"PVP" and "Cyrodiil" Gets you Banned on Twitch

SilverBride

Comrade_Ogilvy wrote: »

...if 90%+ of forum posts are neutral or positive then a user should not be banned unless and until any perceived negativity has been explained to the user and persists to the extent that it offsest neutral/positive contribution.

This is my biggest issue with the current system. A poster can have several thousand constructive posts but get permabanned for 3 to 5 infractions (not sure how many) all made over a span of several years.

Out of thousands of posts the law of averages pretty much guarantees that there will be a few mistakes. But this isn't taken into consideration. And many of the actioned infractions are so mild that an educational warning should have been sufficient.

We are losing long time posters to this, many of whom have been active and constructive posters since this game launched. This really needs to be reevaluated.

Comrade_Ogilvy wrote: »

Thanks to @ZOS_Kevin for permitting this feedback/discussion - that is very much appreciated.

I wholeheartedly agree.

Jaraal

Comrade_Ogilvy wrote: »

Satire of any sort is generally misinterpreted and often mistakenly invites censure.

Yes, one of my bans was for likening Update 33 and the revocation of individual achievements to the Titanic, and portraying the thousands of players unaware of the upcoming changes to the passengers sleeping soundly in their berths.

Lumenn

Comrade_Ogilvy wrote: »

My experience is that the forum moderation is both draconian and Orwellian. Satire of any sort is generally misinterpreted and often mistakenly invites censure.

The appeal system, in my experience, is a farce and seems only to exist to rubber-stamp the original decisions.

In a recent conversation with Terry White, cs manager, zenimax I mentioned specifically my view that the forum moderation was 'Orwellian and draconian' to which he replied, "Yes, it's deliberate and by design." He also stated no software is used, all decisions are human. When I asked Terry White, cs manager, zenimax if 'good' posts were recognised and went into the process of evaluating whether a comment should merit editing or a ban I was met with stony silence; I took this to mean that they were not and that forum moderation proceeds strictly from a negative perspective per account - in short if your forum account is flagged as problematic, expect the perma-ban as an inevitability. I was advised by Terry White, cs manager, zenimax to avoid satire in the forum; this is disgraceful to say the least given how relevant a form of comment - with all its wonderful wit - satire can be. I asked Terry White, cs manager, zenimax to review the terms to avoid invidious wording regarding 'intent' - which only the poster can truly know - to reflect that moderation decisions are stated as based on opinion and not as currently written, false assertion: he agreed to pass this on to their 'legal team'.

Trying to get a moderator to answer a straight question regarding redactions is useless - if you get a reply (very rare) it'll be a stock copy&paste of the terms which does nothing to illuminate what the specific issue was.

I agree with others that the 'report' option is misused; my first temp ban was for calling out a straw man argument which did NOT troll/bait the individual but the false logic of the comment used - this distinction was not recognised nor acknowledged and I'm still unsure to this day if the qualitative distinction between an attack on a person (which is NOT ok) versus an attack/defense on a comment (which is definitely ok) is understood by moderators.

Despite trying very hard to follow the Orwellian requirement to stick to the implicit newspeak required I've found I cannot even laugh at the irony of recent advertisements without facing instant, reactionary censure.

If you [zos] really want to improve the forum ambience and get away from the reality of draconian redaction, then change that 'Orwellian' policy and start to answer legitimate questions sent asking for fuller explanations/expositions of moderator decisions, get a separate team to do the appeals so appeals are not shut-down or ignored and review those decisions and absolutely add in positives when flagging forum accounts. In the latter case, if 90%+ of forum posts are neutral or positive then a user should not be banned unless and until any perceived negativity has been explained to the user and persists to the extent that it offsest neutral/positive contribution.

Also, if you are using some sort of score-card on accounts this should be transparent to us as individual users - if I know [-10 mod pts] means the next time I say something regarded as dodgy means a perma-ban then at least I can make an informed choice whether to rein in my comments or cry havoc and let slip the dogs of war. The consequences under a transparent system are on me, rather than wondering each time I type a comment if some arbitrary moderation decision is going to result in censure.

Thanks to @ZOS_Kevin for permitting this feedback/discussion - that is very much appreciated.

