Reform of CFC Public Discussion of Moderator Action Rules

[Valka D'Ur]

By that fallacious logic, every infraction warning, ban, etc for trolling would be ill befitting a moderator. Wrong.

Are you suggesting that it's impossible to issue a warning, infraction, or ban without being rude?

As I recall, there was an occasion when I got dressed down for rudeness early on as a junior mod. Ainwood took exception to something I'd said in public, and told me it was inappropriate. I apologized to the member and took care to be more polite in future. I'm disappointed that some of the staff seem to think that their position excuses them from being courteous.

 

[Lefty Scaevola]

Nope, nor would I suggest that warning post reiterating a prior warning in the context of dealing with a flame war, was rude, nor should you or other members publicly discuss the validity or appropriateness of a particular moderator action under the PDMA strictures.

 

[schlaufuchs]

Nope, nor would I suggest that warning post reiterating a prior warning in the context of dealing with a flame war, was rude, nor should you or other members publicly discuss the validity or appropriateness of a particular moderator action under the PDMA strictures.

It WAS NOT a moderator action. As a noted before. There were no moderator tags being used. It was just a moderator being a dick in a normal posting setting.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

Nope, nor would I suggest that warning post reiterating a prior warning in the context of dealing with a flame war, was rude, nor should you or anyone else publicly discuss the validity or appropriateness of a particular moderator action under the PDMA strictures.

Lefty, it happened FIVE YEARS AGO. It's ridiculous that I can't give an example of something from that long ago when it's my own shortcoming I'm referring to. What's next - someone will report the post and give the reason as "Valka's trolling herself?"

My question was meant in a general sense. You appeared to be saying that it was okay for a moderator to be rude when posting mod-tagged text in a thread, regardless of the reason. I was asking for clarification, because I know it didn't used to be okay.

 

[Lefty Scaevola]

It WAS NOT a moderator action. As a noted before. There were no moderator tags being used. It was just a moderator being a dick in a normal posting setting.

Uh, wrong, it was a moderator dealing with a moderation subject matter, which takes many forms, as I had already stated in the blue text in the post above. Where did you come up with the idea that staff has to use tags when communicating on moderation. The are not an on off switch for moderation action, they are to get more visibility for actions, so other posters in the thread will more likely see the matter. Or for that matter, how did you not see that it it was a reiteration of a prior warning, with bright red mod text from the prior warning quoted therein.
Moderator Action: Continue discussing a particular action and you will be infracted.

 

[Lefty Scaevola]

Lefty, it happened FIVE YEARS AGO. It's ridiculous that I can't give an example of something from that long ago when it's my own shortcoming I'm referring to. What's next - someone will report the post and give the reason as "Valka's trolling herself?"

My question was meant in a general sense. You appeared to be saying that it was okay for a moderator to be rude when posting mod-tagged text in a thread, regardless of the reason. I was asking for clarification, because I know it didn't used to be okay.

I was referring to the linked (a few posts ago) moderation post, which you appeared to suggest was rude, since it was the context of the discussion you entered, not to your example of several years ago.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

Where did you come up with the idea that staff has to use tags when communicating on moderation. The are not an on off switch for moderation action, they are to get more visibility for actions, so other posters in the thread will more likely see the matter.

This is intended as a general comment on the matter of mod tags.

Moderators should use mod tags when communicating on moderation (ie. giving warnings, in-thread suggestions such as 'calm down' messages, etc.). Indeed, it should be a requirement. Otherwise, you are putting the onus on the members to become mind readers, to try to figure out if the moderator has his moderator's hat on, or if he is speaking as a member. It's not always clear.

Hypothetical example: An OT thread starts drifting off-course, as most of them do at times. Moderator X posts something like "this thread seems to be drifting."

That's the general sort of comment most OT regulars have made from time to time. It is absolutely not fair to make the members guess as to the moderator's precise intent: did he intend the comment to be a casual "gee, this is going off-topic" or did he intend it to be taken as a green or blue-fonted suggestion to get back on topic or the thread will be closed/infractions will be issued?

