By now it is very old.
I was giving examples that sometimes report of posts don't get looked by moderation (yes I know it is a lot of work, and several times it will take longer than usual to look at what was reported).
We not only look at every single report made. We always discuss every single report made. Every single time. And it's always several moderators that partake in the discussion. A single moderator cannot dismiss a report before it has been discussed as a group. So you are mistaken here.
Unless this was long before my time, and there may not have been a modchat in place.
But on that note, please do keep something in mind.
Whenever someone issues a report, multiple people will devote their free time to discuss and review the report. Time they will never get back.
If you find that 99% of your reports don't lead to any action, then you should start to reconsider your viewpoint on what constitutes an offense, and try to look at it more from the staff's perspective before hitting the report button.
I don't go look if a report I made have or not lead to a ban, unless the thread were active for let's say over a week and a person reported was still active. And usually I either report stuff I have been banned by, or know there is a specific rule against it. I even avoid reporting most of the personal attacks against myself.
This wasn't before modchat, but could very well be from before your time in the team.
One time when finally a mod got to the posts reported he said he wasn't going to do anything with it because it was over 3 days ago and the thread was more or less inactive at the time. Not even complaining that was what was done (although some famous offenders get unmoderated and don't have a mark on their history due to several coincidences) but really just giving examples that sometimes even reporting doesn't amount to anything (even if after reporting you PM more than one mod).
I don't know what that is referring to, so I can't say much beyond what I've already said.
But one reason we discuss every moderator action as a group is to try to avoid individual mistakes. So PM'ing multiple moderators about a report doesn't really make more of them aware of a report. They should all be aware of it through the report system and modchat, unless they were unavailable at the time.
But if reporting doesn't amount to anything, consistently, then please consider what I said in the paragraph above. Because at the end of the day it is people's free time. And if we find that we have to spend much of that free time inefficiently (even if it is an obviously bogus report, we still discuss it), then we may have to revise the report system in some way.
I would suggest that if anyone reported a post it should already be greyed out so you don't get multiple reports of the same comment. Unless there is intention to really go the consideration about more people reporting meaning the comment needs more moderation.
As you said yourself if mod team consider the user wasn't trying to flame (strange thing that the interpretation of he trying or not would have more to do with the subject of the flaming not the comment itself) even if there are report nothing will be done.
If you consider that people tend to skirt the written rules, then obviously we also have to look at the subject when making judgement calls. Whether one is more important than the other depends on the context.
If for example we have someone that's been moderated 50 times for flaming/trolling Xbox users, then an ambiguous comment (that doesn't outright break a specifically written rule) regarding Xbox from this particular user may still be seen as an attempt to troll. While the exact same comment from someone else may not.
That is were I disagree. Sure one may reason that someone without a history may not meant harm so he may not even get a warning (although from what I see there is no statistics on report itself, just warnings or mods gave directly), but if someone isn't breaking a rule then a moderation shouldn't be handled. It would be like you throw to jail without committing a crime because in the past you committed one. There is a reason jury and judge are demanded to judge a action at that time only.
So going to original complain I replied to, it was quite common some time ago to see a lot of 3rd party companies being trashed by a portion of Nintendo fanbase because they didn't make multiplats going to their console or that they instead should make exclusives to Nintendo, while at same thread saying all games from that company were complete trash.... basically saying the company should expend money on the system for no one to buy if they didn't want to be seem as haters of the system. Those never got moderated, and yes you answered to it saying that since there isn't much of a big fanbase for any 3rd party publisher usually even the biggest attacks wouldn't get moderated as interpretation of the mod team is that almost no one would take offense on it (but still that isn't what is in the rules, which by the way I have gotten some moderations that weren't written in the rules).
Yes. And I touched on people skirting the rules above as well. Essentially there is no way to write the rules in a way that would cover every way trolls behave. They always adapt to the rules, so we'd just be playing catchup with them for all eternity.
Could very well be, but really I don't remember a definition of trolling that would need people to reply to for validation.