Thlayli
Le Pétit Prince
Public Discussion of Moderator Action, often truncated to the acronym PDMA, is a longstanding controversial topic in the CFC forum. Largely speaking, it is interpreted to mean that discussion of actions that the CFC staff take in enforcing the forum rules is not allowed.
In practice, it is a sporadically enforced policy which really only comes into play when moderator actions are challenged or opposed by members of the community. What PDMA really means is "critiques of moderator actions are not allowed". This amounts to a policy of censorship that does not accord with other elements of the CFC rules, which encourage open, free, and fair discussion of just about any topic.
If forum members are expressing their disagreement with moderator actions in a civil and polite fashion, this does not violate any other CFC rules, nor does it create a serious disturbance for the moderation staff. I believe that this is an unfair and unjust policy that contributes to a common opinion in the CFC forums that the moderation staff is elitist, resistant to criticism, and overly concerned with protecting their self-image. This obsession with suppressing criticism has, unsurprisingly, had the opposite effect.
Reforming this policy is driven from a desire to help CFC and to help the moderation staff, not challenge its authority or otherwise harm it. It is designed to alter a policy of favoritism whereby discussion of moderator actions that the moderators approve of is tacitly allowed, while discussion that moderators feel overly worried or threatened by, while not breaking CFC rules in any other way, is banned.
This is an English-language speaking forum hosted in the Western world, and as such, free discussion and discourse without restriction are values which are prized by our societies and our cultures. This free discourse should extend to community interactions with the moderation staff. In large part, CFC rules are construed to be in accordance with the Anglo-American legal canon, and they ban activities which, if carried out in the public square, would be considered illegal, such as threatening and violent language.
If we are to consider that CFC rules, as most internet forum rules, are based around our Western legal traditions, we must consider that any suppression of freedom of speech is a violation of that legal tradition, as long as the speech is not interpreted as incitement to violence or otherwise an illegal breach of public safety. Civil criticism of the staff for taking actions that one disagrees with is not in any way a violation of the Western legal canon, and as such suppressing it has no place in our forum rules.
It is understandable that our moderation staff wishes to avoid being insulted or other wise denigrated in the course of doing their jobs. However, the intent of this policy is not to legalize insults or coarse language. The intent of this policy is to open the discourse to criticism of moderator action leveled in a polite way.
Since, in practice, PDMA is allowed when dissent at moderator policies rises to a sufficient level, the presence of ad hoc exceptions to the rules should, I argue, be extended to allow a specific grievance thread where complainants can openly discuss issues in dialogue with their fellow CFC members and moderators.
Allowing such a space would certainly improve relations between CFC staff and certain estranged elements of the community which feel that the staff often dismiss, ignore, or suppress their concerns. The purpose of this poll is to ask whether or not the community approves of the creation of a grievance thread in which discussion and appeal of moderator actions can take place. Ultimately, while CFC moderators are not chosen by the community, they remain accountable to it, and the rules which apply to us should also apply to them. I cannot simply eliminate the posts of someone who disagrees with me on an issue, or with something I did or said. I believe moderators should also be held to this standard.
Please voice your opinions on the matter.
In practice, it is a sporadically enforced policy which really only comes into play when moderator actions are challenged or opposed by members of the community. What PDMA really means is "critiques of moderator actions are not allowed". This amounts to a policy of censorship that does not accord with other elements of the CFC rules, which encourage open, free, and fair discussion of just about any topic.
If forum members are expressing their disagreement with moderator actions in a civil and polite fashion, this does not violate any other CFC rules, nor does it create a serious disturbance for the moderation staff. I believe that this is an unfair and unjust policy that contributes to a common opinion in the CFC forums that the moderation staff is elitist, resistant to criticism, and overly concerned with protecting their self-image. This obsession with suppressing criticism has, unsurprisingly, had the opposite effect.
Reforming this policy is driven from a desire to help CFC and to help the moderation staff, not challenge its authority or otherwise harm it. It is designed to alter a policy of favoritism whereby discussion of moderator actions that the moderators approve of is tacitly allowed, while discussion that moderators feel overly worried or threatened by, while not breaking CFC rules in any other way, is banned.
This is an English-language speaking forum hosted in the Western world, and as such, free discussion and discourse without restriction are values which are prized by our societies and our cultures. This free discourse should extend to community interactions with the moderation staff. In large part, CFC rules are construed to be in accordance with the Anglo-American legal canon, and they ban activities which, if carried out in the public square, would be considered illegal, such as threatening and violent language.
If we are to consider that CFC rules, as most internet forum rules, are based around our Western legal traditions, we must consider that any suppression of freedom of speech is a violation of that legal tradition, as long as the speech is not interpreted as incitement to violence or otherwise an illegal breach of public safety. Civil criticism of the staff for taking actions that one disagrees with is not in any way a violation of the Western legal canon, and as such suppressing it has no place in our forum rules.
It is understandable that our moderation staff wishes to avoid being insulted or other wise denigrated in the course of doing their jobs. However, the intent of this policy is not to legalize insults or coarse language. The intent of this policy is to open the discourse to criticism of moderator action leveled in a polite way.
Since, in practice, PDMA is allowed when dissent at moderator policies rises to a sufficient level, the presence of ad hoc exceptions to the rules should, I argue, be extended to allow a specific grievance thread where complainants can openly discuss issues in dialogue with their fellow CFC members and moderators.
Allowing such a space would certainly improve relations between CFC staff and certain estranged elements of the community which feel that the staff often dismiss, ignore, or suppress their concerns. The purpose of this poll is to ask whether or not the community approves of the creation of a grievance thread in which discussion and appeal of moderator actions can take place. Ultimately, while CFC moderators are not chosen by the community, they remain accountable to it, and the rules which apply to us should also apply to them. I cannot simply eliminate the posts of someone who disagrees with me on an issue, or with something I did or said. I believe moderators should also be held to this standard.
Please voice your opinions on the matter.
