How do I report a forum mod?

spartaxoxo

Back when I was a mod for a different game we could take the following steps

Removed but no warned--> removed for very low level offenses. We did not keep track of this and considered these the metaphorical equivalent of jaywalking. I'd consider your example here if it were the site I worked on.

Removed and warned ---> warnings accumulated points and could lead to a ban.

Removed and temporarily banned --> this could happen automatically after too many warnings or instantly if the offense was great enough.

Removed and permanently banned ---> extreme offenses or too many temp bans in a 1 year time period. Permanent bans for too many temp bans only occured after a review of the account history. This was never automatic and we issued very few of these. The vast majority were particularly outrageous things like a user who threatened to physically harm staff.

We only kept track of offenses for so long, I think bans were 2 years but warnings only 1.

Users seemed to think this was a pretty fair system.

Edit
My mod team would occasionally be praised for being fair using this.
One other thing that we did as a team that I feel contributed to that was we'd occasionally post positive comments on threads. For example things like "beautiful outfit" or "I've passed this feedback along to the CM"

I think that this helped make the mod team feel more approachable. I know it's not the mods job to do that on this site. But, I think the team should consider whether or not it's worth it to empower the mods to leave the occasional friendly comment like "nice house" or whatever, so that users are less hostile towards them. But I can also see why that doesn't happen here as it may be too time consuming or other issues.

SilverBride

I agree, but I do think any time a post is removed the poster should be told why, even if there was no warning attached to it. To help prevent them from making the same mistake in the future.

spartaxoxo

SilverBride wrote: »

I agree, but I do think any time a post is removed the poster should be told why, even if there was no warning attached to it. To help prevent them from making the same mistake in the future.

Yes. We always told why. Most of the time it was just a rule citation and we only got more detailed upon request. The vast majority of time the users understood the rule break or just didn't feel it was worth discussing. The mod team does this here but seem reticent to get into more detail on request.

TaSheen

I've always been told why a post was moderated (whether that was just "word snipped" or removed). Hasn't happened a lot, but the mods have always explained.

NotaDaedraWorshipper

Adding my voice to one of many who don't feel like posting much any more. It's not that recent either, the change in moderation for the negative happened some years ago now. Since then I've seen several people I know either leave of their own accord after several warnings that made no sense and because of their negative view of the moderation, or they were permanently banned. I'm even worried I might get my last and final warning leading to a ban by just posting this comment, which I am trying to format as politely and according to the rules as I can.

I remember to one of my warnings/temporary suspensions, I even took and replied to the ticket because it was so nonsensical to me why that comment earned me a warning and temporary ban from the forum. It was going to make me miss asking a question for an loremaster archive, so not only did I hope I could maybe clear up a misunderstanding, I could also find out what not to do in the future. But after several back and forth in a ticket I gave up, because there was no point. I was just repeated the same spiel over and over again, sometimes phrased slightly different. It was baiting/bashing/slandering or whichever and that's it. Didn't matter how many times I asked them to explain how it was that, if it was a specific part or whatever, it just was. English is not my first language, but I do consider myself pretty good at it, since it was taught to me at an early age, yet I could not understand what me or friends who also have had warnings over the years, had done wrong.

To make it worse. I've seen comments that are way more antagonistic, conflict seeking, and straight out icky from certain people who never seem to get any form of moderation, even though I know they have been reported by several people. They just get away with any behavior which hints to some severe bias, teacher's pet or such.
I've also seen sexism, homophobia, transphobia, and many other forms of anti-LGBTQ+ that either took days to be moderated and some that weren't moderated at all. Sometimes the people who spoke up against it was moderated but not those comments.
I even know of a person who got a warning/ban from quoting a comment from someone who was! That's ridiculous.
Edit: Found out recently someone else got a temporary ban for linking a gaming news article related to the discussion. Like if linking is bad, just delete the comment without bans and tell the person linking is not allowed if so? Banning is such an extreme and strange action.

There are further bizarre behavior in moderation. Like harmless comments that are just having a bit of fun discussing the lore getting completely deleted. Or one time when I posted an informative comment to someone related to Elder Scrolls lore, which had part of it being a reply to someone else who was inaccurate but also insulting and rude, their comment was just edited but mine was completely deleted.

