Reporting a valid infraction is not bullying.

(edited to simplify)

starkerealm wrote: »

One particular example, and the reason I know this is happening, was when I went from receiving around half a dozen moderator edits a year over profanity filter bypasses (I usually just star out the word and let the reader figure it out), to every post I make with self-censored profanity being edited within the hour. Yeah, someone is reporting every post I make, on the hope that they can get moderator action to stick.

Now you have me wondering how many of my own comments have been moderated due to people just reporting them for anything they thought would stick. I have been edited for some rather strange things, though.

spartaxoxo wrote: »

blktauna wrote: »

See you missed the part where the posts were not against the rules in any way.

The response mentions profanity bypasses edited out quickly, and used that surmise that someone must be following them and reporting them. Profanity filter bypasses are actually against the rules, so that's why it keeps being edited. That's a very low tier offense, but is against the rules.


As far as someone following him around waiting for him to slip up, part of me has doubts because the moderation has really ramped up lately. I'm seeing stuff being edited and moved a lot more frequently. On the other hand, that's definitely not something I would put past someone. I would call it harassment if someone is report every post they make even innocent ones personally. That's something they could ask a mod team about.

So-called "profanity bypass" transgressions seem to be something the mod team is particularly targeting these days, and I actually wouldn't be surprised if there are mods spending their time scanning for naughty words to edit out rather than this being the work of a report-happy poster. My fun mod story is having the word "crappy" snipped out of a post, with the ever-popular "profanity bypass" edit reason, except that there was nothing to bypass because that word is not censored. All the edit did was make an entirely innocuous post look like I'd been dropping s-bombs or something. And when I followed up to see what the deal was, it turned out that the word (which has been used thousands of times on the forum without incident) wasn't even supposed to be actionable.

So while I have no reason to believe that someone reported my post for being possibly offensive to first-graders, it was obviously seen by a mod as something to take the time to deal with, and I'm guessing that's because of current moderation policies and/or overzealous (and I would say misguided) application of same.

SilverBride wrote: »

Reporting a valid infraction is not bullying. The solution to being reported is to not post things that are against the forum rules.

Reporting a post for a genuine infraction is not bullying. However, reporting every post, on the hope that something would stick can certainly be bullying.

In fact, right now, in my inbox, I have an interaction with, "[Deleted User]," who, at the time was still a mod (I don't remember who, and wouldn't name them even if I did. Someone dug through my old posts, looking for an instance of profanity, and reported me for hate speech.

They reported for hate speech over a conversation about stacking bleed damage for PvP (which, kinda dates the original post they were reporting.)

Reporting a genuine infraction is not bullying.

Digging through someone's post history for something they said two years ago, and then intentionally misrepresenting what you find, out of context, can absolutely be bullying.

This is not about someone being salty about facing the consequences of breaking the rules. This is about people, in this community, abusing the reporting system to silence those they disagree with, or want to harass.

Elsonso wrote: »

When I think of "censor bypass", I think of people who deliberately misspell words, not block out letters, so that the censor tool passes uncensored profanity.

I agree. I don't see using asterisks or a row of symbols as bypassing a filter or even meaning any particular inappropriate words. I just see it as a way to add emphasis to the poster's view.

starkerealm wrote: »

Reporting a genuine infraction is not bullying.

Digging through someone's post history for something they said two years ago, and then intentionally misrepresenting what you find, out of context, can absolutely be bullying.

If a 2 year old post is reported that would be a red flag and it certainly shouldn't be actionable after that long. If they continue to report old posts by the same player, then I agree that would be bullying and should be addressed. But reporting a recent valid infraction isn't.

starkerealm wrote: »

This is not about someone being salty about facing the consequences of breaking the rules. This is about people, in this community, abusing the reporting system to silence those they disagree with, or want to harass.

Or it could be that the reporter is being repeatedly baited by the same poster (which does happen) and rather than getting into a back and forth that could escalate and put their account in jeopardy too, they are reporting the offenses so the mods can handle it.

SilverBride wrote: »

starkerealm wrote: »

Reporting a genuine infraction is not bullying.

Digging through someone's post history for something they said two years ago, and then intentionally misrepresenting what you find, out of context, can absolutely be bullying.

If a 2 year old post is reported that would be a red flag and it certainly shouldn't be actionable after that long. If they continue to report old posts by the same player, then I agree that would be bullying and should be addressed. But reporting a recent valid infraction isn't.

starkerealm wrote: »

This is not about someone being salty about facing the consequences of breaking the rules. This is about people, in this community, abusing the reporting system to silence those they disagree with, or want to harass.

Or it could be that the reporter is being repeatedly baited by the same poster (which does happen) and rather than getting into a back and forth that could escalate and put their account in jeopardy too, they are reporting the offenses so the mods can handle it.

