Forum goer privilege & moderation bias? Let's have a serious discussion

[Ruminate]

After serving a month long ban for simply responding in kind when someone said I was "complaining for the sake of complaining" just because I thought Steam's celebration of its 20th anniversary was underwhelming, I want to have a serious discussion about moderation bias.

It's quite obvious to me now that certain regulars are simply immune from being banned, or rather, most of them are, even when they insult other users or bait them so they can be reported. I wouldn't have even had a problem if the ban length was not a whole month considering I have seen or heard of people saying much worse on this forum only to receive a very light 3 days or week long ban.

My simple question is just, why is this the case? Does this seem fair to you? It doesn't seem fair to me.

Moreover, I have noticed it seems quite possible and easy to be toxic and passive aggressive towards others, and as long as you aren't directly insulting (or at least do so subtly enough) it's easy to get past the eyes of moderation, perhaps because of the flaw that they seem to only respond based on reports, and do not consider context...so if they quickly glance at your post and don't immediately see an issue with what's said, they let things pass that probably shouldn't.

At this point, I have just accepted the reality of this forum and will simply capitulate to the moderators and regulars of this forum, so regardless of the outcome or responses to this thread I no longer have any intention of riding the lines of the rules. I will accept that Valve must be praised, that the Suggestions & Ideas forum is merely a trash bin where all ideas must be shot down, and so on.

[Boblin the Goblin]

Ruminate eredeti hozzászólása:

Very interesting that when pushed nobody can explain to me why it is that literal threats of violence do not warrant a ban as long as I received.

Moderation history is taken into account when bans are applied. Repeated behavior ends up in more severe punishment.

[C²C^Guyver |NZB|]

Ruminate eredeti hozzászólása:

Very interesting that when pushed nobody can explain to me why it is that literal threats of violence do not warrant a ban as long as I received.

Very interesting that you don't seem to realize that we can't really comment on that because we are not moderators. Or haven't you noticed?

[C²C^Guyver |NZB|]

SlowMango eredeti hozzászólása:

Ruminate eredeti hozzászólása:

Very interesting that when pushed nobody can explain to me why it is that literal threats of violence do not warrant a ban as long as I received.

Moderation history is taken into account when bans are applied. Repeated behavior ends up in more severe punishment.

Also this.

[Pierce Dalton]

xBCxRangers eredeti hozzászólása:

But here, i just don't think the Moderation company Valve contracted knows what they're doing. They're def from overseas, where English is likely not their first language.

Yes, they are. It's important to keep in mind that Valve employees also have access to forum moderation tools, though.

[Hobbit XIII]

xBCxRangers eredeti hozzászólása:

I am probably, the most banned regular poster here. Twice, three times a week, for months. But all of those bans are overturned.

My synopsis, and can't speak for the game hubs, being you can be dealing with teenagers or the developers kid moderating those. So, no hope there.

But here, i just don't think the Moderation company Valve contracted knows what they're doing. They're def from overseas, where English is likely not their first language.

That means, slang, ordinary figures of speech, and context flies out the window.

Most all of the moderation, is based on "reports", and if you have 10 or 15 Newellists, that spam the report button on one person, you're likely going to be banned if they target you (i know that feeling all too well).

In short, idt they read the reports, but go by the 'amount" of reports, and so when the ban is appealed, and they do read them, they find out you were spammed, and overturn the ban.

Yes, former or current mods, not just here, but on Reddit and other outlets that work advertantly or inadvertantly on Steams behalf, do seem to have pull here, and are much tougher to see banned.

But i've seen, all of them banned at least a couple of times with the exception of a rare few.

In short, the issue with Moderation imo, is not speaking the language of the forum they moderate. Taking report spam as a gauge to ban someone, and taking too much into account of ones status as a former or current moderator on here or other outlets, or otherwise community managers.

The fix, is to contract teams where the language for which they moderate is their first language, and have a system to moderate the moderators to assure bias and comraderie do not impede on fora moderation matters, and to have moderators involved in the discussions mitigating the need for the Report Features that are often times abused and spammed in essence to brigade or harrass fellow posters.

I have no idea if this true but in spirit you deserve the Citizen Kane clap.

(clap)* I *(clap)

[Pierce Dalton]

C²C^Guyver |NZB| eredeti hozzászólása:

Pierce Dalton eredeti hozzászólása:

Jeez, it's not that complicated... just read what I quoted.

If you're talking about bans. Six that includes four community bans

And I'm sure you know how serious those are.

And I also know that you can't even reply without being combative.

As hard as it is for many of you to understand this, the moderators aren't out to get you and they aren't out to permanently ban users.

Hell, most of the volunteer moderators had a three strike rule. That means that if that rule was carried over now, a lot of people would have been permanently banned already.

No, what I'm talking about is:

How many times do you have to contact support?

Like I said, just read what I quoted, c'mon:

Pierce Dalton eredeti hozzászólása:

C²C^Guyver |NZB| eredeti hozzászólása:

How so?

You should know by now that you are told to contact Steam Support if you think it's a mistake.

How many times?

[Ruminate]

SlowMango eredeti hozzászólása:

Ruminate eredeti hozzászólása:

Very interesting that when pushed nobody can explain to me why it is that literal threats of violence do not warrant a ban as long as I received.