Snarky or silly one liners look like they are a 50/50 with if they will give people a warning or awesomes, sometimes even positive ZOS member reaction.


I don't feel comfortable posting on this forum any more, in more ways than one.

Syldras

TaSheen wrote: »

I've always been told why a post was moderated (whether that was just "word snipped" or removed). Hasn't happened a lot, but the mods have always explained.

The messages always contain a passage stating which rule was broken, that's true. But what if we truly can't understand how the deleted post was interpreted that way?

Several users here wrote that they did not get an explanation upon asking, and that there's even the risk that asking could be seen as a provocation (which would be another rule violation and could lead to even worse consequences).

TaSheen

Syldras wrote: »

TaSheen wrote: »

I've always been told why a post was moderated (whether that was just "word snipped" or removed). Hasn't happened a lot, but the mods have always explained.

The messages always contain a passage stating which rule was broken, that's true. But what if we truly can't understand how the deleted post was interpreted that way?

Several users here wrote that they did not get an explanation upon asking, and that there's even the risk that asking could be seen as a provocation (which would be another rule violation and could lead to even worse consequences).

That's not happened to me.

gariondavey

I also feel like I'm walking on eggshells on here after a few infractions which seemed really minor.
Certain mods definitely seem to pick on individuals posts. A friend of mine has felt incredibly targeted by a specific mod, and I have felt targeted by this mod at times.
You would hope that when you respond to them in messages after they tell you they edited you, that they could have a conversation with you but anytime I've attempted that I've never gotten a response.

Would be nice if they were a bit more chill. Some people act in bad faith on here but many of us don't. Please look at a system to not consider past infractions after a certain time period of "good behavior".

vsrs_au

It's not just the general moderation approach that could do with improvement: the actual moderators should crack down more on the self-appointed moderators: there are too many of them on this forum.

katanagirl1

SkaiFaith wrote: »

katanagirl1 wrote: »

You non-native English speakers sound just fine to me. It’s the native English speakers from America posting things about “should of” done something that just kill me, lol.

I learn English every day online from random people's comments since it's not my native language, and every single time I read "should of" or similar errors I genuinely question my knowledge and doubt that maybe I am the one who gets it wrong. Thank you for clarifying this XD

Language barrier (a lacking vocabulary on my part) and cultural differences can make things difficult.
For example here where I am things like teasing, being sarcastic and witty or a little provocative are quite the norm, and are frequently used in friendly banter and even flirting, so I'm always surprised when something I type for fun without ANY, not even the minimum intention to offend but just joke around, gets taken as an offense.
I'm used to people with "quite a thick skin" and I get disappointed myself when something I say gets taken too seriously or as something bad. I never have the intention to offend or hurt but unfortunately I can get misunderstood. I'm used to think that the intention is what matters, so I tend to justify myself with the mods saying that I genuinely have no bad intentions because it's the truth and I wouldn't know how to defend myself otherwise.

Obviously if someone acts with clear bad intentions there needs to be an action against them. But I find difficult to draw the line for myself on this forum since the way I would express myself in real life with people around me seems to be "too much" for this instance. I get confused and discouraged to comment...

(Sorry for my broken English XD)

A lot of people on here like you saying that English is not their first language and being confused about moderation. It sounds like there needs to be more attention focused on that area in my opinion.

Muizer

SilverBride wrote: »

What if someone says something similar to "All your posts are complaints about this thing and that thing and this other thing, and maybe you shouldn't be playing MMOs."

Accusations are being made that may not even be true, and the poster is being told they have no business playing an MMO. There is no way to interpret that other than being critical and making personal judgements about a poster rather than discussing the topic, which is a clear forum rule.

Some will say it is too much to ask of people to realize of their own accord that this is baiting. So, a moderator should be lenient and delete the phrase/post with an explanation. If that same user continues posting like this, moderators will have to choose whether start handing out penalties. So, consistency is not the same as "this offense means that intervention / penalty". For grey area matters like these, you have to look at a particular poster's record. Only blatant ToS violations should lead to penalties directly.

MJallday

1. Everyone complains about over moderation.
2. Moderator comes along and deletes posts for “back and forth”

I believe This is literally what everyone means. It’s over moderation.

For the love of god please give people a voice . Let the back and forth happen! There was no sniping , no nasty name calling and no violence

SeaGtGruff wrote: »

MJallday wrote: »

the problem is on this board is that if there is any HINT of critisism of this game,it gets shut down.