This is setting people up for 'gotchas' and frustrating guessing games and I consider it both unfair and unethical. Moderators should either be crystal-clear when they are speaking as moderators (using color-fonted mod tags) or to avoid situations where their comment could be taken either way and possibly result in unjust infractions, they should not post at all.

 

[Loppan Torkel]

Moderators should use mod tags when communicating on moderation (ie. giving warnings, in-thread suggestions such as 'calm down' messages, etc.). Indeed, it should be a requirement. Otherwise, you are putting the onus on the members to become mind readers, to try to figure out if the moderator has his moderator's hat on, or if he is speaking as a member. It's not always clear.

Unless people have complained about the frequent use of mod tags not too long ago and asked for a softer approach. I'm sure there's a thread about it somewhere.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

Unless people have complained about the frequent use of mod tags not too long ago and asked for a softer approach. I'm sure there's a thread about it somewhere.

I'd rather see green mod-text than none so there's no risk of incurring a warning or infraction for guessing wrong.

 

[Lefty Scaevola]

Moderators should use mod tags when communicating on moderation (ie. giving warnings, in-thread suggestions such as 'calm down' messages, etc.). Indeed, it should be a requirement. Otherwise, you are putting the onus on the members to become mind readers, to try to figure out if the moderator has his moderator's hat on, or if he is speaking as a member. It's not always clear.

Yeah, that is one theory that has been considered, but not adopted as policy. The base theory in use is that if a moderator is talking about a subject of moderation/enforcement, etc, it is a moderator action unless he disclaims that capacity for the matter. It should be easily identifiable by subject matter. Since I often start a moderator post with a comic relief line, I lean toward more common use of the tags even when directed at a specific member, rather than a thread as a whole.

 

[JohannaK]

Very convenient.

 

[Lefty Scaevola]

Well, if a moderator says "Do not troll" in a thread about music, you would be pretty sure to know that is a moderator action rather than a member post about music, because it about rules rather than the subject of the thread. That should be rather obvious to anyone. On the other hand if he is adding rules to a thread (rather than just reminding about base rules), or changing rules in an thread, the moderator really should highlight the post with mod tags, not to tell members that it a a moderator action, that should be clear from the matter of the post, but to make it easier for members to notice the change up.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

Yeah, that is one theory that has been considered, but not adopted as policy. The base theory in use is that if a moderator is talking about a subject of moderation/enforcement, etc, it is a moderator action unless he disclaims that capacity for the matter. It should be easily identifiable by subject matter. Since I often start a moderator post with a comic relief line, I lean toward more common use of the tags even when directed at a specific member, rather than a thread as a whole.

So every time a current moderator posts in Site Feedback using normal, non-mod tagged text, that's a Moderator Action and therefore we're not allowed to refer to it, quote it, discuss it, etc.? That's ridiculous.

It's good that you prefer to use tags, because honestly, your sense of humor isn't something that everyone recognizes. Sometimes I get it and sometimes it's too obscure. And sometimes I get what you're trying to do, but it's not funny. And that's from someone who has known you here (as much as any fellow forum members who have never met in RL can "know" each other) for years. What chance does a much newer person have?

Well, if a moderator says "Do not troll" in a thread about music, you would be pretty sure to know that is a moderator action rather than a member post about music, because it about rules rather than the subject of the thread. That should be rather obvious to anyone. On the other hand if he is adding rules to a thread (rather than just reminding about base rules), or changing rules in an thread, the moderator really should highlight the post with mod tags, not to tell members that it a a moderator action, that should be clear from the matter of the post, but to make it easier for members to notice the change up.

Ever since I joined this forum (over 10 years ago), I and everyone else has been conditioned that when moderators tell people to do something, not do something, or otherwise give information pertaining to moderating, it's done in bold red, blue, or green font. It is absolutely unfair to expect people to read every word a moderator says in case something they post in regular font is something about moderating. There are some staff members whose regular posts I tend to skip over if I don't see mod-text. That's because in some cases I don't find what they say to be particularly interesting, whether in general or on that topic. I'm sure we all have members whose posts we don't bother reading regardless of whether or not they're on a formal 'ignore' list.