I honestly would love to hear the reason behind "deliberate and by design". I have to admit the forums on this game compared to other mmo's seem light. With obvious exceptions(chapter release, a brief flood on free week etc) we see the same people as we cycle through beaks in the game etc. I'll admit it's been years since I've played another one, and of course they were PC only so I suppose that could make a difference. But "deliberate and by design" seems odd. Of course I don't know anything about how zos operates beyond as a customer, and what I can read in "Glass door(and similar) reviews, looking for similarities in the positive and negative (like a very tight core group). Nor do I have the companies P&L reports, but can guess they are making profits. This whole thread and many customers...confusion?....could have been avoided if they'd just made a statement that they INTENDED to be heavy handed, inconsistent, Orwellian from the start.

Edit: typo.

Eormenric

Thank you for making this thread. I saw the video and just shake my head at what ZOS is doing to this game. They really have abandoned it in favor of their new AAA IP. This game is losing all support, financially and creatively, as it has turned into a censoring cash cow. This saddens me because it was a game I really hoped to be different. Just waiting for this to be sold to Gamigo now.

Elsonso

Comrade_Ogilvy wrote: »

My experience is that the forum moderation is both draconian and Orwellian. Satire of any sort is generally misinterpreted and often mistakenly invites censure.

The appeal system, in my experience, is a farce and seems only to exist to rubber-stamp the original decisions.

In a recent conversation with...

Interesting story about the customer service manager. I know that it was presented in a negative light, but I would seriously like to sit down with him informally and just talk about his job. I guess that have been critical of him in the past, without knowing who he is or what challenges he faces, and that is part of the reason why I'd love to just sit down and hear what he does and understand his job better. Of course, my guess is that if I ever did get a chance to talk to him, it would not be informal.

Anyway... About moderation... Satire, humor, and sarcasm are touchy subjects here. I do know people who have been warned and suspended for it. I use it a lot here. Use with caution.

I do not think the appeal system is a farce. However, I do think that a successful appeal is not as beneficial as it sounds. If I read things correctly, it only gets the door opened, it does nothing to repair misunderstandings. That suggests to me that the very next time the person runs afoul of a moderator, it will be another ban. That ban will probably not win an appeal, as now the person is a repeat offender that wasted their second chance.

tmbrinks

.

Elsonso wrote: »

Comrade_Ogilvy wrote: »

My experience is that the forum moderation is both draconian and Orwellian. Satire of any sort is generally misinterpreted and often mistakenly invites censure.

The appeal system, in my experience, is a farce and seems only to exist to rubber-stamp the original decisions.

In a recent conversation with...

I do not think the appeal system is a farce. However, I do think that a successful appeal is not as beneficial as it sounds. If I read things correctly, it only gets the door opened, it does nothing to repair misunderstandings. That suggests to me that the very next time the person runs afoul of a moderator, it will be another ban. That ban will probably not win an appeal, as now the person is a repeat offender that wasted their second chance.

I will say, I did have one of my 3 day bans "reversed" after a review of my post where I was not the one promoting the conspiracy theory, but rather disproving it. However, it came after about 68 hours of the 72 hour ban, and I don't think they ever removed the "points" from the record.

Lumenn

tmbrinks wrote: »

.

Elsonso wrote: »

Comrade_Ogilvy wrote: »

My experience is that the forum moderation is both draconian and Orwellian. Satire of any sort is generally misinterpreted and often mistakenly invites censure.

The appeal system, in my experience, is a farce and seems only to exist to rubber-stamp the original decisions.

In a recent conversation with...

I do not think the appeal system is a farce. However, I do think that a successful appeal is not as beneficial as it sounds. If I read things correctly, it only gets the door opened, it does nothing to repair misunderstandings. That suggests to me that the very next time the person runs afoul of a moderator, it will be another ban. That ban will probably not win an appeal, as now the person is a repeat offender that wasted their second chance.

I will say, I did have one of my 3 day bans "reversed" after a review of my post where I was not the one promoting the conspiracy theory, but rather disproving it. However, it came after about 68 hours of the 72 hour ban, and I don't think they ever removed the "points" from the record.

While I'll refrain from specific incidents, I found your story remarkably similar to...someone...I know. From "defending" the company to the reversal. Might have even been the same discussion. By any chance were you P.M.'d by a "random" forum poster minutes before the ban?

katanagirl1

Someone please explain this to me, it was edited for hate speech:

https://forums.elderscrollsonline.com/en/discussion/605576/nb-desync#latest

Aislinna

katanagirl1 wrote: »

Someone please explain this to me, it was edited for hate speech:

https://forums.elderscrollsonline.com/en/discussion/605576/nb-desync#latest

Only the poster and the moderator would know exactly what was deleted/edited from the post. If you have cause to know, I suggest mailing one of them and asking.

tmbrinks

Lumenn wrote: »

tmbrinks wrote: »

.

