violates the commenting guidelines, please hit the report link. In cases of bullying, we won't always report the resolution as it can be a delicate and private situation.

        • @neil: The message I received was "not negotiable" and my message sent was ignored. I thought it was really interesting that my question was ignored even though I never asked for reduction- just clarification. (No need to reply to this part, just stating it for people to read)

          I would really like the answer to how long infractions last? I'm assuming that infractions don't reset and are carried over the years even though most posts are good behavior?

          I have seen a long dispute between users, but it seems the only user that got penalised was the small one. And lets keep in mind that the small user is well liked by the community as seen by likes to post ratio.

        • @GameChanger:

          I would really like the answer to how long infractions last? I'm assuming that infractions don't reset and are carried over the years even though most posts are good behavior?

          We have a wiki for each user which moderators can put notes in. The system also logs any times that user has been banned as well as other flags. Additionally, we have discussion in chat + a moderator forum which also helps in assisting bans.

          So for example, if we warn user A to not personally attack user B, and then they again attack user B, they will be temporarily banned and encouraged to use the Talk with a Moderator forum. How many posts they make doesn't have an effect on the penalty.

          The message I received was "not negotiable" and my message sent was ignored. I thought it was really interesting that my question was ignored even though I never asked for reduction- just clarification. (No need to reply to this part, just stating it for people to read)

          If this is a thread about moderation in general then cool. If this is moderation issue about you in particular, then it's best to discuss in TWAM. If a user is asking a question, we will respond. If a user is just arguing about their penalty, well then it's not a discussion.

        • @neil: So it can be said that infractions are never reset?

          What are other flags? So there is no specific guidelines on the length of the ban? Rather a discussion what is deemed fair?

        • @neil: Also what are the stats on letting a banned user back?

          Once banned permanently can they re make an account? And assume they come back with no intentions to recommit offenses. Or will the moderators look out for them and ban immediately?

        • @GameChanger:

          What are other flags?

          Our system flags:

          • Blacklisted IP
          • Blacklisted email address
          • Blacklisted username
          • Suspicious voting pattern
          • Suspected circumvention of rep posting limit

          Our manually set flags:

          • Affiliate/Referral link issue
          • Displaying psychotic trends
          • Displaying troll tendencies
          • Suspected ghost account
          • Suspected sockpuppeting
          • Suspected spammer
          • Unpopular deals
          • Other (see moderation notes)

          So there is no specific guidelines on the length of the ban?

          Yes there are. This is to ensure all moderators moderate consistently.

          So it can be said that infractions are never reset?

          Not sure what you mean by being reset. If it's recorded in the history, then that's the history of the user.

          Also what are the stats on letting a banned user back?

          I'm not quite sure how to pull those stats. Unless you are a Spammer or Ghost account, the bans are not permanent (for first offenses).

          Once banned permanently can they re make an account?

          Well that wouldn't be permanent then… If Wylie Coyote is banned from Anvil Inc. stores (and he should be!) and he comes back with a fake mustache then Wylie would be banned.

        • @neil: Will the specific guidelines ever be made known to users for transparency reasons?

          By reset I mean, reverted back to 0 history? By your response it seems penalties are cumulative i.e If I was banned for 1 week 4 years ago, that past history will mean my penalty will >1 week if I commit offenses again. Are penalties handed out similar to this? i.e usually doubled every time you land yourself in a penalty box situation?

          Huh? Bans are not permanent for normal users? How many long term users have being permanently banned?

          Does the moderation team actively seek out banned long term users?

          (Keep in mind this is relating to normal long term users, not deal posters with a vested interested)

        • @GameChanger:

          @neil: Will the specific guidelines ever be made known to users for transparency reasons?

          I'm not sure we want to publish that knowledge as we already get fights between users wanting to know why this person was banned for this long (or this short) etc.

          But I'll give you an example of sockpuppeting as that's fairly public. It's 2 weeks (for the store) for the first offense, 1 month for the 2nd and permanent for the 3rd.

          By your response it seems penalties are cumulative i.e If I was banned for 1 week 4 years ago, that past history will mean my penalty will >1 week if I commit offenses again. Are penalties handed out similar to this?

