Regarding the way Feedback is handled

[Capaldi]

Hello.
I've had two instances recently where the person was able to lie within the dispute and nothing happens. The first instance the person didn't get any type of warning for 1.10 because of a technicality. The second one, the feedback moderator confirmed I did, in fact, provide enough sufficient evidence to prove that x is xx. The person was not warned for lying and the feedback moderator said they would not warn them even though they were violating 1.10

I had a former feedback moderator, currently higher in ranks, that said "Lying is the nature in disputes" and that "Lying in disputes is handled differently". Misleading content is misleading content; why should it be okay to lie in disputes simply because "it's the nature"?

Another issue I have regarding the way feedback is handled is when you explain why the reputation should be removed it can and will be held against you and somehow someone can give you a 'valid' reputation for simply explaining why the reputation should be removed.

So lying is the nature of disputes but explaining why it should be removed is not the nature of disputes. That's exactly what I'm getting with the way feedback mods have handled disputes.

I've noticed that Feedback Moderators say a reputation is valid and immediately closes it; they don't explain how it's valid. I'm not sure about anyone else but personally, I'm not sure how to proceed when a feedback moderator closes a dispute. Do we continue disputing it in that conversation? Would it really go against us if we attempted to continue disputing it in the conversation? Do we make a ticket? Do we simply message the feedback moderator?

Feedback moderators should be more consistent with how they handle things, actually enforce the rules and explain why they think something is valid or invalid rather than just immediately coming to a decision and closing it leaving the person to wonder how to really proceed.

 

[Norska]

I'll agree and upvote for consistency on giving out warnings, something which sadly is not happening.

 

[BOOP]

Alternative suggestion: More consistency throughout the entire moderation system

 

[Capaldi]

Alternative suggestion: More consistency throughout the entire moderation system

That's not an alternative suggestion; that's just an addition to the suggestion.

I plan on making a different thread for moderation in itself.

 

[Ally]

I'm just going to jump in here on a couple of points:

I've noticed that Feedback Moderators say a reputation is valid and immediately closes it; they don't explain how it's valid

If a feedback is valid, then it needn't be explained how it is valid unless there are points raised which need to be looked at by the feedback moderator. This is because the implication of saying it's valid is that it complies with all rules. The rules it complies with are never going to be listed out for you because that is a complete waste if time.
If a feedback is invalid however, the reason will typically be listed. Or reasons. Typically a user should be given 48 hours to amend their feedback to correct the noncompliance, or, if it is not possible to amend by the nature of the feedback, it will be removed immediately.
Feedback moderators will never sit there and list of the reasons it does comply with feedback. However they will usually take the time to address the concerns raised. If you still don't feel their reasoning is enough, you're free to make a ticket wherein another feedback moderator will join, or Kram will if you're accusing them of something more serious. However in most cases, feedback moderators' justifications will be valid to an extent and it is up to the cooperating users to trust that the feedback moderator is unbiased, because undoubtedly the party that loses out will be angry, and both parties will have emotional investment in the situation whereas the feedback moderator will not.
I've made mistakes and changed my mind before as well, and in cases like that it's not out of malice, it's just the situation has been reconsidered. It can be frustrating but ultimately we're human too and many dispute cases are not straightforward.
You can also open up a line of communication with the feedback mod themselves if you feel the situation has been considered improperly.

In the past, there have been users who have lied in or around the dispute. I have never been one to warn them for 1.10 because of a few things:

• The users lie inside the dispute. This often involves A LOT of arguments and is eventually smoothed out between all 3 people in the conversation. They don't affect the feedback itself* and ultimately there's no harm done except honestly wasted energy. Since it's private, unlike scam reports, there's no impact in terms of slander either, mitigating the seriousness of the offence. It also only affects 1-2 people here.
• If the user has lied in the feedback itself, they are warned for 8.1, or the feedback is removed for 8.2, depending on the seriousness of the lie. Simply, 8.1 is a MUCH better rule for this situation. 1.10 is often more used for genuine misleading content. We wouldn't give a 1.10 warning to someone who attempted to scam by direct deception for example, so why should it be issued here? However my experience with 1.10 is limited because users are generally decent at following it.

