I shared my experience as an example to talk about how moderation currently works, but after reading your answers i feel the need to clarify some things about the whole thing.
@Jip said in Open Review of FAF Moderation:
Based on what you wrote it sounds like you feel the moderators did not interpret the game state correct and that the game state is the context that is miss interpret on whatever you were moderated for.
yes, this is correct, i indeed felt that way, and further unofficial comments on the matter made me more convinced of this. The interpretation was incoherent (due to a rule applied differently depending on the situation) and exaggerated to justify the decision taken (imo).
@Jip said in Open Review of FAF Moderation:
But I feel like you assume that an appeal is processed by the same people, even though they are not.
the moderator that answered to my appeal said something about he and 3 other moderators having watched the replay, i assumed he was part of the initial team who took the decision because the way it was worded pointed towards that. However from your and magge's response i'm now thinking that the process is different from what i thought, although having no public explanation of how things are done one can only try to go by logic and assumptions.
@Jip said in Open Review of FAF Moderation:
This is of course not true. These type of discussions are quite exhausting. Let alone if you have to clarify the view of the moderator team in all detail every single time. And even when you do receive that information you may still not agree
What i cannot agree with is this thought. Generally if something is bad or there is a better way of doing it in game, a personal trainer is able to explain and i (having an average brain) am able to understand. I don't see why the same wouldn't apply to the situation there. I was accused of tipping the scales, it should be possible to be able to explain how i would have done that, i may or may not agree with it, but the superficial explanation given at the time seemed to go against any logic. That is why i proposed to pull in some high rated player with good game knowledge, he is more likely to make the correct call and also has no pressure to prove the decision previously taken was right, a competent third party.
@Jip said in Open Review of FAF Moderation:
It may still not make sense to you . Moderation is naturally subjective.
I will agree on moderation being subjective if the decision revolves around personal and moral values. This didn't seem the case as the in-game situation was the core of the issue instead of some kind of behaviour.
@Jip said in Open Review of FAF Moderation:
What I would suggest you do next time is to just let it be. Be banned (or whatever you got) for the duration. And perhaps read up about the rules so that you're less likely to break them in the future. Remember: nobody needs to break the rules. It's always a choice.
Sorry jip, again, while i understand where you guys are coming from, accepting a wrong punishment being imposed upon you just doesn't sit well with my personal values, if i think it's wrong i'll argue about it. It was nothing serious in term of duration, still i didn't argue about it because i wanted the punishment to be lifted, in fact when the whole discussion started my restriction was almost over anyway. It's the principle. Additionally, while there is a work in progres regarding rules, the currently written ones were not able to warrant a violation. I know moderators have the final say, but what's the point of written rules if you read them and understand something else completely? Might have an "Hall of good manners" instead of "Rules". Sorry for the excessive fiscality, but that's how i see it.
On to magge response
@magge said in Open Review of FAF Moderation:
The moderator, who processed the original penalty, has no vote-right for the appeal-decision. The decision contains the vote of several moderators, who independently look at the case and share their result. This is always explained in the appeal-ticket.
As said to Jip, the moderator who was in charge of my ticket said he was one of the 4 moderators who looked at the replay and the way it was worded made it seem like the initial report was handled by these 4 moderators who made the decision. Now i don't know about the appeal procedure works in detail since this information is either not public or hard to find, but i recognize i may have misunderstood.
@magge said in Open Review of FAF Moderation:
The appeal itself is your chance to lay out your argumentation and explain the situation. If you provided it all, then your chance is complete when the moderator team reaches a decision.
That's understandable, and by the way it works it should be over at that point. However, excuse my stubborness here, while i understand that contesting this decision would be the same as saying a lot of moderators were wrong, it just made no sense from a logical standpoint. The in-game dynamics imo should not have brought to that. Zooming out of the single case a little, we're saying there's a low chance for the moderators to all be wrong, but that can still happen. Once again, i agree with you that the issue here is time, so AS OF NOW, not much can really be done to change that. That is why i'm criticizing the process, because in the case that we as FAF community have enough resources, we should be aware that this is not the best method out there, and can improve it.
@magge said in Open Review of FAF Moderation:
On a personal note, I believe I remember seeing your Discord chat in the #general-chat at the time, where you tried to convince other users about your case and how unfairly you were treated. As far as I remember, you faced significant pushback from other users, before the chat died down.
The main "setbacks" to my point were made by a guy similarly rated to me who was in all honesty saying whatever and making no sense. Here i need to get a little more "detaily" about the situation. It was established that i had impacted negatively an even game, so much that my "negative impact" was the cause for the loss, according to what was given as a reason in the appeal. Since i considered the possibility of being wrong, i separately asked for a replay review, and a personal trainer answered. I asked him "being me in this situation, what would you do to win the game"? He told me that the game was lost at least 4 minutes before, that at that point he would have probably quit in my place, and that my best bet for salvaging it was noticing my teammate needed help 10 minutes prior.
That doesn't seem much of a setback to my original claims, aside from whatr andom 800-1500 guys could say in general chat. The personal trainer was high rated in the same game mode the replay was about, his raiting being around 1950 and therefore i assume his advice to be somewhat reliable. Now, as someone pointed out, even some of the moderators are around that level of rating, while others are far from it. With this said we can take a look at 2 possible scenarios:
- The moderators who judged the situation to be even could have a worse game knowledge than the personal trainer (could be lower rated and worse at the game), in this case the decision would be proven questionable
- The moderators who judged the situation to be even could have the same game knowledge as the personal trainer, and the game altough of level 900~ was not easy to analyze.
In any case, some (understandable) doubts could begin to sprout.
@magge said in Open Review of FAF Moderation:
The first standard greeting-message from us in the appeal ticket explains, that it can take from 1 to 3 days to come up with a result. Everyone who appeals, get the same message and a fair chance to reflect their POV. Nothing was rushed, and you got proper reasons at the end.
You're right, this was due to my poor understanding of the entire moderation procedure, appeal included, i likely misinterpreted some steps.
@magge said in Open Review of FAF Moderation:
Because (usually not truthfully) posts about moderation-actions have no benefit to the community, except that those banned persons are unloading their hard emotions.
I understand getting banned can be an awful experience and very frustrating, but dumping such emotions into the community will not to lead to any meaningful resolution. It just consumes energy for any reader without providing meaningful value for either side.
that is another valid counterpoint to things going public. Maybe if users were more well-behaved things could work differently.
Please note that although i may sound harsh in some instances (i know from experience that i sometimes get through as offensive even tho it wasn't my intention), i have no grudges towards the mods. I do however think that my criticism, however harsh it may seem, is there for a good reasons, and is to be directed at the process which, for a lack of time, denies the opportunity to object in a satisfactory way when uses deem it necessary, potentially leaving some of them with the feeling of having been unjustly punished.
Thank you for pointing out the inaccuracies and for taking your time to answer.
)
).