Report rejection reasons

[Dad]

In my opinion, It's not really fair that we don't get to know why our reports have been denied.
It happened to me twice that after I reported someone's rep on me and it got denied, but I didn't know the reason which made me very mad because I didn't know why they denied it.

If our reports are getting denied, at least tell us why...

 

[Ivain]

If your report gets rejected it's safe to assume that the reason is "This was judged to not be against the rules".
we only give specific reasons if we believe it to be necessary. If we gave detailed reasons for every single report, then instead of handling 50 reports in an hour we'd handle 50 reports in a day.
This may be an exaggeration, but it's still the main practical reason

 

[MTG]

If your report gets rejected it's safe to assume that the reason is "This was judged to not be against the rules".
we only give specific reasons if we believe it to be necessary.

"necessary"
wait so it's never necessary right? one guy scammed me and he neg repped me "accusing of scamming" so i reported it and showed proof and it was declined? what why is their no explanation? this one of the biggest things that i hate about mcm staff

 

[Ivain]

Hey, the staff here are some of the best there is. Ivain is new to the whole staff system so he couldn't give a significantly in depth answer. He just tried his best with his limited experience, don't hate on him man.

Im not exactly new, I've been staff before.

 

[MTG]

Ivain is new to the whole staff system so he couldn't give a significantly in depth answer. He just tried his best with his limited experience, don't hate on him man.

No he's not new he was staff before + he always talks like this lmao

 

[Dad]

Hey, the staff here are some of the best there is. Ivain is new to the whole staff system so he couldn't give a significantly in depth answer. He just tried his best with his limited experience, don't hate on him man.

I'm not hating, I'm just saying that it would be nice if we would know why our reports are getting denied.

 

[Ivain]

Question, then. Would it make you happy if every rejected report said "This was judged to not be against the rules" Instead of "your report was rejected"?
Because as I said, for practical reasons we will not be giving detailed reasons for every single individual report.

 

[Ivain]

Actually, I have to agree with this.

I've made reports as in depth and detailed as possible that were rejected, however when DMing with a staff member, it was deemed to be OK. Sometimes it makes us feel if there's even a point in reporting.

That would probably be due to different interpretations. I've seen it happen, reports are sometimes rejected if there's not a glaringly obvious call to make. I try to avoid this, and I bet other staff-members also do, but it can still happen.

 

[Fawks]

The reporting system is a mess; I made a report with proof of DDOS (the member who neg-repped me) and it got denied for "improve your relationship with the member". Fucking bullshit

 

[roy]

Personally, I think working with other networks applies to this so here is what I have to say:

For those that do not know, handling a XenForo report looks like this: https://gyazo.com/b4a39d9ec415cc45f6922e0d9665ce2b
circled in green you can see that tiny little box left for a message sent to you via alert, the "reason". I completely agree with the Moderators that it would take forever to handle reports if they gave a full reason for every denial, we had to do this at MCSG, however maybe they can just use short copy-pasted reasons? They can just one-time type up like 10 or so common report denial reasons into a google document and then just copy-paste them like that (what do you think? Ivain / BucketOfSloths - for the extra opinion).

Just a thought.

 

[iExodus]

This shouldn't be something where they can just remove the rep without full contact with the person submitting the rep in the first place. I had the issue where mine was removed though it was 100% true -rep and they never even bothered to ask for proof of what had happened. I believe that it shouldn't be removed without proper conversation to supply proof to the staff member requesting it be removed.

 

[Ivain]

Rock, in terms of rep things will be improving. We've had it stressed that we cannot remove reputation without contacting the user that gave it and explaining why. I have been following this for about the past week, and will continue to do so.

However, if you want a detailed argument about each reputation removed, I'm afraid we'll have to disappoint you. Half of all reports are complaints about reputation. If we did reputation with a full discussion per thing reported, we'd be talking a processing time about as fast as scam reports are currently going.

To give everyone an idea of the sort of reason why your reputation may be removed, the 3 main reasons why *I* remove reputation are as follows:
1. It's really vague and/or ambiguous ("Vouch, nice guy", "Toxic kid, DNDW", etc)
2. It's revenge-rep. If the main motivation for leaving a negative reputation seems to be the leaving of negative reputation by that user, it will be removed. The pos-rep version of this would be if we have SOLID proof of 2 people doing a rep4rep kind of thing, though this is rare. Usually those cases fall under 1 anyway
3. It contains an accusation of scamming without an open scam report linked. This might be the big confusing one for people who've had it removed by someone who doesn't use my copy-paste message.
If you accuse someone of scamming in a negative reputation, you MUST link an open scam report. It doesnt matter if its publicly viewable yet, scam resolver staff can verify it.
If it contains an accusation of scamming WITHOUT this, it will be removed regardless of other content.

4. rare, but occasional. If the reputation is worded around a user breaking a rule of MCM. ("DNDW user, breaks rule 1.4" or whatever). This is not an official thing, unlike the other 3, but if that is the only reason for the reputation then I may still remove it. Same goes for reputation given to mods about modding decisions. If you have a complaint about a modding decision, or a mod's behavior while in their role as staff, take it up with Mick (ideally through support request, ask for it to be assigned to Mick specifically etc).
If we freely allowed people to give neg-rep to staff because they disagree with a staff decision all of us would soon have 50 neg-rep because of salty kids that disagree with the warning points they get or some other illegitimate reason.

If your reputation is removed and it could not possibly have been one of the above 4 options or otherwise breaking the reputation rules, that would be grounds for filing a complaint.

The final problem with the rep system specifically is that there's currently no proper logs of removed reputation. If reputation is removed, it's currently just GONE. That is the main problem that I believe currently leads to the dissatisfaction with reputation being removed. We cannot accurately verify if rep has been removed before, if it has been changed by the user that gave it, etc.
This specific thing is already being worked on by the dev team, and once it is implemented it should make reputation moderating a lot easier.

I'd like to stress again that in the last 3 weeks, it has been stressed time and again that we may NOT remove reputation without notifying and explaining the user that gave it. This has happened, and I have actually done this a few times since I became staff again, but it will not be done by me again, and hopefully not by any other mods either.

 

[Ivain]

That's not always the case. I've reported my fair share of content, whether it be rep, a post or a comment and it'd be denied. One time, I reported a rep that said, "vouch. isn't dumb or stupid" and it was rejected. Why? It was not informative whatsoever. If it were someone saying, "devouch, is dumb or stupid" it would be removed for not being informative.

Another time, someone was trying to sell a scam account and it was rejected. I reported it again with the definition that Doge gave and it was rejected again. I then had to go to a different staff, who then handled it.

Well, I guess I cannot speak for other staff's reasons.

 

[Ivain]

From my own personal experience, staff will do their job well IF they like you. Except for you and Justis. You two always help people without the hassle or attitude, regardless if you dislike someone or not.

Eh, I've not been able to find any noticeable bias in other staff's work, but that may just be my observational skills.
Also, I'll readily confess to not expending anywhere near as much effort on the cases of people that act like dicks, whether to me, to staff in general or towards any user that does not immediately seem to have earned it.

 

[iExodus]

Ivain I guess that makes sense, its just frustrating to see that your 100% truthful -rep gets removed

 

[Ivain]

Ivain I guess that makes sense, its just frustrating to see that your 100% truthful -rep gets removed

As I said, if it wasn't in the least described by one of the points I mentioned then it was probably a communication fluke because of the lack of a proper system moderating system for this kind of thing.