While I realize that it is not feasible to have 1-on-1 support for every streamer, claims that every appeal is reviewed by humans and the appeal criteria is applied consistently from human to human simply does not ring true as a realistic assertion. Appealing to nuance is great, but sometimes broad strokes that allow for variance are a more realistic method.
Furthermore, I feel that Twitch needs to get better at "tossing out" TOS bombing. From "outside" it certainly seems there's a trend wherein Twitch automatically assigns more importance / urgency to streamers / streams that get a lot of TOS reports, which I think we can all agree is a system that is fraught with potential errors.
The core of this is the oft used phrase in the support world in general. Namely, "setting expectations" for those who are supported. The issue here is that the expectations are often at best translucent and at worst opaque. Twitch needs to do better.
Good points.
While I realize that it is not feasible to have 1-on-1 support for every streamer, claims that every appeal is reviewed by humans and the appeal criteria is applied consistently from human to human simply does not ring true as a realistic assertion. Appealing to nuance is great, but sometimes broad strokes that allow for variance are a more realistic method.
Furthermore, I feel that Twitch needs to get better at "tossing out" TOS bombing. From "outside" it certainly seems there's a trend wherein Twitch automatically assigns more importance / urgency to streamers / streams that get a lot of TOS reports, which I think we can all agree is a system that is fraught with potential errors.
The core of this is the oft used phrase in the support world in general. Namely, "setting expectations" for those who are supported. The issue here is that the expectations are often at best translucent and at worst opaque. Twitch needs to do better.