Rules Enforcement

I know this thread may be considered public discussion of moderator actions, but this is something I really feel needs to be addressed by the staff. In the past few years here on CFC, enforcement of the rules has become absolutely atrocious. More and more, I'm seeing posts slip by without so much as a warning from the moderators that would have earned the poster a ban, or at least an infraction, back when I first joined the site. Posters are becoming increasingly nasty to each other and the moderators seem content to just let it all slide as if the site's rules have suddenly become more like polite suggestions rather than the code of conduct that must be followed that they used to be.

Now, the tired excuse I keep seeing from the moderators whenever this is brought up is that they don't have the time to catch all the bad posts. This would be understandable if only a few posts here and there were slipping through, but there are blatant insults and vicious arguments that the moderators are doing absolutely nothing about. I mean, there are even a lot of posts I've made in recent years here that I was absolutely shocked I got away with without so much as a warning. Posts that certainly would have got me slapped with the ban hammer if I had made them back in 2005 when I joined.

However, if we are going to operate on the "moderators don't have enough time" line, then something needs t be done about that. If certain moderators can't be on long enough to actually do their job on the site, then perhaps they should give up their position as moderator and new members should be promoted that actually have the time to dedicate to enforcing the site's rules. If that isn't seen as a viable solution, then perhaps CFC should give up the charade and start relaxing the rules. That way, the moderators won't have as much to do.

Either way, something needs to be done about how rules are enforced here on CFC so all members can know exactly what they can and can't get away with saying instead of the situation we have now where rules enforcement really does seem random. I know some staff member is going to post something about "moderator discretion" to handwave this complaint away, and to me that's unacceptable. Right now, it seems as though moderators are using that "moderator discretion" as an excuse to be a little lazy in the enforcement of the rules. Moderator discretion is not something I feel should exist. The rules need to be written in such a way that it becomes black and white as to whether or not a post violates the rules, and the moderators need to act accordingly, whether they personally feel it's a violation or not. Or don't do any of that and let this site become a free-for-all like the rest of internet. Either way, this "sometimes we enforce the rules, sometimes we don't" has got to stop.

Are you referring to the site as a whole, or just OT? If it's the latter, bear in mind that the rules have actually been loosened since you first joined the site, in non-RD threads. There is quite a bit of latitude within those threads beyond what you expect across the rest of the site, by design.

Camikaze said:

Are you referring to the site as a whole, or just OT? If it's the latter, bear in mind that the rules have actually been loosened since you first joined the site, in non-RD threads. There is quite a bit of latitude within those threads beyond what you expect across the rest of the site, by design.

Click to expand...

Mostly OT, but I have been seeing it a little on other sections of the site as well. And even with the relaxed enforcement in non-RD threads, there are still posts that I have made, and others have made that go beyond what should be acceptable.

Perhaps the relaxed enforcement in non-RD threads is turning out to be a bad idea. Ever since that has become a thing, it does seem like OT has become a nastier, less enjoyable part of this community.

EDIT: I've also noticed moderation of RD threads has also been getting a little lax as well. Some of those RD threads are nearly indistinguishable from the non-RD threads in terms of how nasty they get and there is usually not a moderator to be found.

Have you tried reporting the posts that you deem unacceptable? And if you find your own post unacceptable, you're free to report yourself and take whatever consequences there might be.

There is an "Olive Branch" thread in OT that I've long felt should be stickied. It's a way for people to openly apologize for public insults or other negative interactions and try to clear the air. I've seen instances where this has worked quite well in fostering more positive interactions.

Valka D'Ur said:

Have you tried reporting the posts that you deem unacceptable? And if you find your own post unacceptable, you're free to report yourself and take whatever consequences there might be.

Click to expand...

Yes, I report posts I find to be abusive all the time. I'm definitely not shy about hitting the report button for posts that I think violate the rules. Now, I'm not saying I'm always right, but there have been posts I've reported that were blatant rules violations that the mods did nothing about (or at least it looks like they did nothing).