The large number of threads and posts in this forum which are critical of the game would seem to refute that. It might be how you and others feel, but I don't think it holds up.

In fact, occasionally someone will start a thread which basically praises the game or the devs, and THAT type of thread may vanish without a trace, too, so clearly the determining factors cannot simply be whether comments are critical or laudatory, but something more than that.

If you're struggling to find a way to express yourself without bashing or baiting, my best advice is to just step away from the keyboard-- or phone, or tablet-- and go do something else for a while, to give yourself time to depressurize and settle down. Trust me, I need to do that sort of thing a lot!

If it’s how I and others feel - then it holds up.

The truth is (as evidenced) that threads and posts disappear for a variety of reasons, not all of them are explicable or understandable, or even valid - and it’s leading to frustration for the user base

Thank you for the advice , but I don’t require it

Aurielle

Syldras wrote: »

TaSheen wrote: »

I've always been told why a post was moderated (whether that was just "word snipped" or removed). Hasn't happened a lot, but the mods have always explained.

The messages always contain a passage stating which rule was broken, that's true. But what if we truly can't understand how the deleted post was interpreted that way?

Several users here wrote that they did not get an explanation upon asking, and that there's even the risk that asking could be seen as a provocation (which would be another rule violation and could lead to even worse consequences).

I really wish I could show the explanation given to me for why one of my responses got <snipped> for “spamming.” Still scratching my head over that one…

SilverBride

I wish we could show specific examples that really happened, because that would make our problem with it much more clear.

Vaqual

This is thread I needed to see. Thank you to all contributors.
I just cancelled my 3.5-year-non-stop ESO+ subscription last month because of the unfair and draconic moderation style here. Complaints and appeals to CS have proven to be pointless on every occasion, so this was the only way to express my dissatisfaction.
I still like the game very much, but I expect a certain level of professionality and courtesy from a company that receives regular payments from me. Whether there is a real or perceived issue, I do not see where the economic benefit in ousting customers would lie.

spartaxoxo

vsrs_au wrote: »

It's not just the general moderation approach that could do with improvement: the actual moderators should crack down more on the self-appointed moderators: there are too many of them on this forum.

Users are supposed to flag content that they feel is against the rules. You don't really want to discourage that. It should simply not be assumed that someone flagging is correct.

TheMajority

NotaDaedraWorshipper wrote: »

I've also seen sexism, homophobia, transphobia, and many other forms of anti-LGBTQ+ that either took days to be moderated and some that weren't moderated at all. Sometimes the people who spoke up against it was moderated but not those comments.

It's uncomfortable to be openly LGBTQ+ on this forums these days that's for sure. Sometimes I only feel welcome with other forum member who have said they are also LGBTQ+ because I know they safe people. I don't want to be bias in this way but it's how I feel.

Well also, I get afraid if I ask for more moderation, that different views and topics about LGBTQ+ ideas could get cut off even though they not homophobic...

Skullstachio

The True Final form of censorship: is self-censorship.
(grab a beverage of your choice as this NEEDS to be said from the perspective of a paying customer out of many, may contain unstable levels of constructive hypocriticality, you've been warned.)

Constructively:
when you have to actively juggle different words to simply have a conversation, while appeasing a TOS that can cause bad actors within said establishment making the TOS, to overreach with the edit/removal of simple contexts that help to actually better understand a particular situation better with little to no infractions?

You essentially feed into an echo chamber where players/consumers are forced at their own volition to use made up words that not everyone understands, in order to be a part of a "community" or some other soapbox that doesn't allow people to have a conversation because the ones making the rules, have potentially been prevented in some way, from feeling/being taught the meaning of failure in the sense of being able to learn how to pick yourself back up, learn from said failure, and ultimately become a better individual/collective for it, one has to learn to fall down before you can learn to get back up.

But when you are being effectively gate-kept from being able to fail in the first place, all you get are those who don't want to fail because they have no idea what it is like to fail and fear something they have literally may not have the lived experience to know how to deal with it, whereas there are those out there who know what failure is like and how it has been one of humanities greatest teachers of humility amongst other things which has lead to brighter futures for them long term.