Saying "You should read every single word a moderator posts in case he says something official to do with moderating and doesn't bother to use mod text because of some reason or other (like "I didn't feel like bothering" - for a hypothetical example) is worse than the attitude of the staff in the apartment building I live in where I'm expected to check out the elevator every day in case there's a notice that the water is going to be shut off for maintenance (somehow they think that constitutes "proper notice" to the tenants, even though not everyone uses the elevator every day). At least it only takes a couple of minutes to check out the elevator. It would take all day to read the moderators' posts in case they say Something Important that should have been readily noticeable in the appropriately-colored mod-text.

 

[pigswill]

I've just had a quick read of the publicly posted site rules regarding moderator actions. I couldn't see anything there about the appropriate or inappropriate use of moderator tags. Is there a policy on this?

 

[Lefty Scaevola]

The only thing that should be in the rules is that only the staff may use them.

 

[Lefty Scaevola]

Ever since I joined this forum (over 10 years ago), I and everyone else has been conditioned that when moderators tell people to do something, not do something, or otherwise give information pertaining to moderating, it's done in bold red, blue, or green font. It is absolutely unfair to expect people to read every word a moderator says in case something they post in regular font is something about moderating. There are some staff members whose regular posts I tend to skip over if I don't see mod-text.

You are looking at in the wrong context. We were not discussing where someone read an untagged post and was infracted for non obedience. If a moderator has a notice he wants to be seen and become a particular rule for the thread he will tag it. The context here is where a member actually read the post specifically directed telling someone else heavily engaged in the thread, that that person was trolling, and then accuses the moderator of flaming because he told the other member that he was trolling. Notice was not issue.

 

[Thlayli]

Lefty, you're tying yourself in rhetorical knots defending this policy that nobody likes, not even a large quantity of the mods.

At this point you're starting to look like the status quo's sole public defender. And I admire you for that in a strange way...but honestly, can't you take a few steps back and realize that all this PDMA nonsense is antagonizing people and adding extra work for you in defending it constantly? I've spent a bunch of time in San Antonio (I live in Austin) and most of your fellow citizens are a bit more laid back than this.

Judge a policy by its fruits. If something is complained against for almost a decade, it's time to consider sensible reforms. Even if you don't give the people demanding reforms (e.g. us) everything we want, even an incremental change would show us that you're actually listening, and not simply trying to manage the situation. Falling back on the old "no mod consensus has been formed" argument is an easy way out, since you can effectively act like the old Polish Sejm and deny reform forever if you require 100% unanimity for any policy change.

But come on, it's a fairly unconvincing ploy when you refuse to tell us the results of the staff discussions and who thinks what. I think that the truth of the matter is that you are the main obstacle to a policy change, and you're simply holding up the excuse of a lack of consensus in the staff forum to keep from taking personal blame for that. If that conclusion is incorrect, please prove me wrong.

 

[Loppan Torkel]

But come on, it's a fairly unconvincing ploy when you refuse to tell us the results of the staff discussions and who thinks what. I think that the truth of the matter is that you are the main obstacle to a policy change, and you're simply holding up the excuse of a lack of consensus in the staff forum to keep from taking personal blame for that. If that conclusion is incorrect, please prove me wrong.

You don't think it would be weak to hang out the mods who have a different opinion? He should come clean by selling out the resistance?


A public appeal thread would become a giant cluster f. People won't be more satisfied with the answers there, they'll gather support (IOT/NESers mainly), use the same flawed logic as in here, throw some tantrums and try to get rid of a few specific mods. I foresee a couple of permabans

 

[pigswill]

Is the system perfect? Probably not.
Is PDMA likely to improve the system? I'm not convinced so far.
Are there any alternative sensible reforms?

 

[Double A]

At the very least we'll stop incessantly arguing for it. Would PDMA hurt things, though? If we're wrong and it makes CFC crappy then just undo the rule change and we'll be fine with no PDMA because there'll be hard evidence as to why it's awful.

And Lefty, you missed a great April Fool's opportunity with this thread.