I guess my thing is, if the mods don't want to enforce the rules, then fine. This is an internet forum and it's not like the rules are legally binding or anything. But if the mods are getting tired of enforcing the rules (which is what it looks like from my perspective), then why even have rules in the first place? Why not just let this site devolve into a free-for-all like the comment section on a YouTube video?

What I would really like to see is for a consistent rules enforcement standard to be established and made public so we all know the rules are being enforced consistently and fairly. Also, while I know the mods don't get paid to be moderators (at least I'm pretty sure they don't), I think moderators should be required to put in a certain amount of hours every day, or give up their position as moderator to someone who can put in the time. This would solve the problem of moderators seemingly not being around when they are needed or to stop certain heated discussions from getting out of hand. I am a huge fan of the aggressive moderation that used to exist on this site and I would really like to see a return to those days.

We have to strike a balance between being so lax that we allow the forum to devolve into the comment section of Youtube (we're nowhere near that bad), and being so strict that we prevent people from having spirited arguments while driving people away with large numbers of infractions and bans for fairly minor offenses. There's no way to do that in a way that pleases everyone, and in general I think we've got a pretty good balance. My overall bias is usually (but by no means always) towards a less strict environment, but different moderators and posters have different preferences.

Moderation strictness ebbs and flows. The long-term pattern is that moderation was less strict up until something like 2008 or so, then increased, peaking in 2011 shortly before the first introduction of RD threads. I would argue that moderation was somewhat too strict at that time. When RD threads were introduced, it declined markedly for those threads as intended, and over time moderation does seem to have become a little less strict overall since then.

There has been a decline in moderator activity lately. I used to be more active at moderating than I currently am in part because I've become more of an active participant, and we're not supposed to moderate threads we've recently participated in for obvious reasons, barring something so flagrant there's no real judgment call to be made. It might be worth considering adding another mod in addition to Flying Pig.

Bootstoots said:

We have to strike a balance between being so lax that we allow the forum to devolve into the comment section of Youtube (we're nowhere near that bad), and being so strict that we prevent people from having spirited arguments while driving people away with large numbers of infractions and bans for fairly minor offenses. There's no way to do that in a way that pleases everyone, and in general I think we've got a pretty good balance. My overall bias is usually (but by no means always) towards a less strict environment, but different moderators and posters have different preferences.

Click to expand...

I disagree. I don't think there's a good balance because it's increasingly looking like there is almost no moderation at all, even in RD threads. You're right though, you are never going to come up with a system that caters to every single person's preferences. However, I think that highlights the need even more for a clear standard of rules enforcement. That way, everyone knows where they stand. They may not like it, but they will at least know what's expected of them from the rest of the community.

Moderation strictness ebbs and flows. The long-term pattern is that moderation was less strict up until something like 2008 or so, then increased, peaking in 2011 shortly before the first introduction of RD threads. I would argue that moderation was somewhat too strict at that time. When RD threads were introduced, it declined markedly for those threads as intended, and over time moderation does seem to have become a little less strict overall since then.

Click to expand...

See, I think that's when moderation was at it's best. The strict moderation forced people to stick to the topic at hand and argue civilly precisely because people were afraid of receiving an infraction for even the most minor misstep. It made for higher quality and overall more pleasant discussions, which is something that does not really exist now. Sure, strict moderation may have driven some members away, but the kind of posters it drives away really aren't the ones you want posting here regularly anyway.

There has been a decline in moderator activity lately. I used to be more active at moderating than I currently am in part because I've become more of an active participant, and we're not supposed to moderate threads we've recently participated in for obvious reasons, barring something so flagrant there's no real judgment call to be made. It might be worth considering adding another mod in addition to Flying Pig.

Click to expand...