          Yes, it is cumulative. However, if the last offense was 1 week ago vs. 4 years ago then obviously that will have weight. Moderators are not an automated system or robots and we make a consensus decision based on the information at hand.

          Huh? Bans are not permanent for normal users? How many long term users have being permanently banned?

          All users are treated the same. What I was saying that if it is your first offense you will not be banned permanently. If this is your x offense, e.g. 3rd for sockpuppeting it will be permanent.

          Does the moderation team actively seek out banned long term users?

          Not sure what you mean. We've definitely had users come back after being permanently banned (maybe months or years) and explain what was happening in their life, etc. and promise to be a good member. Many of these have become productive members and some fall back into the same behavior. I guess it's just like real life?

        • +2

          @GameChanger: Other than for the people who gain a salary, referral credit, or whatever other benefit they perceive that fits vaguely with the not-necessarily-finance definition of 'in kind', OzBargain is otherwise, really, just about bargains, assorted info, and a bit of other fun.

          If you lose sight of those things relative to other things (e.g. stuff not on the internet), or if you get generally disenchanted by this or that, here on The Internet, take a self-imposed break as opposed to an enforced one.

          How many other bloody distractions don't you have in your life, is a pertinent question for anybody who has spent too much time on OzBargain, me included. (Says he, about to have a look around beyond the forum sidebar…)

          Entirely irrespective of time of day when clicked, certain people seem to always be present on the Live Page. You are one of them, GameChanger. I don't know how you plan things in your day (and night), otherwise, but current situation can't be healthy for you.

        • @neil: I think the publishing of the guidelines would help stop any fighting as we would have clear frame work why someone was banned. At present it seems to be a very subjective thing from what I heard.

          Did those users who come back and message the mod team straight away or were they placed in penalty box asking for a reason for their return?

        • @GameChanger:

          as we would have clear frame work why someone was banned.

          We always explain why people are banned. If a user doesn't understand they can further ask us.

        • @neil: Which is where the problem is.

          It would be nice to know where we stand so that we can change our behavior if we're one comment away from a perma ban. There isn't much use getting an explanation after we have being banned.

        • @GameChanger:

          In most cases, we warn users with a PM (some time multiple times) recommending them to make a thread on TWAM.

        • @neil: And these warnings are something along the lines of "you're close to a ban" please change your behavior?

        • -1

          @Tas: Time you enjoy wasting, was not wasted ;)

        • @GameChanger:

          We say to desist with whatever the issue is, a link to the guidelines, a recommendation to TWAM. At some point users need to own up to their actions especially if it has to do with attacking other users. If someone was warned not to do something on multiple occasions and they continue to, then they have to expect that there will be consequences (in life, on OzBargain, wherever).

          Again, over 10 years and 140,000 members, this has rarely happened. We'd rather be focused on posting great bargains. No?

        • -4

          @neil: Yep its all about the bargains, but many of us do enjoy making comments that help other out when possible.

          I know 'long term' users like myself are the minority and well the site doesn't really need us; however I'm worried if I run into a big deal posters I could be unfairly penalised.

        • @GameChanger:

          All users get treated the same. Long term, medium and short term members need to take ownership of their mistakes instead of inferring there is a bias OR moderation is to blame. There have been some "big deal posters" that have been banned in the past.

          We don't want to ban anyone except spammers. Believe me, it's taxing emotionally and it takes huge chunks of our day that could be used doing something better.

        • +1

          @GameChanger:

          Time you enjoy wasting, was not wasted ;)

          Sure. An element of that in what I'm typing now, elsewhere on OzBargain. We'll see..
          :)

          Didn't neg.

          P.S. Upvote my other comment, you little bastard. You know in essence that it's true.

        • -2

          @neil: Could I get an example who has being banned? And if they were a rep?

          I'm not saying there is intentional bias but given your time is limited, perhaps there could be unintentional favoritism towards users who contribute more?

          btw thank you very much Neil for answering my many questions!

