Site Comments & Suggestions

Locked: User banning and thread locking

  • Last Updated:
  • Mar 7th, 2018 12:33 pm
Moderator
User avatar
Dec 7, 2007
4939 posts
18550 upvotes
Toronto
peanutz wrote:
Mar 1st, 2018 6:01 pm
As far as I understood it, the OP had asked for it to be locked...but maybe not...?

I think the removal was unfair to anyone who posted or followed the thread. If it was going to be allowed in the first place, why didn't "community contribution" keep it open? So if the progress and outcome was what OP liked, he could decide the thread could remain visible and open, but because it wasn't, it was locked?

The issue I have is that the thread was allowed and users basically encouraged the guy to pursue a woman in her public job, which I personally don't think is appropriate, BUT I didn't push the issue after expressing the opinion (with a minority of users sharing the view) since it is subjective grey area. Fine. But after the outcome...discussion, reflection was squashed.
Are you for real? So you were against it first, but now you questioning why it was locked?

Listen the guy created that thread and the forum went with it. I mean come on, that thread was legit imo. He tried, but failed apparently. End of story, there was nothing else left to discuss in there.

Plenty more threads are available to follow everyday. Day by day new ones are popping up. It's just a forum don't sweat it. ;)
Deal Addict
May 17, 2005
4743 posts
641 upvotes
and another thread closed
scarborough-teacher-accused-sexually-as ... y-2174870/

BTW
lol ... hats off to you titaniumtux ...

Bebo123 wrote: ↑

muslims keep saying it's a "Peaceful Religion"?!?!?!?!
That's not the point. They can claim what they want, we should be free to discuss and criticize. More importantly, not grant them diplomatic immunity just for following a 7th century caravan trader.
Moderator
User avatar
Dec 7, 2007
4939 posts
18550 upvotes
Toronto
lubmar wrote:
Mar 1st, 2018 10:48 pm
and another thread closed
scarborough-teacher-accused-sexually-as ... y-2174870/

BTW
lol ... hats off to you titaniumtux ...
Listen, what else is there to discuss? Terrible thing, but let's be honest, that thread was a easy opportunity to bash/criticize religion and whatnot. Maybe, if you guys could focus and discuss it actually without bringing all that crap into it, then the thread could and should stay open.
Moderator
User avatar
Jul 5, 2004
23700 posts
3205 upvotes
peanutz wrote:
Mar 1st, 2018 6:14 pm
Another example of subjective judgments leading to inconsistent moderation:
A discussion escalated into bickering with daivey in a thread where he admitted to never selling a thing on Kijiji but was telling other Kijiji sellers how they should do it (or how he would imagine doing it.)

daivey is in the Penalty Box, which supposedly means his posts had to be approved by a mod. Therefore, apparently a mod was approving his bickering posts with me.

I tried to ignore it when it became clear that he was exaggerating my position/POV into more extreme and ridiculous scenarios, but he multi-posted and only after I responded pointing out his double standards, were both of our posts moderated/removed.

So why is that? Why was some mod approving bickering posts?

There are users calling for decreased use of subjectivity. Not only is it possible that mods are out of step with the userbase (I'm not sure about that, maybe, maybe not), but it's clear that mods are not even in step with each other.

