Current Events > Sbollen is changing da moderation dispute thing

(+) Yeah! (+)

If you dispute a moderation, the moderator should have a maximum of 24h to respond and he HAS to be able to associate the content of the moderation with the ToU in an undisputable manner.

If the explanation does not satisfy, it is arguable or it's vague, appeal directly to admin. Get rid of this lead mod nonsense.

If the answer does not come in 24h tops, the moderation gets automatically overturned.
---

TimDiamond posted...

Asherlee10 posted...

I would agree if this was a website that had a premium or subscription charge. I am not sure I can see the benefit to Gamefaqs.com for providing that information. They would likely lose a decent portion of moderators, including good ones.

Last I checked, GameFAQs doesn't pay people for guide submissions. There will always be users willing to step up to the plate to support this community.

https://www.gamefaqs.com/contribute/faq_bounty
---

Maybe sbollens comment was a late april fools joke
---

imho, mods should have to donate blood for every mod action they do
---

Dose are our demands
---

Error1355 posted...

ZombiePelican posted...

Error1355 posted...

Guys you do realize that everything the mods do gets tracked and is not actually 100% anonymous right? There is oversight.

Leave it to one of the worst mods to not want his identifying who he is whenever he makes another shit moderation

If anyone wanted to see why it'd be a bad idea to give people like this more reasons to give themselves a persecution complex, just look here.

Nah, your deflection won't work here.

If you're name is visible when you mod someone you wouldn't have the balls to act as snarky and condescending as you do
---

Disputing a warning shouldn't take longer to get a response than the warning takes to clear. It makes disputing kind of pointless, nobody cares about karma.
---

We want meta mod! We want meta mod! We want
---

smoliske posted...

-Gavirulax- posted...

Get rid of disputes altogether imo.
Certainly don't have competition from any other sites, it has always been something almost exclusive to this site (certainly no other gaming site) and has always been more trouble than it's worth.

get rid of karma too, it's worthless.

user levels will be based solely on time registered.

no, because people can shelve accounts, never use them again and come back to high level account
---

ZombiePelican posted...

If you're name is visible when you mod someone you wouldn't have the balls to act as snarky and condescending as you do

You already assume I do all the 'bad moderations' anyway. =P
---

If you're a good mod den you have nothing to worry about tbh
---

ssj3vegeta2 posted...

If you're a good mod den you have nothing to worry about tbh

What if a user was good and didn't have to worry about dispute systems :|
---

tizorres posted...

ssj3vegeta2 posted...

If you're a good mod den you have nothing to worry about tbh

What if a user was good and didn't have to worry about dispute systems :|

i literally getting modded over spoiler because i posted an episode title of an anime that's over a decade old.
the dispute only replied after 3 weeks, and my post not even restored.
---

Overturns exist so dat view is invalid tbh



Unless you think mods never make mistakes lmao
---

Error1355 posted...

ZombiePelican posted...

If you're name is visible when you mod someone you wouldn't have the balls to act as snarky and condescending as you do

You already assume I do all the 'bad moderations' anyway. =P

Again with the deflection, no I don't think you're behind them all. I just used you as a convenient scapegoat to make a point since you decided to chime in and you're terrible at what you do
---

ClunkerSlim posted...

I would say a quarter of the moderations around here happen because of inconsistent rules, mod mistakes, an unclear interpretation of the rules, and mods refusing to admit that they might be wrong.

Please don't just pull numbers out of thin air. =P
---

Error1355 posted...

ClunkerSlim posted...

I would say a quarter of the moderations around here happen because of inconsistent rules, mod mistakes, an unclear interpretation of the rules, and mods refusing to admit that they might be wrong.

Please don't just pull numbers out of thin air. =P

Of course. It's obvious it's higher.
---

Error1355 posted...

ClunkerSlim posted...

I would say a quarter of the moderations around here happen because of inconsistent rules, mod mistakes, an unclear interpretation of the rules, and mods refusing to admit that they might be wrong.