        • @Tas: It's not true at all lol

          Perhaps that post is your subconscious telling you something ;)

        • @GameChanger: Sure - 'me included' - at least in part, and as stated.
          The kit & caboodle for you, I still reckon… (+ wouldn't have written if I didn't think it applied to you and might help) :)

          You do seem to operate on some sort of ragged-edge in the way that you feel about… and not just 'injustice', on a meant-to-be-fun website. At very least losing sight of this being a website - the sort that once didn't exist, and not very long ago in the scheme of things /anything.

          Also, didn't you indicate in a thread somewhere that you aspired to actually work for OzBargain, or were you just joking..?

          Hmm…

          Mod Neil given some extra work yesterday - should he take you on as an intern, to help out?

          Lol +have a good day, GC.

          in the scheme of things /anything

        • +1

          Everyone is treated the same.

          I really dont believe this given there is alot of backdoor dealing going on with all of these 'personalized' deals and coupons, just very curious that its happening all of a sudden and in great numbers (from specific vendors as well which have their own reps)

          May not be money invloved, but free items or 'giveaways' sounds alot closer to the mark.

        • @Copie:

          Negotiated deals started becoming popular in the middle of last year.

          If people are receiving money or items in exchange for posting here they need to hit the associated button. We have banned a couple of stores where we have found out they were asking people to post deals in exchange for goods.

          If you have evidence or proof, please let us know (hit report link).

          For discussion about negotiated deals, please use that thread.

        • +1

          @neil:

          All users get treated the same.

          I disagree.

          I've actually had this discussion with mods in the past when I felt I've been treated differently to another user, and the mod in question eventually relented & agreed that some users (at that time I) could be scrutinized more harshly than others.

          It's actually pretty glaring at times, as many others have noted in the past; but it's a fact of OzB life & a lot of us have just learned to cop it sweet.

        • +1

          @StewBalls: Thanks StewBalls for sharing that, I know many others feel the same. One user even disabled his account yesterday as he was unfairly punished.

        • @GameChanger: No problem, it's worth noting that we also lost a very prolific poster (and good guy) to another site/community over very similar issues last year…no names mentioned, but we all know who & why.

          What you've raised might be an inconvenient truth, but it needs to be dealt with as a community nonetheless…a lot of these guys just wanna stick their heads in the sand, others may indeed have ulterior motives, but I applaud your bravery in raising this publicly, and to their credit the mods haven't shut you down, so props there where due! ;)

        • -1

          @neil:

          What though if there is bia indeed or the moderation IS to blame, for example, by not warning or banning user before and letting it escalate so user B blows his or her top? Causality suggests then that moderation is to blame. Had moderation kicked in earlier with user A, user B would not have been provoked to blow his or her top and hence not incurred any penalty.

          Also, please do keep in mind that:

          a) you, scotty etc. are people and hence not infallible - you do get things wrong just like anyone of us
          b) you work for the same company so have a similar outlook on things - sometimes a fresh outside look is more useful
          c) if none of you is pychologically trained and specialising in internet psychology (and I mean practising, publishing, not merely interest) then I find it very dangerous if moderators here spot "psychotic trends". The DM-IV (soon V) describes this but even for professionals it is not easy to diagnose such things with certainty so I am a bit uneasy with this when non-professionals attempt to diagnose such behaviour.

          Finally, I do believe that sometimes you are overly cautious and too conformist. Take the HIV Queensland deal. They requested you remove it from the site and you did. You should not have done so as a) that is public information (as it was on a publicly available website), b) this is a health issue for everyone, and c) this is a public campaign directed at the public and is designed to get publicity to achieve maximum reach. Keeping it secret is stupid and counter-productive.
          Sometimes you need to stand up for rights of freedom of expression etc. and not give in to such things (I do acknowledge as a business it is better not to have any conflict but this is exactly what I dislike about the site - it seems more and more commercial aspects and considerations move to the foreground).

        • @Lysander: You bring up some interesting points, whilst I don't agree with all of them I get what you're saying.

          Thanks for sharing your thoughts.

