Regarding NES Moderation

We need to have a broader discussion though. Why is PDMA a problem? What is the logic behind it? Why is censorship a necessary tool to justify suppressing discussion of it?

Philosophically speaking, if the moderators are doing the right thing, there should be no fear of discussing it. Suppression of information in this day and age is a bit backwards, don't you think? I am aware that CFC is not a democracy, but the norms and standards of discussion in a free society are generally held to apply, and censorship of criticism of leadership is not one of them.

Just quickly on this. Yes, there is a debate to be had about PDMA. It is held perennially. But this thread is not the place to have it. This is not because we don't want to discuss it but because this is an issue that affects the whole site. The place for discussion of this and related matters is Site Feedback.

You can see that there was a long discussion of this issue in Site Feedback just last year, and you can find other posts in that forum if you search.

Now you may disagree with the rationale given there and elsewhere, but if you want to discuss it, that's the place to do it. It wouldn't be fair to discuss something of site-wide significance here - and potentially make changes to the rules - that other members wouldn't see. (And yes, we've had cases in the past where decisions were made in one forum that were perceived to affect other forums, and the others weren't happy about it.)

As BSmith said at the start, the NES forum and this discussion need to take place within the context of the site rules. If you want to talk about changing those rules, do it in SF. Here, we're discussing the moderation of the NES forum.
 
Bullying rather requires a power differential in favor of the bully.

As has been made abundantly clear, non-moderators clearly have very little power in the current schema.

There's got to be a serious discuss of the interpretation and implementation of forum-wide rules here, and PDMA has to be allowed, or this is a frankly worthless exercise in self-congratulation: "Oh look how well we protected the right of everyone to post here."

1) Inclusivity is not a virtue if you've coupled it with a series of rules that make it impossible to call out hate speech if its couched in the politest possible language.
2) The grievances in question are frankly very specific circumstances. We're not going to get anywhere dealing in hypotheticals. The way CFC moderation has acted here has made me, personally, feel unsafe. This community is inclusive, but not inclusive for me. We are not going to get anywhere if I am disallowed from saying why. Granted...:
3) Everyone already knows the story in its broadest outlines; I forwarded my communication with the moderators to almost every NESer who posted in the last six months. Moreover, the blanket ban on Symphony's post has ensured that pretty much everyone and their uncle has read it. Sorry.
4) If there's one thing that was made obvious in this exchange, it's that where the NESing community has an imagined connection to a greater CFC community, at least as far as the moderation staff is concerned, NESing is not an integral part of the CFC community, and perhaps not a welcome one at all.
5) The move has already happened. Let's not mince words here. The move happened, and it's pretty clear that no one beyond maybe BSmith and Bird gives a crap.
6) Moderator communication is so opaque that I frankly have no idea if anything I've said is being read. Only Bird has had the courtesy to even reply to me.
7) Which feeds into the mutual respect that we have for Bird and Bird for us, and the fact that zero people outside of Bird share that. "It is a vibrant community that has a lot to offer to both its members and CFC as a whole." <- I have absolutely no reason to believe this quote reflects anything other than an opinion shared by those two people. The communications of various moderators have made that pretty clear.


Anything else I have to say is impermissible under the rules of PDMA.
 
@Thlayli: actually libel pertains to accusing someone knowingly and demonstrably falsely of plotting such things - and frankly much of these claims does rest on others "interpreting" posts in ways to make it appear as if such plans were posted but looking at the actual posts made are demonstrably false accusations. Your post by the way actually supports what I posted about what was said - no threats or even offers of assistance of such lawsuits were made. It was pointed out that the accusations made were libelous in nature.
 
I disagree that the bullying runs both ways - also I strongly and vehemently disagree that anyone was threatened with a lawsuit. We did receive statements about other users and announcements to go to outside authorities with those statements that were pointed out to be libelous in nature if published as much of what was stated therein was demonstrably untrue. There were no threats about lawsuits in the communication that I am aware of and such would not have been logical anyways as CFC is not party to those disputes. As for the comment you cite towards Luckymoose it may be harshly worded but frankly less harsh and incivil than the tone of posts and messages sent the other way. Expecting perfect civility and calmness from moderators while employing very incendiary language oneself is a compliment to the moderation staff but unfortunately not always manageable.


No. You do not understand.

There is a power relationship between moderatorial staff and users. They are not peers. One has the power to take away something of value from another.

With that power comes the responsibility to use it wisely. We expect civility and calmness from staff because that is the responsibility they took on when they assumed the power.