(I am not singling out any moderator as I feel that this is a system/policy issue.)
Inconsistent moderation comes up a lot, and you're not wrong. Us mods don't always agree on what should be locked, deleted, etc. We don't make the rules, the admins do, and they provide direction, but there's still interpretation involved. We all are swayed by different thoughts, beliefs, etc. We follow the direction from the admins, but at the same time, we interpret that direction differently (not always, obviously). Some things are obvious, some are a judgement call. We do our best. Most of the time our actions aren't visible. It's minor things like editing a title in hot deals to add the price. The system isn't perfect and neither are our actions, but our goal is always to follow directions set out by admins and try not to let our personal beliefs influence our actions, but we're only human
Deal Fanatic
User avatar
Oct 1, 2011
6337 posts
1486 upvotes
MTommy wrote:
Mar 1st, 2018 9:54 pm
Are you for real? So you were against it first, but now you questioning why it was locked?
Yes, I am for real. There is no need for your petty tone, I am making an earnest comment that is not personally directed to anyone. The thread and the topic was questionable as another mod herself said that similar threads had been locked much sooner, but that one was clearly, deliberately allowed to continue for some time. The timing and decision-making process of locking it was unclear.
MTommy wrote:
Mar 1st, 2018 9:54 pm
Listen the guy created that thread and the forum went with it. I mean come on, that thread was legit imo. He tried, but failed apparently. End of story, there was nothing else left to discuss in there.
That is your opinion, and I am giving mine. Most other threads are allowed to be pushed down open-ended through disinterest, but there was an active decision to close it at a specific time even though no one was being unpleasant to each other. I thought it was a good time to discuss whether the OP's approach in general was wrong. If that type of thread was against the general policies of the forum, then I would have preferred that it were closed sooner before we got to the point of numerous posters encouraging the guy to pursue the bus driver.
MTommy wrote:
Mar 1st, 2018 9:54 pm
Plenty more threads are available to follow everyday. Day by day new ones are popping up. It's just a forum don't sweat it. ;)
Plenty other threads for you to post in as well if my opinion does not interest you. I am doing what I am interested in. To you it's an "aw shucks" story, to me it is more than that.

I don't know if we are seeing a flood of angry women these days who are plotting revenge to crucify former romantic interests in the public arena because it's the trendy thing...or if we have a serious epidemic of men (and women too?) who have a difficult time navigating the gray area of mutually enjoyable interactions, consent, boundaries, etc. Most people understand clear rape, or clear assault, but the gray area of 'I like this' and 'this is unwanted' seems to be a messy place. Victims too may also have a responsibility to make objections clearer as well, I don't know, I feel it is a worthwhile discussion to have.

My opinions do not have to be pushed or insisted in that thread, but I brought it up here because this thread already has a discussion on subjectivity, disagreements, and lack of clarity/consistency in moderation. There is no single mod to specify because it is the nature of human decisions. I am not questioning why it was closed (because the mod explained it when she closed it); I am pointing out that it is confusing and frustrating to wonder why it was first allowed, and then closed at that moment.

Just like I am wondering how/why a moderator was approving bickering posts (by apparently a habitual line-stepper who had to be muzzled via Penalty Box) directed at or about me, calling me a hypocrite Kijiji seller, etc. and then both my responses and his posts are removed due to...bickering.
Moderator
User avatar
Dec 7, 2007
4939 posts
18550 upvotes
Toronto
peanutz wrote:
Mar 2nd, 2018 12:02 am
Yes, I am for real. There is no need for your petty tone, I am making an earnest comment that is not personally directed to anyone. The thread and the topic was questionable as another mod herself said that similar threads had been locked much sooner, but that one was clearly, deliberately allowed to continue for some time. The timing and decision-making process of locking it was unclear.

That is your opinion, and I am giving mine. Most other threads are allowed to be pushed down open-ended through disinterest, but there was an active decision to close it at a specific time even though no one was being unpleasant to each other. I thought it was a good time to discuss whether the OP's approach in general was wrong. If that type of thread was against the general policies of the forum, then I would have preferred that it were closed sooner before we got to the point of numerous posters encouraging the guy to pursue the bus driver.

Plenty other threads for you to post in as well if my opinion does not interest you. I am doing what I am interested in. To you it's an "aw shucks" story, to me it is more than that.

I don't know if we are seeing a flood of angry women these days who are plotting revenge to crucify former romantic interests in the public arena because it's the trendy thing...or if we have a serious epidemic of men (and women too?) who have a difficult time navigating the gray area of mutually enjoyable interactions, consent, boundaries, etc. Most people understand clear rape, or clear assault, but the gray area of 'I like this' and 'this is unwanted' seems to be a messy place. Victims too may also have a responsibility to make objections clearer as well, I don't know, I feel it is a worthwhile discussion to have.

