[denied] Relevancy posts of non-dispute party in disputes

100% agree.
If tagged infractions should not be handed out, as long as it can be considered relevant information to the pending report.

 

I Support.

I was infracted recently for weighing in on a report where I was mentioned about checking over a bot for code which may tip the house edge and allow the hosts to scam their users.

I posted evidence of me checking the code over, confirming I found nothing which suggests this, and provided further clarity on certain points on the report (which I believed was highly relevant information regarding the report seeing as I was mentioned, and was directly involved due to being reached out to so I can check it over).

upon questioning why I was infracted, I was told:

"Just because you are mentioned, doesnt mean you can post on the report"
"pm them or report the post with your info dont post on the report"

"You are directly involved if:
You are the person making the report
You are the person being accused (the defendant)
You middle manned the trade and are providing screenshots neither of the party has
The moderator handling the case has tagged you and asked for your input
Employees of a business may post on a report directed at their employer if they have relevant information to contribute"

The above part was directly taken from the rules, with the mod in question just quoting them to me here: Do NOT post unless you are directly involved in report [YOU WILL BE INFRACTED OR TEMPORARILY BANNED]

Whilst I understand why the above is in place, I believe it should be amended to add "You have been tagged by either party and are providing information relevant to the dispute at hand"

The wording of the amendment would mean people with no involvement, and those who are tagged and just write stuff like "he's a scammer, I know it" or "I was tagged but have no relevant information I just want to add nothing but my opinion" still receive an infraction.

 

Support

 

Support.

Was wondering why Assasins post was removed.

 

I do agree that it's odd and somewhat frustrating to be tagged in a report and not be allowed to comment. Particularly if your integrity is in question by being mentioned.

Moderation is easiest and most consistent when the need for interpretation is minimized.
As @Zora mentioned, the interpretation of what is "relevant" will almost always be opinion-based and could vary from person to person. Most reports require some level of opinion, so I lean more towards the camp of not adding further need for interpretation/judgement-calls.

Most RaS threads are emotion driven; one person is being called a scammer while the other has lost some sort of financial value. I think that allowing multiple cooks in the kitchen often leads to a report that contains four pages of arguing and winds up being closed while a decision is made.

I'd be fine with supporting the suggestion and trying it out for a month or two to determine if true value exists. If it's problematic, it could easily be reverted.

 

I think Trialing it would be a bad Idea - People would get frustrated and upset if they get infracted the day after the trial ends, especially if they were unaware of the trial end date or wasnt aware there was an end date - this would also cause unnecessary stress on the mod team.

 

I think you're grasping at straws on that one. Do you realize how unlikely it would be for that exact scenario to arise?

If I had to make an educated guess, I'd say <10% of reports contain posts where a third user is @'d. However, for the sake of argument, let's play an unlikely hypothetical game to address your post.

Even if what you're saying did happen and a couple users who were @'d didn't know of the change, it's just one infraction, candidly. A forum change like this is one that should be made public as part of a Sythe News post. Ignorance very rarely is a good excuse for anything. I'm confident that managing a few instances of people posting in RaS when they shouldn't is something the staff team can handle, and already do handle (as being the reason for this suggestion). I don't think that should be considered as a pro or con on this one.

Again, the ultimate point is that the likelihood of what you're suggesting could occur is so incredibly small that it's completely irrelevant in my opinion.

 

Everyone should be allowed to post on a report as long as it’s relevant. The post is already open for the community to see. Too many are banned and infracted because they post on the report. Either make them available to post or close them to the public.