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?
I don't need to impress them, but I do respect them. I respect them for still replying, and repeating themselves, at close to midnight in their local timezone.
I also try to take a light-hearted approach to this site because there's no need for negativity on here. Hell there should be no need for moderation if everyone acted like mature adults.
@neil: I'm saying there should be a tad bit more transparency.
Lets look at this hypothetical example;
User A makes 10 personal attacks against 10 different people
User B makes 10 personal attacks against same person
How is the length of the ban determined? Will User A and B receive the same length or User B will receive harsher penalty as it against same person.
Don't attack anyone! What a ridiculous premise. Do you realize how people get very upset, depressed, crying, and even worse due to these attacks?
The equation is don't attack anyone. If you do find you attacked someone, don't do it again. If you are warned multiple times, then expect the next time it will result in a ban.
@neil: Yet you allowed a big poster to call another user mentally unstable. You told me to report the comments, but I am aware that the smaller poster reported and nothing was done. I have always thought the Moderation team was very fair and tbh you have being to me personally.
I'm just worried if a big poster comes after me, like the latest incident I won't receive support and will get banned.
I see, so that's what this thread is about (again).
Speaking in hypotheticals, users aren't privy to all comments made and the history of previous incidents which resulted in bans. Moderators will try to diffuse a situation and send a PM or warning to both parties in cases where they are attacking each other. If either party ignores these warnings, then that will result in a ban. If the user has had numerous previous bans and continues to attack others then that will result in a permanent ban.
It's not about big users or little users. It's about habitual re-offenders.
@neil: Sorry that this was brought up again Neil, but Spaceback is continually hijacking the thread and pushing that this it about the other users. I hope his comments have no influenced your opinion what this thread was about. I haven't mentioned a single name and I really think the posts that have should be removed.
To be clear this thread was for my own knowledge and for the people who may find themselves in a position that is close to a ban.
Edit: I have mentioned 1 name, that post should be removed as well. Unless you wish to keep them here for transparency reasons.
I'm guessing this was prompted by coming off on the wrong end of some moderation decisions.
I'll give you nickel's worth of free advice OP, learned the hard way from many long-winded battles with sundry oafs on OzB, some of which have concluded with a visit to the sin-bin.
There are some really smart guys on OzB with a lot to offer; there's also some bona fide dodos who labour under the misapprehension that they also fall into category A. Unfortunately, this is the way of the internet as tech becomes literally foolproof, even the lowest common denominator can have a voice & frequently some equally dull groupies to support it. Sure, you may have intelligent disagreements with Cat A, no problem, they may even be able to sway you to their point of view…but Cat B is your arch nemesis here!
The big secret: Don't get into protracted debates or battles with them, say your piece & just move on…sometimes, don't even bother reading their barely literate retorts…just don't get drawn into a long, sordid dialogue when you know it's just going to be a pointless, frustrating argument, just turn your back on them & move onto something worthwhile & pleasant.
Utterly ignore the negs, they are meaningless…JV often makes some pretty insightful comments that get hammered by negs, nobody takes the time to think about what he might have said or why, they just take offense because it's him…sometimes he literally gets negged for saying thanks to an OP!
Yes, you will get the odd troll-stalker following you harping at you when the opportunity presents; again, my advice is just to ignore them…think of it this way, for them to be so pissed that they follow you from post to post with vexatious comments/negs, that means you've said something in the past that's gotten right under their skin, they've already lost…they are your bitch! :P
TL;DR?
I kid I kid :)
I liked this post, some of the best advice ive seen on ozb, have a +.
All I can tell you is this. I have been banned once. I didn't understand the rules around down voting a deal. I got warned and then banned from down-voting deals for 3 months. This happened in a very short time span before I had read the warning.
I understand that it was my responsibility to understand the system even if it was confusing.
This left quite a bitter taste in my mouth. I still vote. But I participate a lot less. I haven't bothered to post a deal for a long time. I rarely neg deals, even when they are very very bad.
There is an obvious need in a large community to educate and inform, as well as police. However if you make the system too adversarial, people will just be driven off, or not contribute.
Thank you for sharing this information.
I'm sure there is countless like you that don't post but have the same feelings.
Ouch, you got banned for neg voting a deal…that seems pretty harsh.