By shutting down such conversations in the first place, it ultimately does a disservice to the people in the company shutting it down and preventing people from seeing it and talking about such topics in a manner which, in turn, fuels discontent from the player/paying consumer who can literally vote with their wallets if a well intentioned company succeeds or not because they are being kept from being able to voice a constructive criticism of the game, let alone how the people making it conduct themselves in a professional place of business.

What do I know, I'm just a paying consumer who has seen failure after failure in terms of watching other companies make bad moves ad infinitum which led to said companies lay-off employees, make tax write-offs on failed games (concord rings a bell), and even shut down studios because they kept forcing said studios to alienate their players, aka : The paying customer, because some higher-up thought it was wise to put in something that does not help the games core gameplay or even the overall world-building because "politics" apparently, which removes that worlds "suspension of disbelief".

At this point: the pattern of recognition is becoming so blatant that it is not even funny at this point, I actually wanted to see this game succeed once, but have since lost it moving to PC because ZOS did a disservice to players time and time again through constant nerfs of player favorite builds because they cannot separate their PvE and PvP sandboxes properly, monetization of "new" content despite paying an upfront cost for the base game, selling a subscription model that feeds into a potential long term disservice to the games life span and it's players that eventually see the writing on the wall like microsoft is doing with gamepass because management is too busy creating the problems they claim to be against (look at the avowed situation in your own time.) and constantly making cosmetic MTX's and the like more than anything, financially feeding off of that instead of dedicating time to making more actual gameplay content that gamers came here for in the first place. Because if a game plays really well, they will come.

It may just be an opinion of mine, and I really cannot be the only one dealing with similar bad moves from companies that do a disservice to the players and the developers both in the long run.
Give it time, and nature is as nature does through natural selection, even if I get "selected" amongst everyone else for simply having a simple conversation full of complexity broken down in a way to try and understand things better from all sides, be it of the outside perspective or within.

P.S. I have nothing to lose.

JoeCapricorn

spartaxoxo wrote: »

Back when I was a mod for a different game we could take the following steps

Removed but no warned--> removed for very low level offenses. We did not keep track of this and considered these the metaphorical equivalent of jaywalking. I'd consider your example here if it were the site I worked on.

Removed and warned ---> warnings accumulated points and could lead to a ban.

Removed and temporarily banned --> this could happen automatically after too many warnings or instantly if the offense was great enough.

Removed and permanently banned ---> extreme offenses or too many temp bans in a 1 year time period. Permanent bans for too many temp bans only occured after a review of the account history. This was never automatic and we issued very few of these. The vast majority were particularly outrageous things like a user who threatened to physically harm staff.

We only kept track of offenses for so long, I think bans were 2 years but warnings only 1.

Users seemed to think this was a pretty fair system.

This is pretty much what ZOS needs to do here, for both in-game and forum actions. And the most important thing to offer users being actioned is clarity. Tell them exactly how they broke the rules so they know to not do so again.

My previous post was from the perspective of someone who hasn't seen a lot of this moderation personally. I've had my posts edited, certainly, but only one forum warning several years ago - and I will say that the reason given was pretty straight forward.

Syldras wrote: »

TaSheen wrote: »

I've always been told why a post was moderated (whether that was just "word snipped" or removed). Hasn't happened a lot, but the mods have always explained.

The messages always contain a passage stating which rule was broken, that's true. But what if we truly can't understand how the deleted post was interpreted that way?

Several users here wrote that they did not get an explanation upon asking, and that there's even the risk that asking could be seen as a provocation (which would be another rule violation and could lead to even worse consequences).

See, asking for clarity should never be punished. I mean, unless it was with lots of bad words and unfavorable nicknames.

And that clarity should always be given.

NotaDaedraWorshipper wrote: »

I've also seen sexism, homophobia, transphobia, and many other forms of anti-LGBTQ+ that either took days to be moderated and some that weren't moderated at all. Sometimes the people who spoke up against it was moderated but not those comments.

See, that's where things could get dicey for me. I'm genderqueer and pansexual, and I am very outspoken in my defense of the LGBTQ community, so if I see bigotry anywhere I'm going to call it out.

Stefirex

SeaGtGruff wrote: »

I don't think anyone needs to be afraid to post here, as long as they use self-moderation.

You can't leave a snarky remark to a troll without getting hit with a trolling warning. So, yeah. Posting here is definitely risky. And don't even get me started on "What defines Baiting" here! They won't tell you!