If they can't be bothered to use that power responsibly -- if they will let their personal biases and emotions get in the way of their responsibility to the forum and the community -- then there needs to be better mods.


Which takes me to the other point -- moderation of NES.

Will any moderator of NES be subject to the authority of super mods and admins? Will their judgments be overruled based on the personal biases and emotions of super mod and admin staff?
 
@Thlayli: actually libel pertains to accusing someone knowingly and demonstrably falsely of plotting such things - and frankly much of these claims does rest on others "interpreting" posts in ways to make it appear as if such plans were posted but looking at the actual posts made are demonstrably false accusations. Your post by the way actually supports what I posted about what was said - no threats or even offers of assistance of such lawsuits were made. It was pointed out that the accusations made were libelous in nature.

Let us consider one of the offending quotes.

"I see no problem with the use of force against those who's [sic] livelihood is based off infringing on your self ownership, however, and in reality that's the only effective way to take power from those who wield it. The more pacifist approaches to this problem are immoral because they inherently hand over the problem of government to the next generation and so on 'till one day magically government disappears (Not gonna happen)."

While he may have couched his language in terms acceptable to a discussion forum, what is still occurring here is the advocacy of violence against law-abiding citizens. Has he made concrete plans to carry it out, mentioning times, dates and specifics? No. Can it be seen as demonstrably false from this statement; that he is not planning such violence? No.
 
Can it be seen as demonstrably false from this statement; that he is not planning such violence? No.

Can it be seen as demonstrably true from this statement; that he is planning such violence? No.
 
Will any moderator of NES be subject to the authority of super mods and admins?

Yes.

Will their judgments be overruled based on the personal biases and emotions of super mod and admin staff?

Very unlikely, and I would hope not. i.e. as close to "no" as human nature permits.

Any moderator of NES would be part of the whole-site moderation structure, with the same oversight as moderators of any other part.
 
Will any moderator of NES be subject to the authority of super mods and admins? Will their judgments be overruled based on the personal biases and emotions of super mod and admin staff?

I don't disagree with the rest of what you said, but the fact remains that what you suggest has never happened. Of course it could happened, but it hasn't, beyond maybe one or two extreme occasions in the past twelve years. This isn't Nazi Germany, we aren't stuck here if the moderators suddenly change behavior and start interfering in NESes. As of now, no NES has been disrupted by a current standing moderator and no moderator has been told from on high what to do in their NES. If that was to happen, I'd be at the front of the exodus myself, but it hasn't. My own question has still not been answered: Why do anything beyond NESing on the NESing forum?
 
I will say certain things; I think that the community jumped to quickly and too readily to moving. I appreciate the fact that the mods have shown tolerance and understanding that there are differences between OT and the NESing forum; that we are a mature community that deserves special respect and consideration. I am grateful for that, and the opportunity to discuss this situation.

And by all means, I don't think that the moderators have universally done a bad job.

Also, I apologize for posting that image given to me by wry. He has confessed to it being a fabrication and subsequently apologized to me. But in the end, I think what this community seeks is the ability to follow CFC forum rules in isolation, to carry out our games and our discussions in a fair and positive manner, and to do so without involving outside moderation.

I think the best thing that the moderating staff could do would be to draw up a slate of candidates and give them to the community at large to select a moderator from; an individual who could hopefully serve as a bridge builder between the higher levels of moderation and our community. Barring that, my choices are made clear and I would encourage others to submit theirs.

In the past, Birdjaguar has filled that role; only with his retirement did things really slide downhill.
 
But nobody's actually making the argument as to why that statement, even ignoring the threat of violence, is acceptable. Saying it is okay to bomb buildings "but I wouldn't kill kids" is literally unacceptable on boards with less Orwellian SOP.

It is theft for me. And kidnapping when they take me to prison for not paying. And murder when they kill me for defending myself and my property against them. (Them being government agents of any sort)

I have renounced my citizenship, actually. I was not a soldier, I was a marine. Have you ever elected an IRS agent? No. He is a paid employee who's job it is to steal from you. If you resist this thief and you do not allow yourself to be stolen from, he will kidnap or kill you. Defensive force is always justified, and I stand by that post.

What does blowing up kids have to do with defending yourself against government agents for infringing on your rights? Timothy McVeigh's point of view is pretty far different than mine, though we have the same enemy. I would never use methods that would kill children.

