Effectiveness of the Support Tickets for moderation disputes

[PlunderSteed 1,252]

The Support Ticket system seems pretty good for most miscellaneous problems that users might encounter.  However, I'm not so sure it's an effective first response for moderation disputes.

 

Over the past year I've encountered various moderation issues with the staff.  Some of them are open to discussion, and are willing to review/fix the problem on the spot.  However, most respond along the lines of...

 

"f you have an issue with an action conducted by a moderator, please submit a support ticket with your dispute so that the issue can be resolved.

 

PMs are not the place to discuss these matters as they are simply for private discussions, not matters that concern the Staff as a whole."

 

This strikes me as a cop-out.  If a staff member does something affecting the members, they should have the courtesy of explaining their decision.*  In the real world, this is known as "resolving issues at the lowest level."  Only issues that can't be resolved one on one should be taken up to the next level (i.e., the ticket system).  Forcing members to use the support ticket system, when a simple "ah, ok...I'll take care of it" would suffice is silly.

 

So that's my perspective; I'd like to hear thoughts from other members and the staff.

 

 

* to anyone who was thinking "they can do whatever they want and don't owe you any explanation": you have my pity

 

[Zoop 8,384]

Moderators have their hands full with moderation - that's their focus, and what we want them to put their time toward. If they get bogged down with having to constantly justify their actions it will do nothing but waste their time, to be honest.

 

Forwarding disputes to the administration allows us to easily keep track of any questionable decisions made by our moderators, allows us to take a second (and neutral) look at a moderator's actions, and gives us a one-stop location in which all disputes can be reviewed and recalled.

[Betez 1,734]

Alright, this has been bugging me for a while. I doubt this would ever happen, but what if you're being harrased by an Admin? It says in the answer that "Only members of the MLP Forums administration team are able to view mod disputes; all details of which are kept strictly confidential - moderators are not made aware of specific complaints against them.". But what if you issue a complaint against them, wouldn't they be able to see it and just delete it?

Edited March 15, 2013 by Link

[Zoop 8,384]

^ at that point you would have to go straight to Feld0.

 

(at least in cases of actual harassment - if you just have a mod dispute it still needs to go through the disputes system. Disputes involving one admin will generally be reviewed by another admin that was not involved in whatever is being disputed)

[Twilight Sparkle ✨ 8,526]

Alright, this has been bugging me for a while. I doubt this would ever happen, but what if you're being harrased by an Admin? It says in the answer that "Only members of the MLP Forums administration team are able to view mod disputes; all details of which are kept strictly confidential - moderators are not made aware of specific complaints against them.". But what if you issue a complaint against them, wouldn't they be able to see it and just delete it?

 

It is physically impossible for a community admin to delete a ticket. The system is fully auditable. So, if an admin is harassing you and I hear about it, they do not have a means of covering their tracks.

 

Admins are chosen extremely carefully on MLP Forums and I hold them to the highest standards, so I feel quite confident vouching for their integrity as leaders, liaisons, managers, and trustworthy human beings.

 

However, their actions are recorded and logged like any other member's nonetheless. In the worst-case scenario - Key Gear abuses his access to the underlying data as a tech admin - off-site backups exist that only I have access to.

 

 

Though I hope to never have a need to use them, I have the provisions in place to recover from a disaster like that.

[PlunderSteed 1,252]

Moderators have their hands full with moderation - that's their focus, and what we want them to put their time toward. If they get bogged down with having to constantly justify their actions it will do nothing but waste their time, to be honest.

 

Forwarding disputes to the administration allows us to easily keep track of any questionable decisions made by our moderators, allows us to take a second (and neutral) look at a moderator's actions, and gives us a one-stop location in which all disputes can be reviewed and recalled.

 

Tracking it makes sense, and after 14 years of website administration I can definitely understand the need for an audit capability.  My main concern here is that in its current form, the ticket system provides a way for mods to avoid justifying their actions altogether.  It seems like they can just deflect any complaints to "the machine" and let somebody else sort it out.

 

It probably just comes down to personal preference, rather than policy.  Some mods choose to address concerns directly, and others blow off questions and direct users to an impersonal, slow, bureaucratic process.  Most of the time, I'd imagine their actions are not questioned.  But when they are, there are better way to handle it than "fill out a form, and somebody might get back to you later."