My opinions do not have to be pushed or insisted in that thread, but I brought it up here because this thread already has a discussion on subjectivity, disagreements, and lack of clarity/consistency in moderation. There is no single mod to specify because it is the nature of human decisions. I am not questioning why it was closed (because the mod explained it when she closed it); I am pointing out that it is confusing and frustrating to wonder why it was first allowed, and then closed at that moment.

Just like I am wondering how/why a moderator was approving bickering posts (by apparently a habitual line-stepper who had to be muzzled via Penalty Box) directed at or about me, calling me a hypocrite Kijiji seller, etc. and then both my responses and his posts are removed due to...bickering.
Honest question. Did you report the post/thread? I'm sorry I'm not trying to be mean, but I don't understand why this is a big issue now?
Deal Fanatic
User avatar
Oct 1, 2011
6337 posts
1486 upvotes
MTommy wrote:
Mar 2nd, 2018 12:55 am
Honest question. Did you report the post/thread? I'm sorry I'm not trying to be mean, but I don't understand why this is a big issue now?
Sorry, you seem to be having difficulty understanding that inconsistent moderation--situationally, and from mod to mod--has been an ongoing issue for years now. It has been mentioned before in this forum. Is this your first time seeing this perspective brought up on RFD?

At this point my expectation is that RFD gonna RFD (status quo will largely be unchanged); I didn't care enough about that specific thread, but someone else brought up that thread as an example of a confusingly locked thread.

Is there a reason why you are singling me out with this question instead of directing the question to Post #10 as well?

Do you have any insights to share or are you just making it loudly known that other people sharing their opinions and comments in a discussion forum is seemingly unnecessary and unwelcome to you?

All of these are "HONEST questions". I am "FOR REAL".
Moderator
User avatar
Aug 20, 2009
7036 posts
1722 upvotes
Grimsby
peanutz wrote:
Mar 1st, 2018 6:14 pm
Another example of subjective judgments leading to inconsistent moderation:
A discussion escalated into bickering with daivey in a thread where he admitted to never selling a thing on Kijiji but was telling other Kijiji sellers how they should do it (or how he would imagine doing it.)

daivey is in the Penalty Box, which supposedly means his posts had to be approved by a mod. Therefore, apparently a mod was approving his bickering posts with me.

I tried to ignore it when it became clear that he was exaggerating my position/POV into more extreme and ridiculous scenarios, but he multi-posted and only after I responded pointing out his double standards, were both of our posts moderated/removed.

So why is that? Why was some mod approving bickering posts?

There are users calling for decreased use of subjectivity. Not only is it possible that mods are out of step with the userbase (I'm not sure about that, maybe, maybe not), but it's clear that mods are not even in step with each other.

(I am not singling out any moderator as I feel that this is a system/policy issue.)
Let me use your post as an example to demonstrate why you can't have 100% consistent moderation.

You just singled out another poster in this sub, not exactly appropriate in my opinion when you could've easily anonymized it and still presented your point. That might lead that user to be upset and post something to defend himself. Then we are saddled with the decision of whether to approve that post or not. Do we edit your post or leave it alone? Were you being sincere or were you just using this as an excuse to call out another user that you have bad history with? Maybe it escalates from there, do we act now or wait until later and then have to delete posts and potentially issue infractions? On one hand we'll be accused of censorship and on the other we'll be accused of not doing enough to prevent it. Many people will come to different conclusions based off this simple example and most of the reports coming from Off-Topic are much more involved than that.

My point is that it's not as easy as you think. It is not possible for moderation to be 100% consistent and what you call inconsistency I call balance. Some of the mods have been around a long time and some are newer like myself and still learning. Some mods frequent areas more than others and know the posters involved, who has beefs with whom and etc. If I see posters bickering I will try to evaluate if they can work it out or not and if its escalating. I don't like inserting myself because it tends to disrupt the flow of a thread. If I don't think they can then I will intervene or post in the thread. Sometimes threads are locked for obvious reasons and other times its for things that you might not be privy to, like one made by a secondary account for the purposes of baiting/trolling.