DenverRalphy

NotaDaedraWorshipper wrote: »

I've also seen sexism, homophobia, transphobia, and many other forms of anti-LGBTQ+ that either took days to be moderated and some that weren't moderated at all. Sometimes the people who spoke up against it was moderated but not those comments.

I've received a warning for questioning an openly anti LGBTQ sentiment. And my completely reasonable request for an explanation and/or clarification was completely ignored. And I say this wondering whether I will get tagged for discussing it.

vsrs_au

spartaxoxo wrote: »

vsrs_au wrote: »

It's not just the general moderation approach that could do with improvement: the actual moderators should crack down more on the self-appointed moderators: there are too many of them on this forum.

Users are supposed to flag content that they feel is against the rules. You don't really want to discourage that. It should simply not be assumed that someone flagging is correct.

No, users are supposed to report (to the moderators) posts they feel are against the forum rules. I was referring to the common practice by some users of directly replying to another user to tell them they've posted against the rules - doing this is actually against the forum rules. That's what I was referring to when I used the term "self-appointed moderators".

SilverBride

Stefirex wrote: »

You can't leave a snarky remark to a troll without getting hit with a trolling warning.

That is because we aren't supposed to leave snarky remarks to anyone. If we feel someone is trolling the thing to do is flag it for a moderator to determine. But it is never acceptable to leave snarky remarks to another poster, regardless of what they have said or done. Two wrongs don't make a right.

spartaxoxo

I personally wouldn't report someone for a mildly snarky remark. I think we all get annoyed sometimes and there needs to be room to be human.

TheMajority

spartaxoxo wrote: »

I personally wouldn't report someone for a mildly snarky remark. I think we all get annoyed sometimes and there needs to be room to be human.

I do agree nobody should have to act always perfect plus one person might think it's snarky when the other person didn't mean it that way.

And I also think it is a waste of mod time to report every snarky reply a person get if someone is being truly mean with a threat or something ok, but mild sarcasm should not be wasting a mods time. It is just very controlling behavior to police a persons tone always.

SeaGtGruff

vsrs_au wrote: »

spartaxoxo wrote: »

vsrs_au wrote: »

It's not just the general moderation approach that could do with improvement: the actual moderators should crack down more on the self-appointed moderators: there are too many of them on this forum.

Users are supposed to flag content that they feel is against the rules. You don't really want to discourage that. It should simply not be assumed that someone flagging is correct.

No, users are supposed to report (to the moderators) posts they feel are against the forum rules. I was referring to the common practice by some users of directly replying to another user to tell them they've posted against the rules - doing this is actually against the forum rules. That's what I was referring to when I used the term "self-appointed moderators".

One exception to that is when someone posts a screenshot that shows another player's account name and character name while calling out something that person is said to have done within the game (such as cheating), and others point out that the OP should edit the screenshot to blank out the account name and character name of the alleged perpetrator, otherwise they might get themselves in trouble for "naming and shaming." Something like that should be okay.

vsrs_au

SeaGtGruff wrote: »

vsrs_au wrote: »

spartaxoxo wrote: »

vsrs_au wrote: »

It's not just the general moderation approach that could do with improvement: the actual moderators should crack down more on the self-appointed moderators: there are too many of them on this forum.

Users are supposed to flag content that they feel is against the rules. You don't really want to discourage that. It should simply not be assumed that someone flagging is correct.

No, users are supposed to report (to the moderators) posts they feel are against the forum rules. I was referring to the common practice by some users of directly replying to another user to tell them they've posted against the rules - doing this is actually against the forum rules. That's what I was referring to when I used the term "self-appointed moderators".

One exception to that is when someone posts a screenshot that shows another player's account name and character name while calling out something that person is said to have done within the game (such as cheating), and others point out that the OP should edit the screenshot to blank out the account name and character name of the alleged perpetrator, otherwise they might get themselves in trouble for "naming and shaming." Something like that should be okay.

It's debatable. You could argue that the naming and shaming post should be reported to the mods, not mentioned to the one doing the naming, otherwise you're just being a self-appointed mod.

magnusthorek

Something I've learned the hard way: If you want to say something in any of the many games' forums available, is that you're summarily wrong by the moment you click the “Post” button. That's because someone, somewhere, with powers they're not mature enough to have, will find absolutely anything, even a mistranslated expression — after all, games having a worldwide audience, won't have only English speakers. Then your message will violate a rule of subparagraph of a paragraph within a clause of a page of a revision of the astonishing long legal contract that their “Codes of Conduct” are.

