Update Ban/Warnings to see what the complaint was

[Brian9824]

So was just thinking what harm would there be if when you action taken it includes the text of what other users reported it as. It wouldn't contain any personal information or tell you WHO reported you, but simply show you WHAT you were reported for.

If anything it would help people realize how other users are seeing their posts.

So if someone was posting insults against other users and someone got a ban for it, the ban included the report that stated "user is using profanity to insult other users".

Would help clarify some of the bans, and help facilitate if any users maliciously tried to use reports as a weapon. It would help facilitate tickets to support if someone claimed something false that you got banned for and a moderator misread the report which happens.

[Brian9824]

引用自 ?legit：

引用自 brian9824：

If anything it would help people realize how other users are seeing their posts.

So if someone was posting insults against other users and someone got a ban for it, the ban included the report that stated "user is using profanity to insult other users".

This is unnecessary. Valve isn't obliged to give you any information why your post was removed / banned. They already give you a quick explanation though, and that's enough.

Of course they aren't obliged. Never once claimed they were, doesn't mean it couldn't be nice to have it though. They aren't obliged to reverse mistakes moderators make either, yet they have no issue doing so....

[[?]legit]

引用自 brian9824：

引用自 ?legit：

This is unnecessary. Valve isn't obliged to give you any information why your post was removed / banned. They already give you a quick explanation though, and that's enough.

Of course they aren't obliged. Never once claimed they were, doesn't mean it couldn't be nice to have it though. They aren't obliged to reverse mistakes moderators make either, yet they have no issue doing so....

Those are two entirely different things.

Again, demanding further explanations from moderators doesn't seem appropriate, especially when there is no grounds to get any informations to begin with. The system doesn't have to accomodate to people who are breaking the rules.

[Pierce Dalton]

Good idea, it would be fun to know what some... very sensitive individuals write.

[Brian9824]

引用自 ?legit：

引用自 brian9824：

Of course they aren't obliged. Never once claimed they were, doesn't mean it couldn't be nice to have it though. They aren't obliged to reverse mistakes moderators make either, yet they have no issue doing so....

Those are two entirely different things.

Again, demanding further explanations from moderators doesn't seem appropriate, especially when there is no grounds to get any informations to begin with. The system doesn't have to accomodate to people who are breaking the rules.

Again no one is demanding, it would just be a nice thing. I've seen other game forums include the report text. Also remember every ban isn't always right. So if anyone was attempting to manipulate the reports by say lying this would help with that.

Or even help someone explain an honest mistake. For instance a user got banned for referencing the website "One Angry Gamer", a moderator thought it was them being rude. It was confusing until they understood the reason and the confusion. Seeing that someone thought one angry gamer was an insult that would let them easily explain to support what the issue was.

[Crashed]

引用自 brian9824：

引用自 ?legit：

Those are two entirely different things.

Again, demanding further explanations from moderators doesn't seem appropriate, especially when there is no grounds to get any informations to begin with. The system doesn't have to accomodate to people who are breaking the rules.

Again no one is demanding, it would just be a nice thing. I've seen other game forums include the report text. Also remember every ban isn't always right. So if anyone was attempting to manipulate the reports by say lying this would help with that.

Or even help someone explain an honest mistake. For instance a user got banned for referencing the website "One Angry Gamer", a moderator thought it was them being rude. It was confusing until they understood the reason and the confusion. Seeing that someone thought one angry gamer was an insult that would let them easily explain to support what the issue was.

They may have known the content of that website.

[Brian9824]

引用自 Crashed：

引用自 brian9824：

Again no one is demanding, it would just be a nice thing. I've seen other game forums include the report text. Also remember every ban isn't always right. So if anyone was attempting to manipulate the reports by say lying this would help with that.

Or even help someone explain an honest mistake. For instance a user got banned for referencing the website "One Angry Gamer", a moderator thought it was them being rude. It was confusing until they understood the reason and the confusion. Seeing that someone thought one angry gamer was an insult that would let them easily explain to support what the issue was.

They may have known the content of that website.

Nah, the ban was removed as soon as it was explained that it was a website. However it can lead to confusion as no one would understand what is disrespectful in a post unless they saw the complaint where someone thought "one angry gamer" was an insult vs a website.

[Crashed]

引用自 brian9824：

引用自 Crashed：

They may have known the content of that website.

Nah, the ban was removed as soon as it was explained that it was a website. However it can lead to confusion as no one would understand what is disrespectful in a post unless they saw the complaint where someone thought "one angry gamer" was an insult vs a website.

In fairness a lot of the content on that site is very inflammatory, and has a considerable amount of hate speech.

[[?]legit]

引用自 brian9824：

Again no one is demanding, it would just be a nice thing.

Your OP suggests otherwise.

引用自 brian9824：

I've seen other game forums include the report text. Also remember every ban isn't always right. So if anyone was attempting to manipulate the reports by say lying this would help with that.

Edge case. It's also not your job to find out who abuses the report function.

引用自 brian9824：

Or even help someone explain an honest mistake. For instance a user got banned for referencing the website "One Angry Gamer", a moderator thought it was them being rude. It was confusing until they understood the reason and the confusion. Seeing that someone thought one angry gamer was an insult that would let them easily explain to support what the issue was.