I don't agree with your conclusions that there are any serious problems with the moderation and I say that as someone who was a user for 9 years before becoming a moderator. We would be seeing much larger threads than this consistently if there was. I think if you look at the ratio of open to closed threads and the wide variety of viewpoints represented, you would have a difficult time demonstrating that this place is not permissive and open. I know that if I've made a mistake, I don't mind admitting it and reversing my decision, we're human after all. So feel free to give me feedback if you find some inconsistency but also be a little understanding that each situation is different and that some is inevitable due to the nature of moderation.

If you have a problem, you have recourse. Report the post, talk to a mod directly or failing that escalate it to TomRFD.
Deal Fanatic
User avatar
Oct 1, 2011
6337 posts
1486 upvotes
Redmask wrote:
Mar 2nd, 2018 7:44 am
Let me use your post as an example to demonstrate why you can't have 100% consistent moderation.

You just singled out another poster in this sub, not exactly appropriate in my opinion when you could've easily anonymized it and still presented your point.
Negative. I did not single him out. He was named because it was a specific incident with specific context, I didn't decide to name one from among several users I had a similar interaction with. Anonymizing reduces the description of the case, and I cannot speak in generalities since I do not know the nature of the other posts that are approved from Penalty Box members that end up being contradictory to the rules policies.

If you would like to share other examples of Penalty Box posts that were approved to disagreement, feel free to share. Anonymize all you want.
Redmask wrote:
Mar 2nd, 2018 7:44 am
That might lead that user to be upset and post something to defend himself. Then we are saddled with the decision of whether to approve that post or not. Do we edit your post or leave it alone? Were you being sincere or were you just using this as an excuse to call out another user that you have bad history with? Maybe it escalates from there, do we act now or wait until later and then have to delete posts and potentially issue infractions? On one hand we'll be accused of censorship and on the other we'll be accused of not doing enough to prevent it. Many people will come to different conclusions based off this simple example and most of the reports coming from Off-Topic are much more involved than that.
Since when is RFD concerned about "accusations of censorship"? Someone being in the Penalty Box is by definition already censored. His posts default to not being visible until manually decensored.
Redmask wrote:
Mar 2nd, 2018 7:44 am
My point is that it's not as easy as you think.
My point is that it's near impossible to have consistency when the process allows for much subjectivity, and therefore I agree with the idea of minimizing decisions that call for subjective judgment. More invitation to users to Ignore posts or posters that are offensive to their sensibilities, as opposed to shutting down whole discussion threads, is one way. I believe RFD disagrees though...and I'm OK with that too. I am merely taking the opportunity to discuss it once again in another thread that has brought it up.
Redmask wrote:
Mar 2nd, 2018 7:44 am
I don't agree with your conclusions that there are any serious problems with the moderation and I say that as someone who was a user for 9 years before becoming a moderator. We would be seeing much larger threads than this consistently if there was. I think if you look at the ratio of open to closed threads and the wide variety of viewpoints represented, you would have a difficult time demonstrating that this place is not permissive and open. I know that if I've made a mistake, I don't mind admitting it and reversing my decision, we're human after all. So feel free to give me feedback if you find some inconsistency but also be a little understanding that each situation is different and that some is inevitable due to the nature of moderation.
Redmask, I am not trying to flatter my way to any kind of concession, I think whomever nominated you to be a moderator made an excellent choice. I cannot even remember the post(s) that give me this impression, except the impression was formed some time ago that you are a good contributor, not just participant of RFD. And I hope that continues, as opposed to the posters-cum-mods who seem to stick mostly to the private mod forum; thriving forums are rich in user-driven content and resources. In the same vein, I know that some mods have been criticized for giving their personal opinions in controversial topics but I actually appreciate that, as it makes it obvious that these mods are still very much invested in the actual discussion element of the forum experience.

So I am not saying that this is a big issue or that this place is not permissive or open, I am speaking from the viewpoint that consistency may, and can be improved, even if never perfect. If one wants to view this as me swatting at daivey or creating a crusade at the mods as a group, that's completely wrong.