A voting ban is different. I've been hit with that too but it's a ban from neg voting any deal.
Totally different to a site ban.
Let's not get altered from the intended discussion here.
Don't think I've ever had a voting ban…I thought I'd had all types…I'm feeling a little left out here, I didn't know about it.
To be clear it was a ban from voting. (I can't remember if it was on just deals or on comments too). Start of last year I think….I'm vague on it because i have more important things to bother stressing about.
It was 5 deals I negged within a one week period or something like that (it was actually more like 1-2 days). You have to add a comment explaining why you're downvoting. I did not. I just saw some rotten snakeoil garbage and hit the neg button. 3 month ban was pretty harsh if you ask me. In any case I refused to upvote a deal while I did not have the ability to downvote, and even today I only upvote spectacular deals.
End of 2014. 18 months later, still holds a grudge?
Wow
Was it a big posters deal?
If I was holding a grudge I wouldn't bother posting what I just did. It's a question of not wasting my time on a system that punishes contribution.
If you want to talk about grudges, lets talk about the fact that there's nothing stopping a user holding a grudge and following them around downvoting every comment they come across (within the 5 a day limit). A normal user can't even prove another user is doing that to them because the votes are anonymous.
The system here is just plain awful. I put up with it because I've gotten a handful of good bargains by sticking around.
@syousef: I think alot of us are lucky and have that special someone that will follow our posts to give that heartfelt -1…..
The ban on your ability to negative vote is automated. It's not a ban on your account.
Yes. I'm telling you from my point of view it's an awful system. It's simply not worth my time reading tens of pages of your documentation to ensure I don't violate some obscure rule.
At the time the difference between down-voting a deal and a comment were not clear to me. 3 months is quite a long time to be censured.
I simply and literally have better things to do than deal with that. And I won't vote on a system where I can only provide positive feedback while others are free to provide negative.
It's simply not worth my time reading tens of pages of your documentation to ensure I don't violate some obscure rule.
I'd say there's no more than 2 pages of documentation on voting guidelines, and it's all fairly straightforward. I agree some 'deals' get posted by reps that are in the snake oil category, but you still have to follow the rules if you're going to neg vote. Or you could just move on and leave it alone?
3 months is quite a long time to be censured.
I doubt this was a first (or second) offence leading to a 3 month ban. If you chose not to read the guidelines then that's just unlucky…
I simply and literally have better things to do than deal with that. And I won't vote on a system where I can only provide positive feedback while others are free to provide negative.
Then be nice on the internet, if you have nothing nice to say then don't! If you do…then do it constructively using the rules provided. Again, it's not that much to read. People can't 'freely' neg vote. Everyone has the same guidelines to abide by.
Also want to clarify that the automated neg-voting ban (or throttling1) is not 90 days. Instead, whenever someone tries to vote -1 on a deal, we look at the rolling window of last 90 days to see whether any negative votes have been revoked (either by other users or by mods) and if there are already 3, the current -1 vote is not allowed.
Therefore in theory if you have 3 consecutive negative votes revoked back to back then the automated throttling could be close to 90 days. Or it could be as short as a day if your first revoked vote was cast 90 days ago.
I do not think it is a "ban" as it is all automated, does not affect the rest of your account, not logged against your account and will not be considered in any potential moderation action. Therefore I prefer to call it an "automated throttling". ↩
been here since 2008….. never had a ban…….. must be just lucky I guess…..
You never gone against a big poster, which I still believe is heavily favored in relation to penalties.
Why would I want to 'go against' anyone?
When the use their influence to post deals that deceive the community.
@GameChanger: If the deal is a good deal…. all is good
If the deal can be bought cheaper elsewhere, then it should be pointed out in the thread so members can take advantage of the cheaper deal…..
That's all…. it's not complicated
@andy19363: When someone points out its cheaper, don't you think the deal should be removed from the front page?
Personally I find it very deceptive to the general public who place their trust in this site providing the cheapest deals at the point in time.
@GameChanger: I don't think it's fair that a user is abused for a bad deal though. Posters can't control how others vote so they shouldn't be abused and attacked for the number of votes they have on a not so great deal.
@lkp: I agree, which is why I believe the site should remove the post or the poster request its removal. If a poster doesn't request a removal, I can't help but feel skeptical that they're some how gaining from it.