You can perfectly explain this without additional information about the ban.

[KalGimpa]

引用自 RiO：

For better or worse, come 2024 with the Digital Services Act there'll be legal requirement in the EU for moderation notices to be accompanied with an overview of the facts and circumstances relied on in taking a decision to moderate user-posted content; including information on whether action was taken pursuant to notice by a third party.

So at the very least, a paraphrasing of the original report message that was acted on, will legally be required.

Do note that even the DSA limits the scope of supplying the identity of the notifier only to those cases where it is strictly necessary as part of the circumstances. Steam wouldn't be allowed to disclose the notifier's identity just-like-that, because it would be a violation of the GDPR. The way the DSA words it, makes it allowed only in extreme non-extraneous circumstances, under requirement by law as the legal grounds for processing.

ok, i looked it up, and the closest thing for moderation that i could find was this

"New rights for users: At the same time, citizens will be able to notify illegal content, including products, that they encounter and contest the decisions made by online platforms when their content is removed: platforms are obliged to notify them of any decision taken, of the reason to take that decision and to provide for a mechanism to contest the decision."

https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/QANDA_20_2348

and that does not seem to mean that modded posts will fall under this

that seems, when taken with the rest, to mean a product removal or the like

at least to me

not a lawyer, so i am not sure, but do we know that this will include simple moderation of topics?

or is there something more comprehensive that i can read that spells it out better?

[Brian9824]

引用自 ?legit：

引用自 brian9824：

Again no one is demanding, it would just be a nice thing.

Your OP suggests otherwise.

引用自 brian9824：

I've seen other game forums include the report text. Also remember every ban isn't always right. So if anyone was attempting to manipulate the reports by say lying this would help with that.

Edge case. It's also not your job to find out who abuses the report function.

引用自 brian9824：

Or even help someone explain an honest mistake. For instance a user got banned for referencing the website "One Angry Gamer", a moderator thought it was them being rude. It was confusing until they understood the reason and the confusion. Seeing that someone thought one angry gamer was an insult that would let them easily explain to support what the issue was.

You can perfectly explain this without additional information about the ban.

Do show where I demanded...

It's a suggestion, it's not a demand that they must do something. I think you have this thread mixed up with some of the other threads people make where they complain about moderation and call for them to be fired or something.....

As already explained the example with the one angry gamer example is that the user in question would have no clue they were even banned for mentioning the site, just that their post was "disrespectful" with no idea WHAT was disrespectful over it because they'd have no way to know that someone thought it was an insult vs a website

[RiO]

引用自 KalCuey：

引用自 RiO：

For better or worse, come 2024 with the Digital Services Act there'll be legal requirement in the EU for moderation notices to be accompanied with an overview of the facts and circumstances relied on in taking a decision to moderate user-posted content; including information on whether action was taken pursuant to notice by a third party.

So at the very least, a paraphrasing of the original report message that was acted on, will legally be required.

Do note that even the DSA limits the scope of supplying the identity of the notifier only to those cases where it is strictly necessary as part of the circumstances. Steam wouldn't be allowed to disclose the notifier's identity just-like-that, because it would be a violation of the GDPR. The way the DSA words it, makes it allowed only in extreme non-extraneous circumstances, under requirement by law as the legal grounds for processing.

ok, i looked it up, and the closest thing for moderation that i could find was this

"New rights for users: At the same time, citizens will be able to notify illegal content, including products, that they encounter and contest the decisions made by online platforms when their content is removed: platforms are obliged to notify them of any decision taken, of the reason to take that decision and to provide for a mechanism to contest the decision."

https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/QANDA_20_2348

and that does not seem to mean that modded posts will fall under this

that seems, when taken with the rest, to mean a product removal or the like

at least to me

not a lawyer, so i am not sure, but do we know that this will include simple moderation of topics?

or is there something more comprehensive that i can read that spells it out better?

There's the full legal text[eur-lex.europa.eu].

If you look at article 2 of the regulation which establishes scope, you'll note it's applicable to any intermediary service offered to recipients that have their place of establishment in the Union or are located there, irrespective of whether the service is offered from the Union or from outside the Union.

If you look at article 3 of the regulation which holds definitions as they apply for the regulation, you'll note intermediary services encompass any hosting services (Art. 3g(iii) ) which includes online platforms (Art. 3i)

After that, you can look at articles 16 and 17 as apply to any (!!) hosting service or online platform, which gives you information on the legal requirements wrt notice and action; as well as statement of reasons.

There are exclusions present for micro and small enterprises, as given in article 19 - but those only apply to Section 3, i.e. articles 19-28.

Articles 16 and 17 simply always apply to any hosting service. The type; scope and audience reach of the hosted content does not matter. All that matters is that it is content made available through what is defined as a hosting service. And a hosting service is defined in article 3 as any service that at the request of a user consists of the storage of information for later retrieval.

An online platform is defined, also in article 3, as any hosting service, i.e. any service for the storage and retrieval of information; where the stored information becomes published and available publicly. With the exclusion of where this publishing is only a minor and ancillary feature of another service. However - this exclusion only excludes a service from being defined as an online platform.
It does not exclude it from the definition of being a hosting service, and does not exclude it from the scope of articles 16 and 17 either.