Honestly the most disappointing incident was that bus driver thread, I cannot tell you how many times I have been at work wanting to yell at a mostly benign person holding the notion that it can be our personal socializing opportunity. With a complete bias and no specific knowledge or criticism of that OP (he was innocent and respectful enough), I do think a relevant discussion on the wider scope of human interactions was missed.
Moderator
User avatar
Aug 20, 2009
7036 posts
1722 upvotes
Grimsby
I feel like you missed my point entirely there about your post but unfortunately I'm pretty busy at the moment so I can't do a line by line debate about it. Perhaps I will PM you this weekend to discuss it further.

As Shaner said, we're human and I feel like we already do a lot to minimize subjectivity to a reasonable degree. Things being totally inflexible wouldn't produce a very fun environment for anyone. We have very few closed threads and discussion is fairly open. And again, there is recourse when you seriously disagree with a decision. But I will keep what you said in mind.
Deal Addict
May 17, 2005
4743 posts
641 upvotes
peanutz wrote:
Mar 2nd, 2018 12:28 pm
...
More invitation to users to Ignore posts or posters that are offensive to their sensibilities, as opposed to shutting down whole discussion threads
...
know that some mods have been criticized for giving their personal opinions in controversial topics but I actually appreciate that, as it makes it obvious that these mods are still very much invested in the actual discussion element of the forum experience.
...
+1
Deal Fanatic
User avatar
Oct 1, 2011
6337 posts
1486 upvotes
Redmask wrote:
Mar 2nd, 2018 1:22 pm
I feel like you missed my point entirely there about your post but unfortunately I'm pretty busy at the moment so I can't do a line by line debate about it. Perhaps I will PM you this weekend to discuss it further.

As Shaner said, we're human and I feel like we already do a lot to minimize subjectivity to a reasonable degree. Things being totally inflexible wouldn't produce a very fun environment for anyone. We have very few closed threads and discussion is fairly open. And again, there is recourse when you seriously disagree with a decision. But I will keep what you said in mind.
Redmask, I really hope you or any other mod is not taking this as any personal criticism or anything of that sort, nor something to individually remedy. I also think a few of my points are being missed but regardless; another look and consideration of the processes that lead to the disparities was the aim. I accept your view if you have concluded it as being sufficient and fair (with the occasional hiccups), it's the review that is important to me, not perfection.

I was certainly bickering in a heated argument with daivey when MrDisco moderated my posts. Mars2012's closing of the bus driver thread was completely in line with the norms of the forum, although I think an opportunity for respectful discussion was missed--which is very rare here when it comes to topics of romance and man/woman interactions! Face With Stuck-out Tongue And Tightly-closed Eyes I have real concerns when even innocent behaviours were encouraged in the bus driver thread, because, for myself and other women I have talked with...even well-meaning one-sided attempts at courtship can sometimes create discomfort, anxiety, and dread...so I opposed it being fanned. Well the thread flourished anyhow and then the reflective phase was nipped short.

Finally, I am not saying the admins and mods do an overall bad job, not at all. It's overall very good (with improvement in the last 2-3 years IMO), and a few mods are exceptional.
Moderator
User avatar
Jul 5, 2004
23700 posts
3205 upvotes
Peanutz, just curious, what would you like to see us do differently?
Deal Fanatic
May 9, 2007
6049 posts
1139 upvotes
Vancouver Island, BC
TomRFD wrote:
Mar 1st, 2018 1:13 pm
This.

It's usually the same few members whose threads get repeatedly closed and we've become pretty good at guessing which threads will spiral downhill. OP's don't often question a threads closing which says something in itself.
I agree. This suggests to me that those OPs know what they are doing. I suggest that RFD promotes that behaviour by permitting it and apparently not sanctioning the repeat offenders.

I suggest that if an OP has a history of starting threads that get closed, that sanctions be taken regarding the repeat offender.
Earthlings, you're evicted.
You are not getting the damage deposit back.

God
Deal Fanatic
User avatar
Oct 1, 2011
6337 posts
1486 upvotes
Shaner wrote:
Mar 2nd, 2018 9:01 pm
Peanutz, just curious, what would you like to see us do differently?
Improve consistency & reduce subjectivity

Top