You're right, there has been a decline in moderator activity. I think that's a huge part of the problem. That's why I suggest that some of the least active moderators step down and allow someone else to step into the position that can actually dedicate the time necessary to it. I also really think moderator bias is becoming a real problem here as well. I haven't done any serious number crunching on this, but it does seem that posters with unpopular opinions seem more likely to be infracted than some of the more popular posters here. It's almost like if you are part of the "in" crowd, then the rules pretty much don't apply to you and that's not right. There does seem to be a core group of posters, mostly in OT that can pretty much say whatever they want, no matter how offensive, and they hardly ever get infracted. Moderator bias is another reason why a clear standard of rule enforcement must be established and strictly adhered to. Taking away moderator discretion completely removes the problem of moderator bias since they would never have the chance to act on those biases.

No such standard can possibly exist. Flaming and trolling are the main reasons threads go downhill, but what each of them are is entirely subjective. Ditto for most spam and some forms of inappropriate content. The difference between a tangent that explores something closely related or that covers interesting or unexpected ground and one that is just a threadjack is subjective as well.

It is likely that people who have unpopular opinions and are vocal about them get infracted more often, in part because they're more likely to be drawn into flame/trollfests in the first place. We definitely do try to be as even-handed as we possibly can be, but some bias is bound to slip in. In my case, feel free to shoot me a PM if you think I've been unfair to anyone and I'll try to explain my decision.

Meh..

Bootstoots said:

No such standard can possibly exist. Flaming and trolling are the main reasons threads go downhill, but what each of them are is entirely subjective. Ditto for most spam and some forms of inappropriate content. The difference between a tangent that explores something closely related or that covers interesting or unexpected ground and one that is just a threadjack is subjective as well.

It is likely that people who have unpopular opinions and are vocal about them get infracted more often, in part because they're more likely to be drawn into flame/trollfests in the first place. We definitely do try to be as even-handed as we possibly can be, but some bias is bound to slip in. In my case, feel free to shoot me a PM if you think I've been unfair to anyone and I'll try to explain my decision.

Click to expand...

I think there can be a standard and it would be a pretty easy one to enforce. All you have to ask is one simple question: What is the purpose of this post? If the post advances the discussion in a meaningful way, then it's good. If it doesn't then it's spam, trolling, etc. depending on the content of the post and should be infracted.

Take the latest post from Dale in this thread for example:

Dale said:

Simple. If you don't like it, get out.

Click to expand...

What purpose could this post serve in a discussion other than attempt to get me riled up and start a nasty argument?

Were I a moderator, this is the type of post I would infract since it serves no purpose other than to antagonize the person it is directed against, which is a clear violation of the forum rules. Yet posts like this go by everyday with nothing being done. I think lax moderation only makes the problem worse. It goes back to the criminal justice concept known as the broken window theory. People see rules being enforced consistently and aggressively, they will have more respect for those rules and follow them on their while also sort of self-policing, thus reducing the need for the rules to be actively enforced. If they see the rules not being enforced, it will encourage disrespect for the rules and will cause people to continually push the limits of what they can get away with until someone finally puts their foot down. That creates more work for the moderators in my opinion.

Meh..

Commodore said:

I think there can be a standard and it would be a pretty easy one to enforce. All you have to ask is one simple question: What is the purpose of this post? If the post advances the discussion in a meaningful way, then it's good. If it doesn't then it's spam, trolling, etc. depending on the content of the post and should be infracted.

Take the latest post from Dale in this thread for example:



What purpose could this post serve in a discussion other than attempt to get me riled up and start a nasty argument?

Were I a moderator, this is the type of post I would infract since it serves no purpose other than to antagonize the person it is directed against, which is a clear violation of the forum rules.

Click to expand...

Thinking back to my own time (2010-2011), a comment like this would not have passed unnoticed. But what, if anything, was done about it would have depended to some extent on the context of the comment, plus the poster's previous infraction record.

It's not a nice thing to say, and while the poster is entitled to his opinion, there are better ways of expressing that opinion.

Dale, if everyone left what/wherever they didn't like, everyone on this planet would be in permanent wandering mode. It's not a constructive comment.

Meh..