As for people's concerns about consistency of warnings (in feedback or around feedback?), a user is generally warned they overtly violate feedback rules. Fake evidence, blatant lack of truthfulness, relevance or evidence, repeated abuse of the system, etc.
It is genuinely difficult in a lot of cases when to decide to issue a feedback based warning. As I mentioned before a lot of situations are rather complicated and they're the ones that usually don't get points because it is so multifaceted. There are obviously differing circumstances, for example if the user obviously knows they did the wrong thing.

Lying when it's critical to tell the truth usually has higher punishments associated with it. Scams, feedback, etc.
From memory, 1.10 is 5 points.
Insignificant lying, and yes I do believe that there are degrees in which a person can lie, generally carries no weight. Misleading thread titles, rickrolls, jokes, minor lies in stories which may be inconsistencies.
A staff member can generally discern when someone is lying and it up to them entirely to make a judgement on the seriousness of it. If you fervently believe that a user lying is detrimental to the community, make a feedback on them and justify it. And no that does not necessarily mean in one dispute. You have to prove that it would affect how someone deals with that user in our community as per 8.1.

Edit, I probably didn't make this clear enough so I'll just clarify: the distinction between lying and simple and mere inconsistencies in recollection can be so indistinguishable it's not funny. Those are the sorts of situations I've dealt with and I will never warn for 1.10 in that situation because the human memory is unreliable.
If someone is lying with intent and for the sake of lying, then by all means I can warn. But I'd need to be absolutely sure that firstly, they are actually lying and not just misremembering, and secondly I can prove they're lying. So many cases we only have their words to go by in disputes and it is less significant because of that.

 

[Capaldi]

If a feedback is valid, then it needn't be explained how it is valid unless there are points raised which need to be looked at by the feedback moderator. This is because the implication of saying it's valid is that it complies with all rules. The rules it complies with are never going to be listed out for you because that is a complete waste if time.

Oh, yes, it should. Because staff make mistakes.

I recently got a negative reputation, disputed it like normal. I was civil throughout the whole time. In the end, the person modified it to say I was a bunch of things (lying/hypocritical/tying to avoid responsibility) but didn't actually prove it; all they did was show me disputing my reputation (with my points and explanations) and the feedback moderator said it was valid. I didn't know how to proceed since me merely utilizing the dispute feature was used against me in the reputation system. Granted, it was corrected, the simple fact was: It was still closed without providing a reason as to why it's valid and left me wondering how to even proceed since that feedback moderator said he and several staff said it was rule abiding.

Although now that I see, even pointing out why it's valid wouldn't really help in this particular situation but it may help others so they're not left wondering what to do since I know staff are quick to say, "Make a ticket if you think this is the wrong decision" if someone questions them. Staff need to be more transparent about the things they do in terms of handling disputes.

If a feedback is invalid however, the reason will typically be listed. Or reasons. Typically a user should be given 48 hours to amend their feedback to correct the noncompliance, or, if it is not possible to amend by the nature of the feedback, it will be removed immediately.

That's pretty one sided; It would better help someone understand why a reputation is valid if feedback moderators actually took the time to go through the evidence and explain which part of it is valid because otherwise, they can and will miss stuff like this situation. I'm sure it happens more than that though.

Feedback moderators will never sit there and list of the reasons it does comply with feedback. However they will usually take the time to address the concerns raised. If you still don't feel their reasoning is enough, you're free to make a ticket wherein another feedback moderator will join, or Kram will if you're accusing them of something more serious. However in most cases, feedback moderators' justifications will be valid to an extent and it is up to the cooperating users to trust that the feedback moderator is unbiased, because undoubtedly the party that loses out will be angry, and both parties will have emotional investment in the situation whereas the feedback moderator will not.