They'll move or delete your topic, maybe even suspend or ban you, and (most of the time) you can't argue because of possible restrictions on forums access to those who bought a whole new copy of their products. And (sometimes) the suspended/banned account can't even appeal because their platforms may have no support for such and even if/when they do, it's a pointless effort as they never respond or always side with themselves.

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

This is my general and personal point-of-view regarding all games I've played so far. Not directly to anyone, anything, anywhere.

thejadefalcon

ZOS_Kevin wrote: »

One of the things we’ve always strived for with moderation is leading with education with community guidelines in mind.

Disregarding the fact this is YET ANOTHER "we promise to communicate better" post, I have asked multiple moderators (GregoryV, Phoenix and Hadeostry) over the years and never once received an answer to my questions about why a certain action was taken or how I could express an opinion in a way that would not lead to an action against me. And that's just my PMs. [snip] During one complete disaster of a thread, one absolutely rampant with transphobia and bigotry, it genuinely felt like you took more action against the ones calling it out than the ones causing it. There was so much to report that I got repeatedly timed out for spam trying to report them all, it took me literal hours to go through that thread. In the end, you simply locked the thread and left a lot of bigotry still up, despite reports from multiple people, considering your work complete. And yet, and this is a quote from your community guidelines, emphasis mine:

We take the use of hate speech very seriously in the official ESO community, and have a zero tolerance policy. Our definition of hate speech is prejudice or hateful comments, slurs, or statements that promote violence or intolerance toward others because of the following:

[snip] To this day, I still regularly see comments on this forum with transphobic rhetoric, including multiple people intentionally misgendering Tanlorin because the existence of nonbinary people is just intolerable to some. We even have people in this thread who are saying that they're uncomfortable to be openly LGBTQ+ and I can't blame them one bit. Every time my LGBTQ+ friendly and led guild advertises in zone chat, one of our officers gets hate speech in return. And yet, I often seen those players still around. The bigots are even so comfortable expressing their views, they'll do it during the community led Pride parades! Which, by the way, is another thing that doesn't really happen any more because of your lack of support for the people who organised it. I genuinely struggle to believe this is the same company that won a GLAAD award for Alchemy's quest in Summerset and I genuinely cannot recommend this game to anyone new any more because of it.

Posts on this forum are rarely deleted despite reports and, in the rare case they are deleted, I have never seen the user who posted it get banned (the game is mildly better in this regard). There's even someone in this thread right now who I have seen make multiple rule infractions along these lines and they're a joke outside of this forum because of how much they get away with (as another user pointed out, there seems to be "teacher's pets" where some users are a moderator's favourite). Believe me, as someone who has moderated something or other for nearly two decades, from casual forums with five people to a website with a hundred thousand users, taking action against your friends absolutely SUCKS. I recently had to permanently ban someone a lot of people, including myself, considered a close friend and I'm still broken up about it, but it had to be done because what they said and did was beyond the pale. But if you can't do that when it's required, even for more minor infractions and sentences, you don't deserve to hold the power you do.

Legitimately, the only time I see moderators eager to leap into action is when someone asks if anyone at ZOS even plays the game any more when they make certain decisions that active players saw the consequences of immediately (the Tel Var refund exploit is a good example of this); those people get posts edited or removed for bashing before you can even blink.

So you'll have to forgive me for being extremely doubtful about the results of this thread going anywhere. I would absolutely sincerely love to be wrong, but I feel too much is broken at too deep a level at this point.

[edited for bashing]

TwiceBornStar

I'm an 80's kid so that doesn't help. I'm also Dutch. Maybe this is news for you, but our language is riddled with metaphors and colourful comparisons. I'm perfectly aware of that so I'm already censoring myself like crazy.

The problem? Well, my latest ''crime'' was using the word 'kamikaze' to describe my in-game actions in a PvP Deathmatch, and someone took offense to that. Okay. Alright. I'm seriously considering leaving the forums altogether because of this, because in my mind, I'm adhering to the rules.

But apparantly there's a list of forbidden words and I didn't get the memo.