Elsonso wrote: »

Comrade_Ogilvy wrote: »

My experience is that the forum moderation is both draconian and Orwellian. Satire of any sort is generally misinterpreted and often mistakenly invites censure.

The appeal system, in my experience, is a farce and seems only to exist to rubber-stamp the original decisions.

In a recent conversation with...

I do not think the appeal system is a farce. However, I do think that a successful appeal is not as beneficial as it sounds. If I read things correctly, it only gets the door opened, it does nothing to repair misunderstandings. That suggests to me that the very next time the person runs afoul of a moderator, it will be another ban. That ban will probably not win an appeal, as now the person is a repeat offender that wasted their second chance.

I will say, I did have one of my 3 day bans "reversed" after a review of my post where I was not the one promoting the conspiracy theory, but rather disproving it. However, it came after about 68 hours of the 72 hour ban, and I don't think they ever removed the "points" from the record.

While I'll refrain from specific incidents, I found your story remarkably similar to...someone...I know. From "defending" the company to the reversal. Might have even been the same discussion. By any chance were you P.M.'d by a "random" forum poster minutes before the ban?

No, I was not.

Elsonso

katanagirl1 wrote: »

Someone please explain this to me, it was edited for hate speech:

https://forums.elderscrollsonline.com/en/discussion/605576/nb-desync#latest

We'll probably never know. The context is a little strange for "hate speech", so it was probably one of the naughty words that shall not be used.

"Hate speech" is on the report form. Oddly enough, there isn't one for profanity bypass, so maybe "hate speech" is also used for that and the moderator just didn't elaborate when editing?

I also note that there is no "Other", which suggests that if it is not one of the things in the list (ie: profanity) that the report should not be submitted.

While I am on the subject, the report form should be sorted differently. I notice that the most heinous acts are at the top, not the most commonly encountered. The checkbox should default to the most common option, not one of the worst possible option. The reason for this would be to avoid unintentional escalation due to a mistake during submission.

Reason
[X] Child sexual exploitation and abuse
[ ] Terrorism or violent extremism
[ ] Self-harm / Suicide
[ ] Non-consensual intimate imagery
[ ] Imminent harm to persons or property
[ ] Hate Speech
[ ] Trolling
[ ] Spam
[ ] Profane name or UserID
[ ] Scamming
[ ] Doxing / Sharing personal information
[ ] Cheating / Exploiting
[ ] Harassment / Bullying

Lumenn

tmbrinks wrote: »

Lumenn wrote: »

tmbrinks wrote: »

.

Elsonso wrote: »

Comrade_Ogilvy wrote: »

My experience is that the forum moderation is both draconian and Orwellian. Satire of any sort is generally misinterpreted and often mistakenly invites censure.

The appeal system, in my experience, is a farce and seems only to exist to rubber-stamp the original decisions.

In a recent conversation with...

I do not think the appeal system is a farce. However, I do think that a successful appeal is not as beneficial as it sounds. If I read things correctly, it only gets the door opened, it does nothing to repair misunderstandings. That suggests to me that the very next time the person runs afoul of a moderator, it will be another ban. That ban will probably not win an appeal, as now the person is a repeat offender that wasted their second chance.

I will say, I did have one of my 3 day bans "reversed" after a review of my post where I was not the one promoting the conspiracy theory, but rather disproving it. However, it came after about 68 hours of the 72 hour ban, and I don't think they ever removed the "points" from the record.

While I'll refrain from specific incidents, I found your story remarkably similar to...someone...I know. From "defending" the company to the reversal. Might have even been the same discussion. By any chance were you P.M.'d by a "random" forum poster minutes before the ban?

No, I was not.

Ah. Well I suppose we all may have a similar story but yours matched SO closely I thought I'd ask. Thank you

jaws343

Elsonso wrote: »

Comrade_Ogilvy wrote: »

My experience is that the forum moderation is both draconian and Orwellian. Satire of any sort is generally misinterpreted and often mistakenly invites censure.

The appeal system, in my experience, is a farce and seems only to exist to rubber-stamp the original decisions.

In a recent conversation with...