@GameChanger: Valid point and i agree that deals like that should be removed but the topic is penalties and people have just gone a bit far to get their point across. Some things just suck but constant harassment shouldn't be tolerated.
@andy19363: Game Changer ment that the more expensive deal should be removed.
But that is a difficult issue in some instances where positive votes are significant and therefore onus is on the OP to request removal of the deal if they agree with public comments. But comments need to be constructive rather than just attacking the user.
@lkp:
the deal is the deal…. It should all be in the one thread….. It's about collaboration as a community, not who 'owns' any particular deal. If a deal is found cheaper, then it should be posted in the original deal, highlighted by 1 negative vote, not 20 other pointless neg votes. This site is meant to be about communication and collaboration, not childish petty point scoring.
Of course, the way neg voting is at present encourages exactly that.
@andy19363: So what is exactly done with "deals" that aren't actually deals? Should we delete them or keep them up?
@lkp: At present they're kept and I seen at times both deals on the front page, even though one was far cheaper.
When this situation pops up, really defeats the purpose of this site.
@GameChanger: which is why it should be in the original thread……
eg…..
poster a posts… fish $10 a kilo at coles
poster b adds… it's only $9 at woolies
poster c adds…. $7 at mr fish's fish shop….
1 post, all the info…. not 3
communication and collaboration……
Isn't getting on the front page just a function of how many votes the deal has gotten? If a cheaper deal is posted, then I assume that deal is going to end up on the front page.
I don't think it would be fair to call it deceptive when no fraud is being commited. If the poster is not responsible for a deal reaching/staying on the front the page, why does it become his/her responsibility when a cheaper deal arises. By the same token, I don't think it should become a problem for the moderators.
Ozbargain is about people sharing deals they find/have. If it's not the best deal, then too bad. If it gets on the front page, then that's because people voted for it. If I made a decision to purchase something based on the front page then that decision is completely my own, no one's forcing me to buy anything. Now if I buy something that isn't the best deal because I missed the better deal that wasn't on the front page, that's still completely on me. I can't blame the posters nor could I blame the site. That's just the way it is. The posters or the site have no obligation to me. It's not like ozbargain or its posters are guaranteeing to me that it can find the cheapest prices on a good/item that I want. Besides, even if it did, I'd be an even bigger fool if I believed it at face value.
@tebbybabes: Its deceptive because a through search was not conducted or a cheaper price overlooked. Usually a lower price is pointed out very soon within the deal, so don't you think it should be updated to reflect this?
Whilst there is no obligation, the site then may as well maximise revenue and sell front page spots to businesses. Why do you think this site has grown to be so popular? Its because of the 'bargain' part not because people just share any deal they like. End of day from what I heard from the moderators they want to run a site with integrity and so this involves providing the best price at that point in time.
@GameChanger:
I've seen this exact thing you mentioned with a lower price being pointed out. I've followed a cheaper deal when it was mentioned in the thread, whether or not it was the OP or someone else who pointed it out, and whether or not the original post was updated. I would have thought that that's an example of it working as intended?
Regarding selling front page spots - IF that were true, that would be totally disappointing. Ozbargain would just become another advertising channel, what's worse, it has a sizeable and captive audience that actively seeks it out.
HOWEVER, it doesn't seem that way to me, thank goodness. Precisely because I feel that the front page stuff gets there because of votes of users just like me. Are you trying to tell me that this isn't the case?
Its because of the 'bargain' part not because people just share any deal they like.
I'm a bit confused about this one… people really DO just share any deal they like. It turns out some are real bargains and some aren't and there are also better bargains than stuff previously posted.
With regards to integrity, wouldn't the most above-board thing to do be just to let the cream rise to the top? I get the impression that actively manipulating the front page REDUCES credibility.
@tebbybabes: The problem is that he general public don't read the thread and most of the time a cheaper price comment could be buried at the bottom.
I never said selling front page occurred, rather they should if they allow average deals to remain on the front page. Its being acknowledged there is herd behavior and Ozbargain friends in relation to voting of deals and Neil has said a review will be done into the 20 vote to reach front page.
How is it manipulating if you're showing a price that is cheaper? The way it presently structured is that big posters are getting more votes based on good will not the deal.