Moderation history is taken into account when bans are applied. Repeated behavior ends up in more severe punishment.

So it's only ban history and not the actual content of the thread? Good to know, so if someone new to steam makes an account and threatens to kill you, says a bunch of racial slurs, etc. all in a single post, it's totally fine for them to only get a 24 hour ban since they have no moderation history?

[Pierce Dalton]

Ruminate eredeti hozzászólása:

SlowMango eredeti hozzászólása:

Moderation history is taken into account when bans are applied. Repeated behavior ends up in more severe punishment.

So it's only ban history and not the actual content of the thread? Good to know, so if someone new to steam makes an account and threatens to kill you, says a bunch of racial slurs, etc. all in a single post, it's totally fine for them to only get a 24 hour ban since they have no moderation history?

Yes

[Boblin the Goblin]

Ruminate eredeti hozzászólása:

SlowMango eredeti hozzászólása:

Moderation history is taken into account when bans are applied. Repeated behavior ends up in more severe punishment.

So it's only ban history and not the actual content of the thread? Good to know, so if someone new to steam makes an account and threatens to kill you, says a bunch of racial slurs, etc. all in a single post, it's totally fine for them to only get a 24 hour ban since they have no moderation history?

It's both.

That's why I said 'taken into account'. It isn't the only thing.

[Idgaf]

Ruminate eredeti hozzászólása:

Very interesting that when pushed nobody can explain to me why it is that literal threats of violence do not warrant a ban as long as I received.

how can it be literal when its over the internet? they don't know who you are where you live nothing.. what you're saying is stupid and that mind-set is why we are at this stage of devolution of free speech in the first place.

another thing is lefties can apparently run their mouths about all types of despicable stuff, but dare a normal logical common sense based right minded person talk at all about anything.. WHERES THE BAN HAMMER.. quick they took a breath... fml.

[Ruminate]

Idgaf eredeti hozzászólása:

Ruminate eredeti hozzászólása:

Very interesting that when pushed nobody can explain to me why it is that literal threats of violence do not warrant a ban as long as I received.

how can it be literal when its over the internet? they don't know who you are where you live nothing.. what you're saying is stupid and that mind-set is why we are at this stage of devolution of free speech in the first place.

another thing is lefties can apparently run their mouths about all types of despicable stuff, but dare a normal logical common sense based right minded person talk at all about anything.. WHERES THE BAN HAMMER.. quick they took a breath... fml.

That's not my point...I'm just saying that I don't see why saying that you're going to kill a bunch of people gets you a short ban but me responding to someone accusing me of just complaining is enough for a month long ban, that Support will not even turn over

[C²C^Guyver |NZB|]

Pierce Dalton eredeti hozzászólása:

C²C^Guyver |NZB| eredeti hozzászólása:

If you're talking about bans. Six that includes four community bans

And I'm sure you know how serious those are.

And I also know that you can't even reply without being combative.

As hard as it is for many of you to understand this, the moderators aren't out to get you and they aren't out to permanently ban users.

Hell, most of the volunteer moderators had a three strike rule. That means that if that rule was carried over now, a lot of people would have been permanently banned already.

No, what I'm talking about is:

How many times do you have to contact support?

Like I said, just read what I quoted, c'mon:

Pierce Dalton eredeti hozzászólása:

How many times?

Are you serious? My account is 20 years old and you really expect me to remember how many times I have contacted Steam Support over a ban?

More than four at least, because if you knew anything about what you're trying to discuss, with a community ban, that's literally all you can do is contact them. Also again replying combatively.

[Pierce Dalton]

Idgaf eredeti hozzászólása:

Ruminate eredeti hozzászólása:

Very interesting that when pushed nobody can explain to me why it is that literal threats of violence do not warrant a ban as long as I received.

how can it be literal when its over the internet? they don't know who you are where you live nothing..

That's true... but they can find out:

https://kotaku.com/man-spends-six-months-plotting-murder-of-counter-strike-5550609

[KalGimpa]

one of my problems with your premise is that you begin with your own bias

you say it is obvious that mod bias exists as if it is a given fact

which brings me to the second

do we know who was hired to moderate these forums?

i personally think it is safe to assume that it is an outsourced company like many other boards

if it is

then this is going to be a company that has people in who knows which countries

people that are hired to get through the complaints as quickly as they can

the way these normally work is by a que system that the employees have nothing to do with

they get their notification that someone requested help and look

then handle the request

for there to be a bias

the same employees would have to be here in these boards on a regular basis

either that or steam gave them a list of people that can do whatever they want

[Ruminate]

SlowMango eredeti hozzászólása:

Ruminate eredeti hozzászólása:

So it's only ban history and not the actual content of the thread? Good to know, so if someone new to steam makes an account and threatens to kill you, says a bunch of racial slurs, etc. all in a single post, it's totally fine for them to only get a 24 hour ban since they have no moderation history?

It's both.

That's why I said 'taken into account'. It isn't the only thing.

Well it's utter nonsense if you ask me

I don't think I have any more to say on this. You've said your piece and I've said mine. Nobody's opinion is going to change, clearly.

Have a nice day.