Interesting story about the customer service manager. I know that it was presented in a negative light, but I would seriously like to sit down with him informally and just talk about his job. I guess that have been critical of him in the past, without knowing who he is or what challenges he faces, and that is part of the reason why I'd love to just sit down and hear what he does and understand his job better. Of course, my guess is that if I ever did get a chance to talk to him, it would not be informal.

Anyway... About moderation... Satire, humor, and sarcasm are touchy subjects here. I do know people who have been warned and suspended for it. I use it a lot here. Use with caution.

I do not think the appeal system is a farce. However, I do think that a successful appeal is not as beneficial as it sounds. If I read things correctly, it only gets the door opened, it does nothing to repair misunderstandings. That suggests to me that the very next time the person runs afoul of a moderator, it will be another ban. That ban will probably not win an appeal, as now the person is a repeat offender that wasted their second chance.

The problem with the appeal system is with how slow it moves. A 3 day suspension can literally take that entire 3 days time just to have a back and forth through the ticket system. It was taking 20 hours between responses one time I was appealing and by the time they doubled down on the suspension, the suspension time was like 2 hours from being over. That is entirely unacceptable imo.

SilverBride

Elsonso wrote: »

While I am on the subject, the report form should be sorted differently. I notice that the most heinous acts are at the top, not the most commonly encountered. The checkbox should default to the most common option, not one of the worst possible option. The reason for this would be to avoid unintentional escalation due to a mistake during submission.

Reason
[X] Child sexual exploitation and abuse
[ ] Terrorism or violent extremism
[ ] Self-harm / Suicide
[ ] Non-consensual intimate imagery
[ ] Imminent harm to persons or property
[ ] Hate Speech
[ ] Trolling
[ ] Spam
[ ] Profane name or UserID
[ ] Scamming
[ ] Doxing / Sharing personal information
[ ] Cheating / Exploiting
[ ] Harassment / Bullying

This seems like a list you would find while reporting behavior in game rather than on a forum, and some of these are highly unlikely to occur in either place.

I often see reasons given such as baiting, conspiracy and bashing to name a few, but there are no options for these.

blktauna

katanagirl1 wrote: »

Someone please explain this to me, it was edited for hate speech:

https://forums.elderscrollsonline.com/en/discussion/605576/nb-desync#latest

WTF is this? IT has to be some sort of trans;ation/language miscue.

Magio_

katanagirl1 wrote: »

Someone please explain this to me, it was edited for hate speech:

https://forums.elderscrollsonline.com/en/discussion/605576/nb-desync#latest

My guess would be the last four letters of the r-word that insults someone's intelligence used as a suffix. I've seen it used to refer to bow users, usually Snipe spammers, in a derogatory way.

katanagirl1

Magio_ wrote: »

katanagirl1 wrote: »

Someone please explain this to me, it was edited for hate speech:

https://forums.elderscrollsonline.com/en/discussion/605576/nb-desync#latest

My guess would be the last four letters of the r-word that insults someone's intelligence used as a suffix. I've seen it used to refer to bow users, usually Snipe spammers, in a derogatory way.

Finally a couple of people who are aghast like me. This looks more like a bot searching out snippets of words instead of a person reading the context. From what is left there is nothing but discussion about a nb class and skills. Seems overly aggressive to me and I thought many others would agree. There is no indication that he veered from a discussion of the game to political incorrectness.

I have never seen the forums get as bad as the profanity filters before. Anything with “-ing” and a “g” gets [bunch of asterisks] in game for the n- word. I hope it doesn’t come to that here.

deleted220614-000183

SilverBride wrote: »

Comrade_Ogilvy wrote: »

...if 90%+ of forum posts are neutral or positive then a user should not be banned unless and until any perceived negativity has been explained to the user and persists to the extent that it offsest neutral/positive contribution.

This is my biggest issue with the current system. A poster can have several thousand constructive posts but get permabanned for 3 to 5 infractions (not sure how many) all made over a span of several years.

Out of thousands of posts the law of averages pretty much guarantees that there will be a few mistakes. But this isn't taken into consideration. And many of the actioned infractions are so mild that an educational warning should have been sufficient.

We are losing long time posters to this, many of whom have been active and constructive posters since this game launched. This really needs to be reevaluated.

Comrade_Ogilvy wrote: »

Thanks to @ZOS_Kevin for permitting this feedback/discussion - that is very much appreciated.

I wholeheartedly agree.

