Reform of CFC Public Discussion of Moderator Action Rules

Do you support a thread in Site Feedback to discuss or appeal CFC moderator actions?

  • Total voters
    78
Valka D'Ur said:
Condescension and ignoring legitimate questions and complaints is a poor writing style that helps start the problem in the first place.
Click to expand...

No it isn't. If a question or complaint isn't written well, it comes from a place between "does not" and "matter".
 
Scarlet_King said:
No it isn't. If a question or complaint isn't written well, it comes from a place between "does not" and "matter".
Click to expand...
So the person who wrote the condescending post should be excused for his lack of consideration toward the member(s) being addressed? :huh:

I have never thought that to be excusable. And when it happens for the umpteenth time, it should not be surprising that the member(s) finally get somewhat annoyed, even angry.
 
BirdJaguar retired?

..told you so.
 
Birdjaguar said:
When you say "didn't work, what do you mean? No one answered your PM? Or, you didn't get the response you wanted? Or, you didn't have the conversation you wanted? Or, was it something else?
Click to expand...
In this case, I received an adequate amount of responses and their nature does clear indicate there is a behavioural problem with one or more moderators.

Does this answer your question? I sure hope it did because we've been through this already. Thanks.
 
ywhtptgtfo said:
In this case, I received an adequate amount of responses and their nature does clear indicate there is a behavioural problem with one or more moderators.

Does this answer your question? I sure hope it did because we've been through this already. Thanks.
Click to expand...
Well then we can stop, or you can risk it all on the question behind door number 2!!

Spoiler :
What would making the discussion public have achieved?
 
Birdjaguar said:
Well then we can stop, or you can risk it all on the question behind door number 2!!

Spoiler :
What would making the discussion public have achieved?
Click to expand...

A rule that all game shows follow is that they don't ask the same questions twice. :(

Spoiler :
Re-read page 7?
 
^Link to the post you're referencing? I'm on 40 posts/page and for me this thread is only 6 pages long.
 
ywhtptgtfo said:
A rule that all game shows follow is that they don't ask the same questions twice. :(

Spoiler :
Re-read page 7?
Click to expand...
Thank you very much. Mission accomplished.
 
It seems to me that an important issue is that in the current system complaints against the staff are investigated by the staff and there is no independent review process. PDMA is in this context one mechanism for independent review but PDMA itself is moderated and staff may not have confidence in the objectivity of the PDMA process.
 
Valka D'Ur said:
^Link to the post you're referencing? I'm on 40 posts/page and for me this thread is only 6 pages long.
Click to expand...

Here's one just from a quick search:
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=13701886&postcount=139

Thanks for not being a troll unlike your fellow retiree.

Moderator Action: Warned for flaming, you may not publicly label another member a troll, you may only report their post which you believe to be trolling. I have been offline for a long weekend and thus have not got to this sooner.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889
 
Another thing that really bugs me is that if I comment on something I perceive to be total bunk I get a warning or infraction for it. I can still PM the mod about it but what if I want it to be a public discussion where other people can offer their input? How is that even a bad thing?
 
Another issue is that the longer CFC moderation goes without attempting to create a culture of openness, the less enthusiasm people have for even remaining part of this community.

I've felt myself drifting away from CFC in recent months, though it's nice to see people have continued the discussion even in my absence. I just don't feel like my views are welcome or well received here.

If the strict maintenance of order to the exclusion of all else is really that important to you guys, well...keep it, honestly. But the door is always open to try something different, and something better. You can always test reform by increments.

It's the stony wall of silence underscored by the hope that people just stop complaining that reinforces the idea that the moderators are distant and arrogant. :/ Actual egregious abuses aren't so much the problem, as much as the picture that has been painted of the way the staff sees the membership.
 
I'm pretty sure calling mods out on their hypocrisy is a losing battle.

Especially Lefty Scaevola, the lawyer who treats us like rookie paralegals who misplaced his case files.