[Zoop 8,384]

Actually, the ticket system places them under more scrutiny than if they were tasked with justifying things themselves - it makes us aware of every questionable action that has been taken, allowing us to determine if something was a singular mistake or a sign of overall poor judgment.

 

In this way, it plays a vital part in how we moderate the moderators.

 

EDIT: Posting while walking to a bus stop can result in amusing typos.

[TailsIsNotAlone 3,695]

Tracking it makes sense, and after 14 years of website administration I can definitely understand the need for an audit capability.  My main concern here is that in its current form, the ticket system provides a way for mods to avoid justifying their actions altogether.  It seems like they can just deflect any complaints to "the machine" and let somebody else sort it out.

 

It probably just comes down to personal preference, rather than policy.  Some mods choose to address concerns directly, and others blow off questions and direct users to an impersonal, slow, bureaucratic process.  Most of the time, I'd imagine their actions are not questioned.  But when they are, there are better way to handle it than "fill out a form, and somebody might get back to you later."

I completely agree. This system makes it easier for the mods, but not for the user. The user will feel like they're getting the run-around. It gives the impression of a cloistered, inaccessible group of mods up high somewhere who don't want to take the time to deal with you personally.

 

I know for a fact that you guys are not like that at all, and in fact some of you would welcome the opportunity to resolve a dispute yourself. I've never been warned or involved in a dispute, nor am I a mod, but personally I think mods who want to do it their way and give a better impression to the people they moderate, should have that option.

[Key Gear 6,663]

 

In the real world, this is known as "resolving issues at the lowest level."

But, resolving issues at "lowest level" is not something that is actually done in the real world.

In the real world, problems are resolved through available and appropriate channels for the problem. If you have a problem with your government, do you drive over to the local capital and ask government employees to fix it for you? No, you file a complaint with the overseeing department or a local elected official. If you have a problem with a speeding ticket, do you track down the police officer the next day to talk over it with them? No, you go through the court system to get it resolved.

Similarly, most problems with companies and their products will be also resolved through either customer support, public relations, or by sending a letter to an executive. If you have a problem with the company, do you find an employee of that company and request for them to fix a problem? No, you have to go through the established channels of communication with private companies as well. If you are dealing with a cashier and you believe that they've made a mistake while processing your purchase, then do you request to speak with a supervisor or do you try to get the cashier to fix it. (You'd have to get a supervisor, cashiers should not be able to edit/reverse entries without approval.)

In every single one of these cases, it is generally against organizational procedure for the core staff to deal with these issues directly. Government employees are generally prohibited from going directly to civilians and making arrangements to fix things. Police officers are certainly forbidden from making arrangements on tickets. Corporate employees tasked with other functions are not permitted to step in and act as customer support of public relations. (Walk into an office and ask the lady at the front counter to help you with customer support, she will send you to the customer support reps, just like what we do here.)
 
The reason for these restrictions is not some type of Byzantine conspiracy theory. The reason for these restrictions is simple. The duties and responsibilities of the core staff do not overlap with those of the staff that is equipped to deal with disputes. They don't necessarily have the training, it isn't in their job description, and in most cases, they do not have the actual ability to rollback the action anyway. Allowing specialists to handle the disputes saves time, energy, and effort.

Here on MLP Forums, we actually have extremely good reasons for the system that we currently have in place. It preserves the audit trail, it enables efficient operations, and it preserves a uniform experience for our member base. Ultimately, the moderation staff is tasked with the assignment of enforcing the rules of the site. Administrators cover a variety of other things, including customer support. For more details about the forum's organizational structure, please read the following page: http://mlpforums.com/page/faq/_/moderation/who-does-what-here-r46

Now, for more information about the audit process, once a moderation action has been logged, then that is the first step along an audit trail. If a dispute is filed in the system, then that is the next step in the audit trail. At this point, the administration is able to retrace the steps and discern what happened. If you send this directly to the moderator in their inbox, then you have just circumvented the entire audit process. If you shortcut the process and there turns out to be more to it than just the one incident, administrators will have to do much more digging around to figure out what happened as compared to having everything in one place with a ticket system.