@GameChanger:
Thank goodness there isn't any front page selling.
The problem is that he general public don't read the thread and most of the time a cheaper price comment could be buried at the bottom
GC, If I could raise my hands and shrug, in text form, I would. If general public missed it even it was accessible to all members then the onus is on general public?
Showing a price that is cheaper is GOOD! I'm an ozbargainer, after all. But I'm calling it manipulating when a mod has to step in and delete a popular post that may not be the cheapest even though it's a legitimate deal. Yes, I see what you mean where posts seemingly get their votes from good will, but surely that can't be all of the votes. At any rate, I'm willing to accept that margin of error, content in the knowledge that the front page results come from votes of regular users, not someone deciding, "hold on, this is what you should see instead"
I suppose I view the front page as a collection of posts/deals that fellow ozbargainers have found helpful or interesting, most likely very good deals… NOT as a definitive list of BEST deals to be had that day.
So just to sum up some points.
Now I really hope this thread was about transparency in moderation and not a continuation of a fight between a group of users.
Again, please use the report link or Talk with a Moderator thread. All discussions are private.
+1 happy with current policy.
Attaching/bullying someone is a form of abuse and is not on.
Hi Neil. Is it intentional that I can't +1 your comments (ie you can't vote
on moderator comments) or is it a bug? (I am using chrome on an Android)
You can't vote on their comments if it's moderation related. If they are just commenting e.g. 'Great deal! Bought one!' Then you can vote. Mods please correct me if I'm wrong?
Yes, comments that are flagged as moderator can't be voted on. I've switched off the flag on this comment which can be voted on.
@easternculture: EC you don't get banned if you neg Mod comment, if you want to you can with no consequences.
I didn't neg you either.
And do you get banned for that lol
Only the big posters. I have evidence of this but I can't remember it due to Spackbace hijacking my very brain in a back room operation.
@neil: Its these comments that worry me Neil; perhaps you really do use a dartboard on deciding the penalties?
Why have you bolded certain letters? Is it code?
You're JV? Is that your normal day to day account?
What? I thought it was private! Yep sorry about that, had to go through the back door!
This is just so trivial!
@Spackbace: Spaceback serious question- why do you try to shut down topics that you don't like?
You don't like change?
As I've stated, I'm perfectly fine with how this site is run. I'm active across all parts of this site - deals/forums/competitions. I post, I comment, I vote.
I've since been corrected in that I've never been served a ban. Voting ban once from memory, but never banned for breaking the rules. Am I perfect? Nope. But I know how to follow some simple guidelines.
So, I have an issue with people questioning the rules and rule makers because I'm fine with how things are run. And given that this is a public forum, I'm able to express my opinion. If you can't counter-argue me, then that's your loss. Frankly, judging by the comment vote count on this post, it would appear that your opinion is in the vast minority.
And you know what? It would appear that this post has run its course. You've had your say, asked your questions (repetitively) and appears you got your answers. Poll results are heavily skewed 1 way, so what else is there to discuss?
Maybe try copy-pasting that?
@Spackbace: Talk about pushing your agenda and trying to influence the mods again.
Vast minority? 30% of people agree with me.
The way I worded the poll was poorly, as most are fine with the moderation but the core issue is how the penalty is determined which remains unclear. Furthermore mentioning big posters would have skewed the poll.
Its good some people have had the courage and acknowledged that big posters are treated better, but conveniently you ignored. I expected that from you, as you wouldn't understand being a small guy like myself.
@easternculture: Good one EC!
In relation to your bans was it fairly easy to reduced that 7 day ban?
Currently 26.3% agree with you. I consider that a vast minority.
Again, attempted segregation of posters based on post count. Seriously? Everyone has equal chances to share good deals.
Don't suppose you've ever seen how the competitor sites run? I think each of Buckscoop and Top Bargains have 3 main posters each. That's all. But here we have a large and varied community of people who share their finds.
Maybe you should join us more often, on the deals page? Would be better if your argument was based from a greater experience of deal posting, as oppose to just commenting.
Had to explain to mods that i wasn't trolling, and the post was a joke post: FREE Weekly Grocery Catalogues i.e. Woolworths, Coles & IGA Delivered to Your Mailbox
Moderatorneil on 02/11/2014 - 23:39
Hi,Thanks for explaining the situation. You have now been removed from the penalty box.