It's like, in private mods will be nice and civil and reasonable, but the public sphere needs to be the enforcement zone for some reason. Even when people aren't being disruptive or spammy.

I'm sure I'll be censured for this in a few hours. :p You guys need to put Bootstoots in charge, he seems to be the most thoughtful and interested in actual community engagement. That guy is a great mod who doesn't hide behind his badge and gun.
 
ywhtptgtfo said:
I did a 2 minute search in CFC. I am going to report the moderator BSmith1068 for flaming because he publicly called someone else a troll.

Please give that volunteer a warning.

Edit: I will check back in a few days to see if this post is deleted or given an infraction.

Have a nice day.
Click to expand...

Moderator Action: As should be obvious, that post was a moderator action trying to cut off an escalating troll war. And, obviously, moderator actions whether: ban, infraction, logged warning, informal warning (this example), private warning, or generally directed mod tags or announces, must name or describe the behavior to stop or be avoided
Moderator Action: Further more reporting a post by public post is itself a violation of rules, reports of posts are to made privately, usually by the report post function, sometimes by private message
 
DA RULEZ said:
Trolling is posting something with the intent to annoy or to generate a negative reaction from other people. It can be interpreted as anything for which it is reasonably foreseeable (in the moderators' opinion) that someone will react to it. It can be a very grey issue, and moderators will use their discretion and judgment. Examples of things that are generally considered trolling are as follows:
• Extending a negative issue to a wide group of people. For example, if one member of a group, religion, political persuasion or ethnicity does something bad, a post that implies that all members of this group, religion, political persuasion or ethnicity are similar, this is considered trolling.
• Posting a very negative topic or post about a certain group. Eg. "Why are all (race, gender, ethnicity, political affiliation) stupid / fat / boring" etc.
• Discussing the person, and not the topic. Ad hominems are generally not tolerated. We want people to focus on the discussion topic, not on the people discussing it. As a guideline, if your post only discusses the person (eg. their opinions, their background etc.) and is not related to the topic, you may be considered to be trolling. Discussing the poster, when civil and directly relevant to the topic, may be tolerated.
• Using personal information gained about people to attack them, or to get them to react in an unrelated thread. E.g. if you know that someone has gone to a certain university, works a certain profession, or is a certain religion, making oblique comments about this may be considered trolling (even if you don't mention the posters specifically).
• Mocking someone by copying their posting style, thread topics, spelling, language etc.
• Posting a thread on a controversial topic, but not posting anything that is really a point for discussion.
• Generally being rude. Being overly critical, or expressing your opinions in a rude manner.
• Passing comments on the style with which another poster posts, or the quality of their posts - stick to discussing the points they are making.
Click to expand...

As I recall there used to be a section too noting that calling someone a troll itself constituted trolling. Regardless it's hardly a behavior befitting a moderator.
 
By that fallacious logic, every infraction warning, ban, etc for trolling would be ill befitting a moderator. Wrong.
 
Lefty Scaevola said:
By that fallacious logic, every infraction warning, ban, etc for trolling would be ill befitting a moderator. Wrong.
Click to expand...

Which would make sense if he was using his moderator tags. Which he was not.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

The_J
April Fools': Xenforo enables new AI features
2 3 4
Replies
60
Views
2K
Valka D'Ur
Valka D'Ur
Gori the Grey
Splitting a new thread off from an existing one
Replies
3
Views
695
Aiken_Drumn
Aiken_Drumn
The_J
  • Locked
  • Poll
April Fools': Should we re-name us to "Millennia-fanatics"?
2 3
Replies
46
Views
2K
leif erikson
leif erikson
Vandlys
Clearer topic titles
Replies
8
Views
709
Valka D'Ur
Valka D'Ur
The_J
  • Poll
CivFanatics social media survey
2
Replies
23
Views
2K
The_J
The_J
Top Bottom