  • Sigh

    • +2

      Why the sigh?
      GameChanger is correct that the way penalties were applied doesn't appear to be documented anywhere, so it seems OK to ask for clarification.
      I presume some motivation for this is that somebody has been banned in a way that GC feels was applied arbitrarily, but the question itself is reasonable.

      • +2

        It's an open ended question, posed as a forum post when it should be a TWAM.

        It's clearly about Pointless Comments recent perma-ban due to fighting with certain members. Due to multiple small bans (which PC was more than happy to mention consistently) the mods had no choice but to make the last ban longer. The OP, also PC's partner in crime, copped a ban as well, albeit a shorter one.

        The poll results are telling an obvious story.

        • +13

          @GameChanger:

          Last I checked you wrote this publicly.

          Very much aware I'm not a mod. It's great. Means I don't have to bite my tongue :)

        • @Spackbace: You haven't written a single comment that relates to the topic at hand.

          You have mentioned names when Neil clearly said not too, which suggest you haven't even bothered to read his comments.

        • +3

          @GameChanger:

          OK on topic then

          The underlying issue is that long time members have invested so much time in this site, it would be nice to get a idea what constitutes a permanent ban?

          How about everyone tows the line and behaves like mature adults and subsequently don't need to worry about bans, let alone the reasons why they were banned? (I think in the time I've been here, and amongst my comments and posts I've been banned once, totalling 24hrs.)

          Simple, no?

        • -5

          @Spackbace: Its not a simple don't worry.

          With a policy that is determined behind the doors, how can we be assured there is consistency? I was privy to the comments that occurred between two users- one bullied a user for mental health issues and got no penalties whereas the other one got heavily moderated. This case study has got me worried that penalties are handed out with no specific guidelines.

          I acknowledge that deal posters have more worth than me, but it would be nice when it comes to penalties its a system that punishes both equally.

        • Ahhh that explains why PC hasn't been around lately! Certain members or mainly one member :P

        • @Spackbace:

          (I think in the time I've been here, and amongst my comments and posts I've been banned once, totalling 24hrs.)

          Ive been banned 2 or 3 times too.

          The penalty box is a great time to take a holiday

        • @GameChanger: >"Could I get an example who has being banned? And if they were a rep?"

          You have asked for names, which suggests you haven't quite understood Neil's point about user privacy….

        • +1

          @lkp: He is gone for life now.

          The community will miss him, judging on his likes to post ratio.

        • @easternculture:

          The penalty box is a great time to take a holiday

          Agreed. It's amazing the stuff you can get done IRL when one is not procrastinating on OzB! :)

      • Yep exactly :)

        I was handed out a penalty but I have no clue how it was determined and if I am one comment away from a perma ban- which is why I have started this thread to get more clarity.

        • Please use TWAM and we can go over it again.

          As before, we always

          • inform users why they are banned
          • inform users how long they are banned
          • recommend starting a TWAM thread
          • link to the offense
        • +6

          I was handed out a penalty but I have no clue how it was determined and if I am one comment away from a perma ban- which is why I have started this thread to get more clarity.

          That's definitely a TWAM issue. If the point of this post and its subsequent 20 questions for neil is about your situation, then just TWAM. If this was a genuine request for transparency for all users, I think you got your answer already that moderator guidelines will remain private.

          Also…

          Some of us long time users would appreciate more transparency

          Such as…?

          I personally don't care about moderation transparency, any time I've seen users go against the guidelines, a simple report resolves the issue 100% of the time, I wouldn't be trying to get someone banned, nor would I do anything to get myself banned. I'm just here for bargains and try to be useful in discussions where possible, otherwise I just join in for a bit of fun here and there.

        • -3

          @IceCreamBandit: Another user who doesn't read the whole conversation. Spaceback made this thread personal, which it was never intended for. Since his comment appeared that sole comment of mine was indeed a twam issue. But should it be? Shouldn't there be some rough guidelines what weighting each removal of comments has?

          A recent case that happened I have a feeling the reports by a certain user played a big role in determining what penalty was applied.

        • +2

          @GameChanger:

          Another user who doesn't read the whole conversation

          I've read the whole thread.

          Spaceback made this thread personal, which it was never intended for.

