TrollinWitMyHomies wrote:Actually, I was completely clear on the process. I know that not every flagged post generates a warning or an edit. I think that this is actually what I take most issue with. I believe that more should be looked at than simply that flagged post. The entire thread should be taken into account and the words on the screen should be taken at face value. Assumptions and 'reading between the lines' should not play a part in determining if a warning or even an edit is issued. Is it a lot of work? Yes. But, I think if a fair, full picture view is to be gained, then that is really the only way.
When I receive a flag I look at several things: The name of the person flagging the post, the name of the person who was flagged, the context of the post that was flagged in and of itself, the relationship between flagger and flaggee. Some of the flagged posts are very obviously an insult, off topic, etc and don't need much more then a quick look. Others lay in more of a gray area. For those posts, I do read the whole thread if I wasn't already following it. Everything is taken into account not just a pointed finger and a "HE'S BEING BAD!" complaint. If I did it any other way, I'd be failing at my job. This is why I tend to temporarily lock the threads that are still generating flaggable posts while I'm looking the thread over - a sure sign it's being worked on and I need the posts to stop so I can get everything dealt with and resolved.
I may be missing your objections since I feel that in your comments of how you think moderating should work, you're describing how we do work. I'm aware that there were some problems with the moderation and with other moderators in the past, but we have a really good set up and great people on board now. Judas and I have dropped our anonymity and we've fine tuned how we moderate and how much we moderate. Give it some time, I think you'll see you have nothing to worry about.