As for as "creative" rules how this forum is moderated. I don't know. I was never in North Korea but I was told they have some rules as well. Maybe this is coincidence only. Just my grain of salt. I'm not suggesting anything.

deleted221106-002999

Would just like to add regarding trigger-happy forum abusers of the 'report-post' option....

Most enlightened civilisations provide a mechanism for the 'right to face your accuser'. While I'd accept that may not be practicable in terms of an online community - although I certainly think it would significantly reduce the hostility of others and prevalence of reports if their anonymity was removed - I would think it prudent and fair that the text of any complaint is forwarded to the account of any post reported, regardless of moderator action.

At least that way, any trends - such as a complete ignorance of irony or other forms of satire or, indeed, failures to recognise that inference is entirely the responsibility of the inferrer - could be easily recognised and going forward, the complained-against account holder could modify their posts to use very small words, tiny sentences and insipid literal language.

Thanks.

deleted221106-002999

[edit] Also want to give huge thanks that the forum warning level is now part of the [edit]forum[/edit] account interface - thanks for listening! Based on observations of others following this post, it would seem that the warning level has always been a feature but I had not noticed it before, possibly due to be shut in room 101 for the duration. [/edit]

It would be useful to have some 'readme' or other explanation of what the points mean, though. [edit]An exposition of their derivation/deployment would be informative, too[/edit].

[edit]Thanks again - huge improvement.[/edit]

joerginger

Where do you see the "forum warning level"? I don't see anything here or at the ESO account page either.

deleted221106-002999

joerginger wrote: »

Where do you see the "forum warning level"? I don't see anything here or at the ESO account page either.

That's because the Thought Police system don't doesn't have you on their radar. :

edit: it appears at the top of your forum account page, where appropriate.

Celephantsylvius_Bornasfinmo

I was banned last night after making some rather simple jokes with and old friend on how to approach mechanics whilst he was playing the newest ESO trial on the PTS (he had 20 viewers)

I have a sense of humour and I like sharing it. There are never any insults in my comments (ever).

The ban bots make it not worth while watching, honestly. It's a sad place to be in gaming.

I can understand a ban for the following:
- Spamming chat in caps lock with irrelevant material
- Writing swear words to insult someone
- Using the stream to find and kill the broadcaster whilst in a PvP environment

What I don't understand is the ban parameters around the game's content. That is just, well...silencing, isn't it?

SilverBride

Comrade_Ogilvy wrote: »

Would just like to add regarding trigger-happy forum abusers of the 'report-post' option....

Most enlightened civilisations provide a mechanism for the 'right to face your accuser'. While I'd accept that may not be practicable in terms of an online community - although I certainly think it would significantly reduce the hostility of others and prevalence of reports if their anonymity was removed - I would think it prudent and fair that the text of any complaint is forwarded to the account of any post reported, regardless of moderator action.

This would be a form of calling out and could create hostility between the poster and the reporter rather than reduce it. It could also escalate the situation leading to more infractions.

Comrade_Ogilvy wrote: »

joerginger wrote: »

Where do you see the "forum warning level"? I don't see anything here or at the ESO account page either.

...it appears at the top of your forum account page, where appropriate.

I have had infractions and I don't see this anywhere. Are you able to post a screenshot, blocking out the account holder's information?

Elsonso

SilverBride wrote: »

Comrade_Ogilvy wrote: »

Would just like to add regarding trigger-happy forum abusers of the 'report-post' option....

Most enlightened civilisations provide a mechanism for the 'right to face your accuser'. While I'd accept that may not be practicable in terms of an online community - although I certainly think it would significantly reduce the hostility of others and prevalence of reports if their anonymity was removed - I would think it prudent and fair that the text of any complaint is forwarded to the account of any post reported, regardless of moderator action.

This would be a form of calling out and could create hostility between the poster and the reporter rather than reduce it. It could also escalate the situation leading to more infractions.

Yes, even if the name of the person who reported was removed, people would just assume, often incorrectly, that it was from the person they were interacting with on the forum. Not only could this lead to more infractions, but also against the wrong target, which does nothing but just spread the pain around to more people.

SilverBride wrote: »

Comrade_Ogilvy wrote: »

joerginger wrote: »

Where do you see the "forum warning level"? I don't see anything here or at the ESO account page either.

...it appears at the top of your forum account page, where appropriate.

I have had infractions and I don't see this anywhere. Are you able to post a screenshot, blocking out the account holder's information?