          Yes, but your post would obviously lead to people who try to guess or think about who's gotten banned and if you/moderators thought mentioning specific names here were not allowed, then perhaps reporting the comment for moderation would resolve the issue.

          Shouldn't there be some rough guidelines what weighting each removal of comments has?

          That's been covered now. There are guidelines, but users won't know about specific weighting. We have commenting guidlines which I think are enough to tell users what they can and cannot say. The posting of the weighting and penalties could lead to people thinking "Oh, I can be a d*ck a few more times and bully this person before I get a ban" (emphasis on could).

          As they are now, if people break the rules, they know their comments will be unpublished, and they will get banned. That works fine in my opinion.

        • @IceCreamBandit: But how do we know if the site treats users differently.

          Lets not beat around the bush its a fact a big deal poster will be given preference and perhaps rightly so. But what if they're the ones who're causing trouble and getting other users banned through their power.

        • +6

          @GameChanger:

          But how do we know if the site treats users differently.

          I don't see OzBargain as being so important to me that I need to know how different users are treated (sorry scotty et al.). I'm just here for bargains!

          Lets not beat around the bush its a fact a big deal poster will be given preference and perhaps rightly so. But what if they're the ones who're causing trouble and getting other users banned through their power.

          I'm not sure you can claim anything as fact unless you have evidence. I would just give the benefit of the doubt to moderators and admins and expect them to do a fair job and treat users without looking at their usernames/posts/comments and just as user #12345678 in situations of moderation.

        • @IceCreamBandit: There was an example couple of weeks ago where a big poster broke the rules and got away with it.

          However the most telling example was when another big user admitted his deal wasn't the best around and even reported it! however the site didn't remove it.

        • @GameChanger

          Huh, a bit vague? Maybe you can pm or report the link as I'm not sure what you are referring to.

        • -1

          @neil: The first example you're aware of and have explained it thoroughly. Just a shame that that poster is still engaging in questionable deals. Well not leaving a comment to even acknowledge its not best deal even when multiple people have shown prices which is lower.

          The 2nd example the poster clearly stated in a comment that he reported his own deal, yet the site didn't remove it. Even though he acknowledged the deal wasn't best priced and many others in the comment section. I have much respect for this poster, it takes real guts to admit and even report. Found it unusual it wasn't removed as this site is about best price end of day.

          I will have a look through my history for the deal and link you via PM.

        • @GameChanger: Deleting the thread would of disposed of all the replies/comments with "better prices"?

          Some threads are kept as an 'example' due to the content in the comments section….. hidden gold? I dunno what thread you are talking about anyway….

        • @GameChanger:

          Lets not beat around the bush its a fact a big deal poster will be given preference and perhaps rightly so

          No true. Ive been banned 2 or 3 times already

        • @easternculture: What were the lengths of the ban?

        • @GameChanger:

          7 days . The second one was longer i think for trolling but i TWAM'd the mod a few hours later and we sorted it out (miscommunication)

  • +1

    I think this should be a TWAM post…

  • -1

    I have a not unrelated question: are those ozbargainers deemed to be "troublemakers" assigned to a specific mod? If yes, how the heck did I make it on to that list? And more importantly, can I be assigned to a different minder. I'm feeling bullied by the current one. Ta.

    • What have I missed? Also didn't neg.

    • Not sure if that's a serious question. :)

      Reports are handled by whoever is available (or awake). We then discuss as a group.

    • From your TWAM & report history you have been served by multiple mods — myself, neil, hamza, moocher, JSQUARED etc we all have answered your dozens or so TWAMs over the years. And count yourself lucky that the mod who handled most of your TWAMs is the kind & patient one amongst us.

      • It was a serious question. Thank you for answering it:) I felt like Moocher was a being a tad overzealous in moderating me/my posts. After reading both of your responses, it would appear that I may have been a little paranoid and/or grown way too accustomed to being handled by the kid gloves-wearing Kind And Patient One, aka my favourite mod.

        • +1

          'Dozens or so TWAMs'?

          One (hold on - two) T'sWAM in my entire time on OzBargain, Jar Jar Binks..