As far as efficient operations... Moderation disputes are touchy issues that are sometimes remarkably tricky to deal with. When I initially came onboard as a section moderator, this ticket system didn't exist. When I stepped in to clean up a hostile thread, I would get dozens of messages in my inbox filled with members that we less than happy. In one week, I got hit by so many that I was completely swamped. Every single one required a different response.

I handled all of these messages myself with countless walls of text, but at the same time, I was expected to continue to moderate. The amount of stress caused by all of this was ridiculous and it would sometimes drain twenty or more hours of my time within a week. You see, we have only a limited number of moderators, but we have 10,000 members. When a moderator takes time to deal with complex moderation disputes in addition to their other duties, they may be pushing themselves near to the breaking point.

This is why we created the moderation disputes area. The community administrators that handle moderation disputes are very, very skilled in this area. Unlike moderators, they do not have the primary task of enforcement, which is external compliance. Instead, their focus is on internal compliance. They conduct audits, run reports, and do whatever else is necessary to get to the bottom of things. They are the skilled specialists in this area. As Feld0 says, they are carefully chosen. They are more than capable of handling your dispute in a fair and balanced manner.

The user will feel like they're getting the run-around.

If a user feels as though they are getting the run-around in a mod dispute, then they should contact Feld0, he's quite accessible. With that said, a user should not feel as though they are getting the run-around simply because they can't take up the issue with the original moderator that facilitated an action. What would be the outcome of this given that the moderator is unable to reverse warning points?

I think mods who want to do it their way and give a better impression to the people they moderate, should have that option.

I know that other forms have a different view of this, but here, we do not consider the resolution of moderation disputes to be a moderator action. The reason for this is because it is fundamentally different. A moderator action is the enforcement of the rules, the moderation dispute is a desire to rollback the enforcement action. Things like changing warning points after the fact would lead to chaos if everyone on staff could do it. Dispute resolution in PMs is the same thing. We have to preserve a history, an audit trail. Without it, how will we see what's going on? It's unreasonable to expect us to fly blindly.

[PlunderSteed 1,252]

All I'm saying is this site takes simple thing and makes them complicated.  If it helps you guys keep detailed metrics on whatever initiatives are in place to optimize management, then that's cool.

 

It just seems annoying and distant for some of us users.  It's a friggin' internet forum, not a police department or a Fortune 500 company.  I've run forums for a very long time, and did just fine without a tenth of the meticulous oversight and self-imposed red tape you guys have.

 

Personal preference, I guess.  In any case, I do appreciate the time and effort you put into explaining your thought process.  Even though I disagree on the methods, it's good to see that you care as much as you do.

 

Peace out.

[SCS 7,537]

All I'm saying is this site takes simple thing and makes them complicated.  If it helps you guys keep detailed metrics on whatever initiatives are in place to optimize management, then that's cool.

 

It just seems annoying and distant for some of us users.  It's a friggin' internet forum, not a police department or a Fortune 500 company.  I've run forums for a very long time, and did just fine without a tenth of the meticulous oversight and self-imposed red tape you guys have.

 

Personal preference, I guess.  In any case, I do appreciate the time and effort you put into explaining your thought process.  Even though I disagree on the methods, it's good to see that you care as much as you do.

 

Peace out.

 

I'd argue that's a rather harsh assessment. In my opinion, the support ticket system is far from cold and distant. In fact, the fact that there is a support ticket system in the first place with dedicated staff to manage it shows how much they care about us and our experience here. 

 

I'm an admin on a different website, and we don't have anything cool like that. We just tell people to PM one of us if they have a question. It works out fine because we're not as active as this site, but the lack of organization when using that method is apparent. MLP Forums receives a greatly substantial amount of traffic, so if the staff here did not have a support ticket system, they would be having to deal with questions in PMs frequently in a highly disorganized manner, taking time away from moderating and developing. 

 

As for moderation disputes specifically: I don't see the point in contacting the moderator in question instead of using the support ticket system. If you disagree with the moderation action, you can't take any action about it yourself. However, if you use the support ticket system, you can bring whatever occurred to the attention of an administrator, who can take any necessary action.