I can readily admit that I am not always the most... "diplomatic" of individuals. I have been legitimately warned in the past, for actual infractions, where the tone of a thread had gotten a bit antagonistic. I'm not a perfect person, and I can readily admit that.

At the same time, I did notice a change, with the reporting tools being used as a method of harassment. Not, just, in the sense of, "someone being baited into saying something they shouldn't have and then getting actioned," but in the sense of someone wandering in and carpet bombing posts with reports.

In at least one case where I was warned, I remember responding to the moderator saying (basically), "Yeah, I see I was over the line there, but what I didn't realize was that the other user was baiting me; and I should have reported instead of responding." Only to later see the other user's posts had been nuked.

Now, I'll also readily admit, I can't prove any of this. I have my experiences, and the ability to say that based on those experiences, there was a change in how the reporting tools were being used by other members of the community. I cannot say that this was at the direction of a single individual, or if it was untargeted harassment. I also cannot say that this harassment was exceptionally effective, and based on some moderation behavior I saw, it seems like whoever as responsible was casting a far wider (reporting) net than we actually saw evidence of. But, obviously, that's just a gut suspicion, not proof.

It is also possible that someone with "an overly legalistic view" of the world, was scouring the boards looking for any potential violation of the rules, and was trying to enforce those rules via the reporting tools due to an obsessive compulsion. In which case it wouldn't have been bullying per se, but still disruptive.

Jaraal wrote: »

starkerealm wrote: »

This is not about someone being salty about facing the consequences of breaking the rules. This is about people, in this community, abusing the reporting system to silence those they disagree with, or want to harass.

The problem is that the rules are so vague. Flaming, baiting, bashing, trolling, conspiracy theories, and the like are so subjective that some things that usually pass may be actionable, depending of who is viewing, how they view it, how their day is going, etc. There's just no consistency, and that's what keeps many posters from expressing their views... regardless of how innocuous they may seem to most readers.

You're hitting a hilarious detail, in the instance I mentioned above. It wasn't until I reread the message from [Deleted User] today, that I noticed... technically a profanity filter bypass can be lumped in under, "hate speech."

Specifically, they said this (emphasis added):

[Deleted User] wrote:

2.6 Users will not transmit or facilitate distribution of content that is harmful, abusive, racially or ethnically offensive, vulgar, sexually explicit, defamatory, infringing, invasive of personal privacy or publicity rights, or in a reasonable person's view, objectionable. Hate speech is not tolerated at any time.

While they claimed they were citing the community rules, that's the from the ZOS terms of service, and the community rules are a little different. Those read:

Hate Speech: 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:

• Race
• Creed
• Color
• National Origin
• Gender
• Age
• Disability
• Sexual Orientation
• Lifestyle
• Any other personally identifying factors

It's really weird because most of the time when I say self-censor a bit of profanity, the moderators just replace the sequence of asterisks with, "[Snip]." (If you want to see how I actually swear, you can dig up my posts on Reddit, the mods there don't care about the occasional profanity.)

So, we have a situation where someone selectively extracted, "vulgarity is an example of hate speech," when most of the moderation team is just like, "oh, someone tried to use the only flavoring particle in English, got to edit that out." Even on my end, when it happened, I was confused.

MasterSpatula wrote: »

Those words, incidentally, can get you a forum vacation while the person who was actually engaging in abusive behavior on the forum and then reported everyone who told him his behavior was abusive skates.

What stood out to me was "everyone who told him his behavior was abusive". That would fall under flaming because we are to discuss the topic and not other posters. If they thought this poster was being abusive they should have reported their posts and let the mods handle it rather than getting themselves in hot water.

Also no one but the reporter and the mods knows who reported what. The poster being baited isn't always the one who reported it, or the only one.

Elsonso wrote: »

SilverBride wrote: »

What stood out to me was "everyone who told him his behavior was abusive". That would fall under flaming because we are to discuss the topic and not other posters. If they thought this poster was being abusive they should have reported their posts and let the mods handle it rather than getting themselves in hot water.

The "report them, don't tell them" has always bugged me. I am a firm believer that people should be allowed to self-correct, before the moderators come along and potentially ruin their day.

That is why I think an educational message to the poster explaining just exactly why the post was seen as an infraction rather than disciplinary action would benefit everyone. But I am not going to confront someone who flamed me and risk my own account.

Elsonso wrote: »

SilverBride wrote: »

MasterSpatula wrote: »

Those words, incidentally, can get you a forum vacation while the person who was actually engaging in abusive behavior on the forum and then reported everyone who told him his behavior was abusive skates.

What stood out to me was "everyone who told him his behavior was abusive". That would fall under flaming because we are to discuss the topic and not other posters. If they thought this poster was being abusive they should have reported their posts and let the mods handle it rather than getting themselves in hot water.

The "report them, don't tell them" has always bugged me. I am a firm believer that people should be allowed to self-correct, before the moderators come along and potentially ruin their day.