          You be 'Chatty', just like that other Jar Jar Binks…

        • +1

          Lol you get Mumma-Mod and you're complaining? :P

        • +1

          @Spackbace:

          Lol you get Mumma-Mod

          Just goes to show what a naughty, naughty boy I must have been :$

          In retrospect, and after reading other posters' plight, I have to say that I've been treated fairly by the mods. More than fairly indeed…and by all the mods, not just the KnP one. I apologise for having been such a nuisance. Didn't mean to :(

          P.s:I'll eventually get over having 200 (and counting) of my comments deemed off-topic and unpublished by Mamma-Mod. Tas has.But then Tas is better man than I am.

        • +1

          @Jar Jar Binks:

          … not just the KnP one.

          Not the second meaning of that abbreviation, I'm guessing..? Surely not..
          www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=knp&defid=5263258 Scroll down at peril.

          Over 200 comments and you've kept some sort of track of that?! Also, surely not.

          +Nah. You're good value, Jar Jar Binks.

          Lesson from this thread for me is that 'YMMV'
          - YoMummaMayVary

          ..and that there is actually a 'Mumma-Mod' who would probably like to beat Spackbace to death with a stick for giving him that title…

        • +2

          @Tas:

          ..and that there is actually a 'Mumma-Mod' who would probably like to beat Spackbace to death with a stick for giving him that titleā€¦

          Lol after I wrote that comment I realised JJB was probably actually referencing Ham, where I thought he was referencing Moocher. So yeah, I think I just called Ham a Mumma-Mod! (Runs)

      • count yourself lucky that the mod who handled most of your TWAMs is the kind & patient one amongst us.

        Who may that be. Can they handle all my reports and disputes :)

  • -4

    To the people who're neg my comments, please reveal yourself.

    Nothing worse than a person who can't refute what I have said or at the very least acknowledge they neg me.

    • +6

      I can honestly say I haven't cast a single neg vote on this post, but nor could I give 2 shits as to the people who negged me.

      • Three shit minimum, buddy…pay up or move along!

    • +1

      To the people who're neg my comments, please reveal yourself.

      Look, you obviously feel strongly about this, and that's absolutely cool. But calling out people to reveal themselves could lead to further arguments/attacks whether it be here in the comments or in PMs, which is definitely not cool.

      While we don't necessarily agree on this issue, I do feel it may be better to just leave those who don't have the ability (or courage/time/ice cream?) to discuss this properly alone.

      For full transparency, I haven't negged any of your comments. It is an interesting topic, knowledge is power after all, but I think the mods are fairly firm in their stance based on current comments.

      • I have done it in the past and never seen any issues come out of it.

        Some have the courage and own up and I respect them even more. Whereas most of the time the others just really angry and keeping neg. Its not that hard to work out who is doing it, as the + votes give an indication who is the likely culprit.

        • +1

          I haven't neg you.

        • @Jar Jar Binks: Thanks for the reply, its refreshing to see people come forward.

          Now if those neg's would come forward.

        • I rarely bothered to neg unless the person was blatantly offensive, and didn't neg in this thread either.

          I just wanted to say, everyone has a right to an opinion even if I personally don't agree with it.

          Additionally people also have the right to with hold their opinion and keep it secret even if I don't personally agree with it.

  • +3
    • It's not a TWAM issue if you cared to read carefully.

      Hell I haven't even raised a TWAM issue in my life because I have accepted all penalties on face value. Just recent moderation penalties have got me intrigued how it is applied.

      Under current policy you could be banned and never receive the break down into the specifics. Whilst I can see the reasons not disclose the specifics, however there is a lot of unknowns that are subjective and quite frankly worrying.

      • +1

        Under current policy you could be banned and never receive the break down into the specifics.

        That's what a TWAM is for

        • You have completely missed the point of this thread…

          Do you know the weighting of infractions? Yep you don't.

        • +6

          @GameChanger:

          But why do you need to know what the weighting is? Do you plan on reoffending?

          I don't need to know exactly what the fine is for doing 100 in a school zone to know it's a bad idea to do it!

        • @Spackbace: Do you plan on reporting again? Especially when it's an issue that doesn't concern you or hurt the community?

