RFC: A rule requiring pms to moderators before posting complaints.

2+2 had a rule that you should first pm a moderator to ask them to act on your complaint before taking it to ATF to bitch about moderation. Although 2+2 had its flaws, I think this was a good rule because it often settled disputes without the need to start a drama thread in ATF.

I propose that we institute a rule that posters should first pm the moderator, or all moderators, to make sure that they are even aware of the subject of the posters complaint, before starting or adding to a drama thread in ATF. This will cut down on forum drama and also might actually lead to those posters getting what they want in a much easier and less confrontational manner. Here’s some poles:

Should a rule be instituted whereby posters are required to pm a moderator or moderators with their request before starting a complaint thread or posting a complaint in ATF?
  • Yes
  • No

0 voters

Regardless of your vote above, if this rule is instituted, how much time should a poster give the moderator to respond before posting their complaint?
  • 30 Minutes
  • 1 Hour
  • 3 Hours
  • 6 Hours
  • 12 Hours
  • 1 day
  • 2 days

0 voters

Aren’t the moderators already notified via the flagging process? I mean, obviously if you think someone should be temp-banned for a post, the first step should be to flag it.

Yes but this would at least allow/force a discussion between the “aggrieved” poster and the moderator before starting a new issue in ATF. If the aggrieved poster is not satisfied, then by all means, post away. But at least this would cut down on some of these threads because oftentimes they are created I’m sure before a moderator can even act.

I should also add that the “penalty” for disobeying this rule on 2+2 was that you got mercilessly trolled in ATF and ridiculed (you weren’t banned or anything). I think that’s fine as well here.

I don’t entirely disagree with your point of view, as I hate seeing the drama and think it’s bad for the forum. For me, part of the confusion is the ambiguity about whether a moderator has seen it.

In the most recent case, the message was already hidden, which could mean either:

  1. a moderator saw the flags and actively chose to hide the post.
  2. the forum software automatically hid the post based on some algorithm (who flagged it, how many flagged it, whatever)

If it’s the first, then I think it’s reasonable to ask “Hey man, you saw the post and acted on it, but didn’t temp-ban. Why?” If it’s the second, then not. I’m also not exactly sure what moderators see when a post is flagged (and whether it depends on whether another moderator acts on it). So I voted no here on incomplete information and could easily see myself changing the vote to yes.

1 Like

I guess it was too quiet around here for jman for a couple days.

7 Likes

This is not constructive.

Under either scenario though, isn’t it better to have the aggrieved poster talkign to the moderators directly to see if it can be resolved? If the moderator tells them to fuck off, then absolutely, take it to ATF.

This Thread is not constructive and you damn well know it.

Why? If this rule passes this would absolutely reduce some of the bs that goes on and you know it.

I don’t think I’m particularly biased and I think this thread is constructive.

It’s a fine system until you try to complain about mods not removing white supremacist videos from the 2p2 politics forum. Not a system we should emulate.

1 Like

Suppose I find a post offensive, and I flag it. 24 hours later, I notice that it’s been hidden but the OP has not been banned. What is the point of sending a message to the moderators before posting about it? To make double-sure that they saw it?

I think a more reasonable stance would be, “No posting a complaint about moderation unless at least 12 or 24 or whatever hours have gone by since the offending action.”

I guess what I was saying is, I’m not even suggesting there be a penalty for this rule violation. Just that we make it a rule.

It’s a bad idea obviously, because it proposes to swap a transparent process that makes mods accountable and complainants visible for one shrouded in secrecy.

1 Like

Jman is deliberately trying to stir s*** up. He’s pissed that the other people in his recent arguments have stopped arguing and this is his gambit.

4 Likes

Yeah I think that is important, to make sure it was read and the moderator understood the reason why it was offensive.

I’m not necessarily against this either.

I did not start the latest flare-up and had nothing to do with it. Try again.

1 Like

In regards to the merits of the proposal, it’s hard to imagine worse. People have to ask mods permission before criticizing them? Are you kidding???

3 Likes

jman and jal are both stirring shit up.