I generally take this approach too. If I have to ask someone to self-correct because they said something that bothers me (usually what I perceive as rudeness or misrepresenting what I said), then I try to make sure that the majority of my comment is on the thread topic. Usually, though not always, it's enough that the substance of my comment survives if the mods sweep through looking for back-and-forth.

I do try to ask people to self-correct, because there's been a number of times where we both were able to talk through it. There's been times I've wound up apologizing to them too! I'd rather be asked to self-correct than reported, so I try to return the favor.

Also, it's helpful for me to know that if they double down on whatever the behavior was, that's my signal to wish them a great day and head out to a different thread for a while because further conversation just won't be productive.

Finally, I understand removing those exchanges later from the moderator's perspective. As much as it may have been necessary for us to post the back-and-forth in order to get to the point where we understand each other or walk away agreeing to disagree, it's rarely edifying to anyone else not directly involved in the argument nor precisely on topic to the thread.

Jaraal wrote: »

starkerealm wrote: »

Jaraal wrote: »

starkerealm wrote: »

This is not about someone being salty about facing the consequences of breaking the rules. This is about people, in this community, abusing the reporting system to silence those they disagree with, or want to harass.

The problem is that the rules are so vague. Flaming, baiting, bashing, trolling, conspiracy theories, and the like are so subjective that some things that usually pass may be actionable, depending of who is viewing, how they view it, how their day is going, etc. There's just no consistency, and that's what keeps many posters from expressing their views... regardless of how innocuous they may seem to most readers.

You're hitting a hilarious detail, in the instance I mentioned above. It wasn't until I reread the message from [Deleted User] today, that I noticed... technically a profanity filter bypass can be lumped in under, "hate speech."

Specifically, they said this (emphasis added):

[Deleted User] wrote:

2.6 Users will not transmit or facilitate distribution of content that is harmful, abusive, racially or ethnically offensive, vulgar, sexually explicit, defamatory, infringing, invasive of personal privacy or publicity rights, or in a reasonable person's view, objectionable. Hate speech is not tolerated at any time.

While they claimed they were citing the community rules, that's the from the ZOS terms of service, and the community rules are a little different. Those read:

Hate Speech: 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:

• Race
• Creed
• Color
• National Origin
• Gender
• Age
• Disability
• Sexual Orientation
• Lifestyle
• Any other personally identifying factors

It's really weird because most of the time when I say self-censor a bit of profanity, the moderators just replace the sequence of asterisks with, "[Snip]." (If you want to see how I actually swear, you can dig up my posts on Reddit, the mods there don't care about the occasional profanity.)

So, we have a situation where someone selectively extracted, "vulgarity is an example of hate speech," when most of the moderation team is just like, "oh, someone tried to use the only flavoring particle in English, got to edit that out." Even on my end, when it happened, I was confused.

It's entirely possible that "Hate speech is not tolerated at any time" is it's own statement, and not a continuation of the sentence that precedes it. It may have been more clear if it were it's own separate paragraph.

In the context of the original document (you can read the entire thing here), that interpretation doesn't make a lot of sense. It is a legal document, and paragraph 2.6 is very clearly delineated from paragraph 2.7 (which tells you that you're not allowed to scam other users.)

EDIT: Incidentally, you've already signed that Code of Conduct, so you may as well skim it, given you've literally signed a contract saying you'll abide by it.

Interestingly, note that 2.6 was cited against me and not 2.5.

Jaraal wrote: »

Also, it occurred to me that when a person deliberately uses a series of asterisks rather than typing the actual censored word, that individual is leaving the interpretation of it wide open in the moderator's eyes.

You're not saying anything I haven't considered, though that theory does circle back to the idea of the (now ex-)moderator grossly overreacting, based on an infraction that did not occur, which is significantly more worrying.

VaranisArano wrote: »

Elsonso wrote: »

The "report them, don't tell them" has always bugged me. I am a firm believer that people should be allowed to self-correct, before the moderators come along and potentially ruin their day.

I generally take this approach too. If I have to ask someone to self-correct because they said something that bothers me (usually what I perceive as rudeness or misrepresenting what I said), then I try to make sure that the majority of my comment is on the thread topic. Usually, though not always, it's enough that the substance of my comment survives if the mods sweep through looking for back-and-forth.

I'm not going to take that chance, especially with how heavy handed the punishments are.

It's up to the mods to correct infractions. Correct, not punish, unless it's very offensive or there have been repeated offenses despite several warnings. In that case temporary suspensions should be attempted before anything permanent is considered. Permabans should be very rare.

I usually don't try to talk it out anymore. Although sometimes I still can't help but at least give it 1 try, because talking it out just leaves you the one in trouble. I don't try as often anymore. Although sometimes I still try depending on mild I think I can make things. Even if you succeed at making it respectfully toned, the mod may hit you for naming and shaming instead of baiting. And then send you a message about how you should be flagging insults rather than trying to work things out.