I want to discuss this at length, because I think it bears discussing. This thread is not a discussion about moderation policy with regards to any specific rule or rules, or a place for appeals. This is also not a place for discussion about individual moderators' activity.

When I'm talking about moderation transparency, I want any user who is moderated to understand why, and to have recourse if they feel the mod actions directed at them was unwarranted. I also want most rules and policies to be mutable, or at least open for discussion.

However, the flip side of this coin is that sometimes you will report a user and you won't see anything happen. This side of moderation needs to be private. Your reports and other feedback are useful and welcome, but we are going to afford moderated users as much privacy as we can. We want people to learn from their mistakes, and have the right to a clean slate if they feel they were unjustly moderated. This can't happen if other users are privy to every mod action that takes place. It also makes correcting any mistakes almost impossible on our end.

4chan has the best transparent moderation on any forum ever

just add "User was warned for this post" to the post and leave it there

that is all that needs to be done

I'm **** sick of reporting a post and **** nothing happening to it

I'm a little confused as to what we're discussing here as opposed to the other thread. I feel like this topic is becoming the branching... wow, branching brachiopod is the word that came to mind. I don't even know what that's supposed to mean.

You know what nevermind, maybe this will make more sense in the morning.

Ko has the right idea imo.
Just a small edit of the mod with why the post is not ok is fine.
Again, there has been a bit of removing to the archives which imo could be fixed with a small edit (my last report was due to a sentence of a pretty decent post that also had an ontopic part, and somebody did indeed react aggressive to said section of the post, but the entire discussion went away)

Right now I sometimes have the feeling that the difference between splitting a few posts from a topic and just 'removing' the posts alltogether is basically just a matter of which mod looks at the things. And in the latter case, it is hard to know as user what went wrong, especially if you have received no warnings but did see a bunch of your posts disappear, even if they had ontopic parts.

That said, I like what happened with the recent stuff.

Aside from user privacy, the problems with "this user was warned for this post" are these:

1) a user might get warned for something due to context rather than just the content of their post in isolation
2) a user might NOT get warned for something due to context rather than just the content of their post in isolation

This creates a ton of other problems.

We do want feedback, and we do act on it. This isn't just a vague "I wonder how people feel" kind of thing. The report button is a useful tool and so is your feedback.

There is no such thing as user privacy regarding post content. Legally an admin is responsible for everything their users post on forums. And if the admin cannot see everything, they have to make sure they have an adequate moderation team.

1 is easily solved by the CoC. If a user disagrees with a warning, they can contact the mod/admin.
2 is solved by the report button.

It is my belief as mod and as admin to at least make the users know exactly which posts are being edited or are under possible scrutiny by making small edits.
For that we installed a custom bb-code to make a small box with the mod's name on it which can be placed in any post. This also means no big red stuff, but still very noticeable compared to a normal post.
I've been doing this for 5.5 years now and we're still kicking around. There have been discussions about warnings, sure, you never stop that if you want an open moderation, but by keeping it in a specific 'questions about mod actions'-thread (to which only the global mod or admin may reply to user questions), we managed to keep everything really quiet (besides, it's always the same few people complaining about language use anyway).

As long as a guarantee can be given that the mod team acts on reports within, say, 36 hours, it should be obvious to everyone what the deal is with posts when they are edited.
After all, the 'warned' user can always keep his post in sights with the context surrounding it.
The other users can see in which context which language is and is not allowed.
If a post was reported and it's still there after 36 hours, the one who reported it may PM a mod with the question why it stays, but ideally that should not be necessary.

Also, being able to keep the post around and being able to use minor mod edits, means that moderators can also 'warn' people without actually giving warnings that counts towards a possible ban.
Comments in post like 'careful with what you're doing here regarding <,,,>' also gives other people a good view on what is and what is not allowed.
This, however, can also be done through PM instead if the mods prefer though.

I think Bun meant that sometimes a post will be reported and the mods will decided that it doesn't need to be moderated because of the context in which is was made (and if I misunderstood, I'm sorry). That sort of situation is actually very tricky. Does the mod do nothing? If so, the offended person might just keep reporting the same post over and over, thinking they are being ignored. Does the mod go into the post anyway, just so that the reporting person can see what's happened? Does the mod PM the person who made the report, telling them why they aren't taking action? I'd like to know how this works.

this isn't possible

A report can only be submitted once a post. See also my 3rd paragraph.

If a post was reported and it's still there after 36 hours, the one who reported it may PM a mod with the question why it stays, but ideally that should not be necessary (if the 36 hour deadline for reports can be guaranteed).