Board 8 > Another overturned moderation by the lead admin.

(+) Yeah! (+)

@Vlado

Told ya.

IDDateReasonActionStatus
1436190710/10 9:56PMOff-Topic PostingTopic DeletedOverturned by Admin

I may have the highest overturn rate on all of GameFAQs. = / Prob has to do with people marking so many of my posts for no reason.
---

Corrik posted...

Prob has to do with people marking so many of my posts for no reason.

It was deleted. They had to have a reason, however subjective.
---

Well, I have to hand it to you. I have never challenged a deletion all the way to the top even the one time when it was complete nonsense.
---

KujikawaRising posted...

Corrik posted...

Prob has to do with people marking so many of my posts for no reason.

It was deleted. They had to have a reason, however subjective.

Yeah a bad one that got overturned.
---

Corrik posted...

KujikawaRising posted...

Corrik posted...

Prob has to do with people marking so many of my posts for no reason.

It was deleted. They had to have a reason, however subjective.

Yeah a bad one that got overturned.

The fact that it got deleted in the first place means there had to have been a reason for it, even if it was a bad moderation. If there was no reason, it would have never been deleted.
---

KujikawaRising posted...

If there was no reason, it would have never been deleted.

The reason is he's Corrik and the mod is bad

Pretty straightforward to me
---

Off topic? What board?
---

Lopen posted...

The reason is he's Corrik and the mod is bad

this is so stupid.

"the mod is bad" is one thing, but mods aren't on witch hunts against specific users.
---

Mr Lasastryke posted...

but mods aren't on witch hunts against specific users.

You think moderators can be bad, but you think they're uniformly above moderator bias? Why is that?
---

i've seen nothing to indicate that moderator bias against users exists.

also, what mod(s) is/are biased against corrik? i assume you have a mod or multiple mods in mind, since you're making this accusation.
---

It's pretty easy to be petty and vindictive against strangers, but using your position to pursue a grudge is more blatantly unprofessional and would be a good reason to kick you out.
---

I don't have any specific ones in mind, no, but it's just percentages.

If the majority of the people on the boards are biased against him, unless I hold moderators as a whole to some higher standard (and let's be clear about this, I do not), then it stands to reason that by pure probability biased mods existing is more likely than not.

Why are they still able to moderate? Because bias is hard to prove. Same reason lots of unqualified individuals keep their jobs.
---

well, i don't think the majority of the people on board 8 are biased against him, so...
---

We really don't need to hold them to the standards of courts of law, anyway. The stakes aren't nearly as high, and for the most part they seem disinterested enough that users aren't getting the book thrown at them because a mod personally dislikes them.
---

Easily are.

Like, there's a certain grating attribute he has that makes people dislike him, so I'm not going to say the rep is totally unwarranted, but he's mentioned in the same breath as actual trolls way too often.

There's a difference between actual ToS violations, and borderline ToS violations that get flagged as actual ones due to moderator bias. I'd imagine Corrik gets a lot of the latter.
---

I'm not sure what your point is, but I'm sure you're correct
---

I'm not sure why I'm here in this topic but I hope you all have a great day
---

Lopen posted...

I don't have any specific ones in mind, no, but it's just percentages.

If the majority of the people on the boards are biased against him, unless I hold moderators as a whole to some higher standard (and let's be clear about this, I do not), then it stands to reason that by pure probability biased mods existing is more likely than not.

Why are they still able to moderate? Because bias is hard to prove. Same reason lots of unqualified individuals keep their jobs.

That doesn't really work. Bad users stand out in a community of users you like. Also if you are a regular in a community, you deal with said bad user frequently. In the moderation queue, a bad user is just one among countless other bad users.
---

That only works if I assume

1. Hardly any moderators know Corrik beyond just being a faceless name with a message attached. Seems wrong, because there are a decent amount of mods from this board. Also Corrik is on kind of a lot of boards.
2. That inate grating aspect he has can't be absorbed through reading a moderated message-- considering I've seen him almost immediately gain the ire in a board game I've run with him in it, even among people who don't frequent his types of topics, I know that's wrong.
3. That it's some sort of moderation quota where if you have N moderation marks that are good, then you pardon all the rest.

Like I'm not saying Corrik stands out among all the gutter trash in a moderation queue, but it's not a competition either. He doesn't have to stand out amongst the gutter trash, he just has to meet some standard to be considered moddable that a moderator arbitrarily decides he meets.
---

mod bias exists

I get modded in 20 minutes flat for the tamest shit
---

GranzonEx posted...

I get modded in 20 minutes flat for the tamest shit

contest it then.
---

Maybe I'm misunderstanding, but are you not suggesting that some moderators recognize his name in the moderation queue and are more likely to delete the post based on that? If the moderator is using the same standard on Corrik as they use on any other user, I don't see that as being biased against him.
---

I'm saying that either they recognize Corrik's name going in, recognize it going in over time as more moderations accumulate (I'm sure there are a lot of "regulars" when it comes to moderated messages), or they moderate based on the phrasing or tone of his post rather than content upon reading because he has a grating nature to his post style.

The first two definitely are bias. The last one you could argue isn't bias, which to me is splitting hairs as either way it's ultimately still a poor job of moderating.

Just to be clear though. You're about the only person with moderation powers that I've any familiarity with that I would trust to actually hold to a higher standard than a random board user with moderating (including Bacon), so please don't take any of this personally.
---

SgtSphynx posted...

Off topic? What board?

Someone from board 8 marked my topic on the Movies at the Theater board.
---

Yeah, that makes sense. Definitely no one not from B8 would mark one of your posts on a completely different board.
---

Corrik posted...

SgtSphynx posted...

Off topic? What board?

Someone from board 8 marked my topic on the Movies at the Theater board.

Why would you assume somebody gives enough of a shit about you to do so? Surely you don't think that this is the only board where your posting style has annoyed people.
---

The bias is on marking, likely not as much moderating. (Though I am sure that at least somewhat exists). If I posted the same stuff under one of my 13 alts, I wouldn'y be marked.

We did this experiment in the past. People said I was reasonable under my alts name and said I was a troll under this name.

It's funny.
---

StealThisSheen posted...

Corrik posted...

SgtSphynx posted...

Off topic? What board?

Someone from board 8 marked my topic on the Movies at the Theater board.

Why would you assume somebody gives enough of a shit about you to do so? Surely you don't think that this is the only board where your posting style has annoyed people.

I am 100% positive.
---

Yeah, I'm sure making a few posts on an alt was completely 100% representative of every post you've ever made.

(Assuming you're talking about a thing that actually happened.)
---

kevwaffles posted...

Yeah, I'm sure making a few posts on an alt was completely 100% representative of every post you've ever made.

(Assuming you're talking about a thing that actually happened.)

Lol what?
---

Wow, nice! :)
---