They wouldn't really have to 'address' the concerns if they addressed it from the get-go. It seems pretty redundant not to explain how it's valid if you're going to have to do it anyway because I'm sure a lot of people ask questions as to why it's valid. :shrug:

And no, don't tell me that another feedback moderator will join. Geek has told me that it'll immediately be assigned to Kram. What information are we supposed to trust when one staff says x but another says something different?

I've made mistakes and changed my mind before as well, and in cases like that it's not out of malice, it's just the situation has been reconsidered. It can be frustrating but ultimately we're human too and many dispute cases are not straightforward.
You can also open up a line of communication with the feedback mod themselves if you feel the situation has been considered improperly.

:shrug: Did you read the part where the suggestion was how feedback is handled? (thus talking about the feedback moderators) They need to be more transparent about what to do when they close it and someone feels their decision is wrong. Simply saying, "It's valid. Dispute closed" is not helpful at all in terms of how it's valid or even where to go to further discuss, especially if that feedback moderator let someone get away with using your dispute pointers against you in their own reputation.

In the past, there have been users who have lied in or around the dispute. I have never been one to warn them for 1.10 because of a few things:

• The users lie inside the dispute. This often involves A LOT of arguments and is eventually smoothed out between all 3 people in the conversation. They don't affect the feedback itself* and ultimately there's no harm done except honestly wasted energy. Since it's private, unlike scam reports, there's no impact in terms of slander either, mitigating the seriousness of the offence. It also only affects 1-2 people here.
• If the user has lied in the feedback itself, they are warned for 8.1, or the feedback is removed for 8.2, depending on the seriousness of the lie. Simply, 8.1 is a MUCH better rule for this situation. 1.10 is often more used for genuine misleading content. We wouldn't give a 1.10 warning to someone who attempted to scam by direct deception for example, so why should it be issued here? However my experience with 1.10 is limited because users are generally decent at following it.

Just because it's private doesn't mean anything; that person is still intentionally lying which technically still violates 1.10 Picking and choosing when to enforce the rules is not good, in my opinion. It's not consistency. It may be between a dispute but that person's intentions is still to lie so that the reputation can be removed; which only hides what that person has done.

You can still give people verbal warnings for 1.10, not necessarily points, but y'all are just letting people lie in disputes and they may think they can lie elsewhere since y'all ain't doing nothing in the dispute. "Lying is the nature of disputes" but lying is also the nature of scam reports :shrug:

No, why would you warn someone for attempted to scam? That's a ban. These two are not comparable and I'm not quite sure what you hoped to gain. The context/severity is everything. No, you wouldn't simply warn someone who attempted to scam; that's a ban. But why would you not warn someone for 1.10? Your reasons are not even good in my opinion.

You say you don't warn for 1.10 but Geek says lying is in the nature and handled differently. Where's the consistency in how staff handle feedback or rules being violated in there?

Insignificant lying, and yes I do believe that there are degrees in which a person can lie, generally carries no weight. Misleading thread titles, rickrolls, jokes, minor lies in stories which may be inconsistencies.
A staff member can generally discern when someone is lying and it up to them entirely to make a judgement on the seriousness of it. If you fervently believe that a user lying is detrimental to the community, make a feedback on them and justify it. And no that does not necessarily mean in one dispute. You have to prove that it would affect how someone deals with that user in our community as per 8.1.

If y'all warn for innocent thread titles, rickrolls, etc but not for something when someone is intentionally lying to gain benefit from it, yeah that's inconsistency.[DOUBLEPOST=1608503318][/DOUBLEPOST]I gave someone a reputation for saying they did not have funds for their server all while having purchased a profile picture that same month and some days before the scam report was made public. It was removed since I had "no relevance" to the situation, which doesn't make any sense since I've left tons of reputation when I wasn't directly involved since it was me merely informing the community of someone doing something. I've never had any reputation removed based on me not having any relevance to the situation, and yes, a lot of people have disputed the reputation only to be told it was valid.

I believe this is just bias on behalf of the staff since this particular person is well-known and comes off as "friendly" to the entire community but being friendly shouldn't exempt them from receiving a valid reputation. If you don't have funds, how are you going to buy a profile picture and not pay the person you owe? facepalm