I am curious, as well. For the same reason.

Ilsabet

Looks like there's a new "Moderation" tab on forum account info. I presume the notes section is where things would show up for anyone who is not a perfect good doobie like me.

(Please pay no attention to the implications of the number of Insightfuls. Also someone please give me an Insightful. )

I feel like "Invitations" is new too, but I'm not sure what that could be for. Maybe we'll be getting invitations to a new Darien fan club or something.

Also apparently I was last active on May 2.

Edit: Nevermind apparently this isn't new, but it's still neat for anyone who wasn't aware of it (like me).

deleted221106-002999

SilverBride wrote: »

Comrade_Ogilvy wrote: »

Would just like to add regarding trigger-happy forum abusers of the 'report-post' option....

Most enlightened civilisations provide a mechanism for the 'right to face your accuser'. While I'd accept that may not be practicable in terms of an online community - although I certainly think it would significantly reduce the hostility of others and prevalence of reports if their anonymity was removed - I would think it prudent and fair that the text of any complaint is forwarded to the account of any post reported, regardless of moderator action.

This would be a form of calling out and could create hostility between the poster and the reporter rather than reduce it. It could also escalate the situation leading to more infractions.

I made two suggestions: in the first case anonymity lost, I recognise your point; I doubt it would be workable but I am sure it would result in a dramatic reduction in knee-jerk or just jerk post-reportings.

In the second case/example - passing on the text made by someone reporting a post while retaining anonymity - this is only fair and reasonable, particulary from the perspective of attempting to appeal a decision. When appealing it's not reasonable to only be formulating a counter-argument where you don't have all the facts available.

I mean if someone wrote "I don't like this it smells funny" and you received a warning or your post edited because a mod was too busy to check and just went ahead and edited/warned account that would hardly be reasonable. But if in appealing the decision you could see that the associated comment was spurious noise then you could bring that to their attention. At it is now, you don't have that option and remain ignorant - any/all decisions would be simpler to uphold due to that lack of transparency.

Equally, if someone wrote "This post violates term X because it offends me in W,Y,Z ways" then at least, on reflection, the account holder facing potential censure could see an alternate viewpoint and withdraw or simply accept the censure as a reasonable action under the circumstances. I know I would.

As it stands now all you get is a copy of your post, a unilateral and uninformative assertion of compliance failure and censure with links to the terms - there is zero actual explanation. Given the mulitplicity of languages/cultures present in the forum this is an extremely short-sighted or narrow-minded way of proceeding, particularly given the propensity within the english language for multiple meanings/interpretations from the same statement.

As an aside, it was in regard to this latter issue of potential multiple meanings that I asked Terry White, cs manager zenimax, for the wording of the current terms to reflect moderator opinion rather than insist on false assertion of poster's intent, as actual intent is and can only ever truly known by that poster. Being told you intended something which know you most certainly did not is quite invidious to say the least.

SilverBride

Ilsabet wrote: »

Looks like there's a new "Moderation" tab on forum account info.

The moderation tab has been there as long as I remember. It lists all the infractions that the poster has ever gotten and has a number for how many points each individual infraction is worth.

But there is no forum warning level at the top of our forum account page.

Ilsabet

SilverBride wrote: »

Ilsabet wrote: »

Looks like there's a new "Moderation" tab on forum account info.

The moderation tab has been there as long as I remember. It lists all the infractions that the poster has ever gotten and has a number for how many points each individual infraction is worth.

But there is no forum warning level at the top of our forum account page.

O snap, I guess I just haven't been paying attention. I assumed that was the new thing since it seems like useful info to have. I'm also not seeing anything referred to as a warning level. I presume that would show up in the interface for everyone even if you didn't have any warning points or whatever.

SilverBride

Comrade_Ogilvy wrote: »

Equally, if someone wrote "This post violates term X because it offends me in W,Y,Z ways" then at least, on reflection, the account holder facing potential censure could see an alternate viewpoint and withdraw or simply accept the censure as a reasonable action under the circumstances. I know I would.

As it stands now all you get is a copy of your post, a unilateral and uninformative assertion of compliance failure and censure with links to the terms - there is zero actual explanation.

I completely agree that there should be an explanation of how the post was a violation rather than just quoting the forum rule, but we don't need to see the report for this. It would be difficult to keep them anonymous if the report said something like "This poster called me a name." because that would identify who made the report.

Also, sometimes there is no report and the moderators just caught the infraction.