This language doesn't sound like a veiled justification for violence against government agents which, again, would be a punishable offense on many boards?
 
Why do anything beyond NESing on the NESing forum?

Some of us enjoy this sub-set of the community quite a lot.

That said, as none of my particular points have been addressed, I am forced to conclude that this has been, as usual, a colossal waste of time.
 
Spoiler Lefty Threatening Crezth With Libel :

Here, we have a moderator threatening one of our players with at least, support for a lawsuit, before slapping an unprecedented 30 point ban on him. This "libel" is apparently for accusing an individual rightfully of encouraging and planning violence towards Americans.

Just on this point. Lefty isn't "threatening" anyone here with libel or "supporting" anything. He's just saying that a statement could be considered libellous. That's not the same thing, it's merely a legal opinion. I don't know whether it's true or not, though given that he is a lawyer and I'm not, I won't argue about it.

30-point bans aren't unprecedented, by the way. There have been plenty of heftier ones than that. And the 30-point ban in question was not for that post, libellous or not; it was for posting disruptive spam throughout OT. So it wasn't actually a NES moderation matter at that point. The posts in question weren't even in NES. So let's not get sidetracked onto that (quite apart from the fact that doing so would be too PDMAish).

This thread isn't for discussing how we handle that kind of thing. It's for discussing how you want moderation of NES to proceed.
 
As of now, no NES has been disrupted by a current standing moderator and no moderator has been told from on high what to do in their NES. If that was to happen, I'd be at the front of the exodus myself, but it hasn't. My own question has still not been answered: Why do anything beyond NESing on the NESing forum?

Where do you think inclusivity rules came from?
 
Very unlikely, and I would hope not. i.e. as close to "no" as human nature permits.

Any moderator of NES would be part of the whole-site moderation structure, with the same oversight as moderators of any other part.


I appreciate the sentiment, Plotinus.

However, we've had numerous examples of that happening, within the last year, leading to similar drama.

The incident that I recall is that we were similarly accused of bullying, when we were forceful towards an applicant who failed to grasp current events, even when instructed politely.

Mods, and mod policy, typically focuses on tone over content; I can be infracted for being extremely angry about a German exit from the euro, while someone advocating ethnic cleansing gets a pass for being polite and inoffensive about it. If we are forceful or passionate, we get slapped with the "bully" label. This means we are not taken seriously by mod staff because we're obviously bullies, instead of passionate people with a low tolerance for false assumptions.
 
We would hopefully have a moderator who is a NESer, who is a long-time, respected member of the forum.
Moderator Action: The rules of the thread are no names, please honor that.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

Thirdly, arbitrary locking of threads would be avoided as a last resort, in favor of prioritizing the deletion of problematic posts and temporary bans on members who have repeatedly broken forum rules.

The selection of a member of the community would also allow the swift resolution of reported posts where necessary, and encourage community members to resolve their disputes peacefully rather than escalating them to a flaming/trolling level.

These, as I see it, are the main points.
 
Where do you think inclusivity rules came from?

I know where they came from, and frankly, I think it is ridiculous that he had to write down those rules after so many years of people just following them inherently.
 
I know where they came from, and frankly, I think it is ridiculous that he had to write down those rules after so many years of people just following them inherently.

I think it was ridiculous we were forced into them for what is a non-commercial activity.
 
I think it was ridiculous we were forced into them for what is a non-commercial activity.

This is not a tyranny, why would we want to exclude someone purposely? Because of some quarrel? As far as I know there is nothing wrong with the inclusion rules.
 
Driving back to the topic, I think that it's unfair to suggest that the problem is with the moderators alone. I'd say that certain elements of NESing culture are the problem. Frankly, if we all behaved like more rational people who are here to actually enjoy NESing we wouldn't have any of these problems.

EDIT: Because just naming problems isn't constructive. To clarify, we should behave more civilly and while I understand the appeal of a dedicated NESing OT board conversation filled with movie reviews and political chatter, it just doesn't seem to me to be part of what the NESing culture should be. I can understand different views on that, but I think that for harmony to return, we should simply dedicate ourselves to our craft and hobby, as was originally intended.
 
Driving back to the topic, I think that it's unfair to suggest that the problem is with the moderators alone. I'd say that certain elements of NESing culture are the problem. Frankly, if we all behaved like more rational people who are here to actually enjoy NESing we wouldn't have any of these problems.

Okay, I was done here, but I refuse to let that fly. What, precisely, is the problem with "NESing culture"?
 
Top Bottom