Neil
@Spackbace: You're very predictable I deliberately round up as I knew you would bring out the calculator and try to prove a point.
Who said anything about segregation? Have you even read the thread? Its about transparency regarding the length of penalties and permanent bans.
Well have a look, I have posted deals. Funny how you didn't up vote my deals, biased much?
@easternculture: Thank you EC for sharing that information.
This is where I have a problem, how did that post suddenly be deemed a 7 day penalty? Sure we know its based on past history, but what weighting was this offense?
And given that you didn't have to explain in depth, is perhaps a showing the decision was wrong?
I'm sorry maybe those 6 deals flew under my radar… Or I just didn't think they were that good? All sorts of possible reasons!
Yes unfortunately I've read the thread, and you keep commenting about small and big posters. That's segregation. You're grouping and categorising people.
Oh you deliberately rounded up? Shit sorry here I thought you were just bad at math. When I argue I like to try to make sure my facts are accurate. That includes any figures I use in my argument. Nothing fanciful, just fact
It looked like i was trolling. Explained that it was a misunderstanding and problem solved.
As neil said before , most things can be resolved via TWAM if you explain yourself and if your genuine.
@Spackbace: When I noticed it told me a lot about you. I'm not saying you should have voted all but the IGA one raised red flags.
I'm just pointing out what people have observed and haven't posted here. Have a look at the up votes on comments when big posters have being called out in the deals. That is indicative that many people are frustrated with a possible double standard.
Not sure about but I have done 3rd year Uni math units- thank you.
What defines and small and big poster?
I have twice as many posts as spackbace. Does that make him a small poster.
TA has 1/3 more posts than me. Does that make him a big poster and myself a medium poster?
So much confusion .. sigh
@easternculture: How do you prove you're genuine? I think that's quite subjective and as human being we're flawed and have tendencies to favor individuals unconsciously.
And is it on a per week basis? Per month? Total number?
I wish I knew EC, I wish there was transparency.
I think I'll go make a forum post. I need to know!
I think its obvious and you can tell if someone is genuine from their comment and post history.
If i was known to be a frequent troller, i most certainly would have served the ban in the penalty box with all the other inmates.
And is it on a per week basis? Per month? Total number?
Mods .. more transparency please regarding these points SB has mentioned
Maybe you should consult the community on what should be considered a small, medium and big poster. Can we have a massive poster category too.
Not sure about but I have done 3rd year Uni math units- thank you.
The simple fact you needed to use this piece of irrelevant information in this situation tells me everything I need to know about you :)
Just a shame that your uni didn't teach you how to properly form an argument based on sound reasoning and facts? I've never heard of a tertiary system teaching people to come to their own wild conclusions whilst ignoring the information at hand.
Maybe ECU might do that sorta thing
@Spackbace: I have seen you hijack many threads and you're doing the same here to get it closed.
This is very disappointing behavior especially when others want to post in here.
Maybe ECU
Eastern Culture Uni ?
I dont have a uni yet in my name but will post a ozbargain exclusive when its founded.
@Spackbace: Everyone from WA knows what ECU stands for and that post is insulting and bullying.
You're trying to get this thread closed by force through inflammatory comments. You're yet to make 1 single on topic one.
Oh and I made an on-topic one, I said this post was essentially a farce, a complete waste of time, that it should've been a TWAM
What will the major focus of Eastern Culture Uni be? :)
Bachelor in Bargain Hunting. The course is designed for smaller posters who aspire to become big posters such as OzBargain's renowned TA and Trent86.
Is it worth aspiring to that though, if they'll just get treated differently? Fingers pointed at them the minute they slip up
@Spackbace: Who're you to decide if the post is a farce?
It's evident you don't want transparency and want to ruin threads that don't suit your agenda. I asked you nicely to leave, but instead you have retorted to inflammatory comments and trying to influence the Mods. I have seen you do this to other threads.
And for your information I have nothing against you, I'm just disappointed the way you have gone about it.
This course will basically give you a free pass so you can troll as much as you like on ozbargain and not get banned :)
It has the scotty assurance seal on it
@GameChanger:
So you are saying if a user knows the specific timeframes of how long they will be banned what… they wont' attack people? it will make them know how much attacking they can do?