          Because with no idea on the weightings good posters could get done.

        • +3

          @GameChanger:

          Well by your own words it affects the top posters. Last I checked I'm consistently in the top 10.

          So by your own words, apparently this does affect me. So here I am.

          Good posters know the rules and generally have lower comment to post ratios than those of the serial commenters. They're most likely to walk away from the trolls. They're not the ones that need to care about the rules - they know them, they abide by them!

          The ones that need to be re-told the rules are the serial pests, the comment spammers, and the trolls. They don't seem to understand what they can't get away with.

        • @Spackbace: Where have I said it affects top posters?

          You're wrong the people who don't comment often is because they're here purely for the deals/have no interest in commenting. You're pretty much saying all high commentators are trolls, which is wrong. Have a look at the like to post ratios in the last couple of months.

        • @GameChanger:

          Where have I said it affects top posters?


          Lets not beat around the bush its a fact a big deal poster will be given preference and perhaps rightly so. But what if they're the ones who're causing trouble and getting other users banned through their power.

          You're attempting to instigate an 'us vs them' argument, saying that affects mods decision.

          Especially when it's an issue that doesn't concern you

          It affects me, as I've just shown. It also affects me because you're saying that everyone should be aware of the weightings and possible moderator bias. You're saying it affects everyone. I'm part of everyone afaik

        • @Spackbace: Neil has said there is no big poster bias, but I'm yet to be convinced after seeing events in recent months play out.

        • +3

          @GameChanger:

          So you're questioning the mods, their decisions, and doing it publicly rather than in private in TWAM?

          So basically the hidden agenda in all this is you want them to publicly admit a wrongdoing or a mistake?

          You basically believe PC and yourself were unjustly treated compared to EC who got off scot free? Don't make this bigger than the circumstances surrounding the 3 of you. Everyone knows.

        • -4

          @Spackbace: Mate everyone can see through your agenda here.

          Your comments try to shut down anyone who dares questions a thing around here. Someone went after TA and you were defending him to death.

          Stop throwing peoples names into this thread and trying to influence the mods. You're one of the reasons people received penalties. The reasoning I received was based on your comments you kept shouting saying that 'everyone' knows whens that far from the truth.

        • +2

          @GameChanger:

          Don't address me as mate. We're far from it.

          You keep referencing 'events of recent months' etc. You're the one who keeps addressing the issues that surrounded you 3. None of this post, or your comments, revolve around anything else.

          Yes, I defended TA, because he wasn't there to defend himself. So of course I'll defend someone if people are taking cheap shots at them behind their back, when they're not even part of it. I don't care if you want to point out that I did that, I'm proud I stood up and said something when others just stay quiet.

          OK, most know what you're talking about here. The mods can definitely see the hidden agenda. I think anyone with a working brain could see the hidden agenda here.

        • +1

          @Spackbace:

          So you're questioning the mods, their decisions, and doing it publicly rather than in private in TWAM?

          That's kinda how transparency works…I don't have a problem with anyone discussing these things publicly, this was meant to be a community last time I checked.

        • @StewBalls:

          Except the transparency should be on both sides, where OP has clearly refused to acknowledge the incident which led to the bans, instead shrouding it under supposed secrecy and trying to say the question posed is about a greater thing.

          Transparency is 1 thing, trying to argue against the establishment, trying to divide members into categories, bringing about all sorts of conspiracy theories about members treatment… That's all a whole different ballgame.

      • Under current policy you could be banned and never receive the break down into the specifics.

        I don't know how many times I can repeat this.

        EVERYONE is notified of the reason they are banned with a LINK to the offending issue.

        • I was going to quote you saying that, but I'm on mobile, and I filed it under 'too hard basket' lol :)

        • Break downs into the penalty length and how many offenses it took to receive x weeks.

          You have said its subjective and so that is not transparent.

        • -4

          @Spackbace: I also have a file called blindly commenting just to impress the mods.

          Its pretty evident you're eyeing up a Moderator position in the future with your biased posts to anything that questions the policies of this site.

Login or Join to leave a comment