Dale said:

IMO, this is one of the fundamental issues with Leftist Millenials. They look for and perceive any and all injustice or abuse in any comment they deem not to back them up. There was a time not long ago that the constant whinging and complaining from a person would earn them a mega-slap down.

Though I should slap myself. I mean, where the hell am I posting? The mega-extreme-Left Socialist-Green CFC where you're not allowed a contrary opinion.

Click to expand...

This is one of the fundamental issues with people complaining about moderator actions. They look for excuses to complain of bias based on political affiliation. With the exception of things like racial/ethnic slurs, promotion of hate groups, and assassination of certain politicians, it's been my experience before, during, and after my time on staff that the staff here do not infract based on political affiliation or personal opinion. In other words, it's not what you say, but how you say it. And if certain affiliations tend to bring out the bad posting habits, I can see where the perception of bias might occur. But it's not actually a valid perception, at least I certainly hope not. My own way of doing things was that if I didn't understand a certain term, I'd ask. This was a sensible precaution, as there are still many things about American politics that I find utterly baffling.

BTW, it's hilarious that you refer to me as a "millennial." As someone born in the early 1960s, I suspect that I'm several decades too old for that label.

Meh..

Valka D'Ur said:

This is one of the fundamental issues with people complaining about moderator actions. They look for excuses to complain of bias based on political affiliation. With the exception of things like racial/ethnic slurs, promotion of hate groups, and assassination of certain politicians, it's been my experience before, during, and after my time on staff that the staff here do not infract based on political affiliation or personal opinion. In other words, it's not what you say, but how you say it. And if certain affiliations tend to bring out the bad posting habits, I can see where the perception of bias might occur. But it's not actually a valid perception, at least I certainly hope not. My own way of doing things was that if I didn't understand a certain term, I'd ask. This was a sensible precaution, as there are still many things about American politics that I find utterly baffling.

BTW, it's hilarious that you refer to me as a "millennial." As someone born in the early 1960s, I suspect that I'm several decades too old for that label.

Click to expand...

The bias I perceive among the moderators is not a political one, it's a popularity one. Posters that the mods are generally fond of or friends with definitely get a lot more leeway with how nasty they can be with people than those who are either relatively unknown or generally disliked by the community.

Commodore said:

The bias I perceive among the moderators is not a political one, it's a popularity one. Posters that the mods are generally fond of or friends with definitely get a lot more leeway with how nasty they can be with people than those who are either relatively unknown or generally disliked by the community.

Click to expand...

The very first infraction I ever issued here was to a friend. I wish I hadn't had to, but he broke the rules.

Valka D'Ur said:

The very first infraction I ever issued here was to a friend. I wish I hadn't had to, but he broke the rules.

Click to expand...

You are not all moderators though. And I don't think you can really deny that there are certain posters, especially in OT, that have, in the past, definitely had more freedom to act like jerks and post things any other member would have been infracted for. I say in the past because now it just seems like the mods have given up and let people insult each other freely as long you don't make it too obvious or use any foul language. Which is also not a desirable state of affairs in my opinion.

I get it though. Strict moderation drives people away. The site needs to make money to stay afloat and that money is made through the quantity of users, not their quality. So if backing off on the enforcement of the rules convinces people to stick around and gets new people to join, then it makes sense from that aspect. Doesn't mean I have to be happy about it, or that I'm going to stay quiet about it either. It also doesn't mean that this community is necessarily better off.

Commodore said:

Strict moderation drives people away. The site needs to make money to stay afloat and that money is made through the quantity of users, not their quality. So if backing off on the enforcement of the rules convinces people to stick around and gets new people to join, then it makes sense from that aspect.

Click to expand...

Nope, not really true.
No rules will mainly attract trolls and haters, and will drive other people away. Will not necessarily improve quantity, but will definitely decrease quality.
And I don't think anyone here wants that.

Moderation -good moderation- is vastly more complex than it looks, and if you're doing it right, a decidedly non-trivial percentage of your people-managing activity looks like you did nothing at all.

Truth.