Please don't just pull numbers out of thin air. =P

Then show us the metrics
---

Honestly, in context it just sounds like they're planning to add an edit button or something.

I wouldn't get too excited.
---

Da fact dat you admit deres 1 percent dat do get targeted should frighten users tbh
---

Leave it to vegy to twist words and misrepresent what people have said.

How about locked topics, can other mods see dat now?


Iirc, mods couldn't see who locked a topic (when da tc didn't lock it) a few years ago, maybe dat changed iunno
---

itachi15243 posted...

Who is @Webmaster4531 anyways

I'm​ kinda surprised it's a real account. I hope I don't get in trouble for @ing it

It's a me, Mario.
---

Accountability and we should be able to see who locked a topic and why.
---

Yea, we currently can't dispute a locked topic which isn't fair imo
---

you people take moderations and moderators way too seriously

it's just a forum, just a topic, just a post. who cares

@P4wn4g3 posted...

Last time it was changed drastically it was bad. I think that would have been 10 years ago though.

What was it like before dis
---

glitteringfairy posted...

APM posted...

cuttin_in_farm posted...

Put the Mods' names on the moderation.

Make them give their reasoning too.

---

tizorres posted...

ssj3vegeta2 posted...

If you're a good mod den you have nothing to worry about tbh

What if a user was good and didn't have to worry about dispute systems :|

too bad good users do have to because mods do bad things

I have had overturns before

guess how many got overturned by the first dispute? 0

only the leads or admin seem willing to actually overturn a bad moderation from my exp
---

smoliske posted...

you people take moderations and moderators way too seriously

it's just a forum, just a topic, just a post. who cares

if the forums weren't serious

then why have mods in the first place?
just a forum who cares
---

Lol at dat random error outburst
---

ssj3vegeta2 posted...

@P4wn4g3 posted...

Last time it was changed drastically it was bad. I think that would have been 10 years ago though.

What was it like before dis

Iirc there was one less level to it, so a second appeal could screw you over
---

There were also things such as transparency, which led to paranoid people becoming more paranoid and acting out. That was earlier I think.

Mostly what I was thinking of was when the GameSpot mods came in and started modding. Not only did they not understand the rules, they commonly cited the GameSpot rules and took action when none was warranted even on unmarked posts. Furthermore they would get into arguments with GameFAQs mods in disputes. It was a mess.
---

Also they should definitely keep the dispute system only site that has a way to repeal
---

Having anonymous mods who dont provide reasons for their actions is like having anonymous cops who dont provide reasons for arresting people
---

shut the fuck up

Questionmarktarius posted...

Legalese the shit out of the TOS.
"Post is in violation of Title 3, Chapter 1, Section 15, Paragraph 2"

---

Kim Kusanagi posted...

If you dispute a moderation, the moderator should have a maximum of 24h to respond and he HAS to be able to associate the content of the moderation with the ToU in an undisputable manner.

If the explanation does not satisfy, it is arguable or it's vague, appeal directly to admin. Get rid of this lead mod nonsense.

If the answer does not come in 24h tops, the moderation gets automatically overturned.

This all sounds great. Moderations need to be shown to have a concrete connection to the TOU. And the TOU itself needs to be spelled out better with clear definitions and examples. None of this vague interpretation and bending over backwards to justify what certain jello spined, thought police mods consider "offensive" or not about people's posts. I mean you can respond with nothing but an "lol" and have it stricken because "offensive". You find something funny about what someone said that isn't liberal pansy approved. Anyone can find something "offensive" about any damn thing you like if you want to.
---

Kaname_Madoka posted...

Questionmarktarius posted...

Legalese the shit out of the TOS.
"Post is in violation of Title 3, Chapter 1, Section 15, Paragraph 2"

this would require for posts to be in violation of the tos before mods punish you, and for a real tos to actually exist. we both know neither of those are ever going to happen
---

Rika_Furude posted...

and for a real tos to actually exist.

Are you a ToU truther?
---