How highly do you rate the moderators?

[Quintillus]

I voted "Good", although I very much considered "Very good". On an integer scale of 0-10, I'd give a 9. Occasionally I feel moderators are too lenient (usually on such matters as leniency on language), and occasionally too strict (usually on such matters as closing threads). But these are pretty minor. I suppose I just don't want the moderators to start resting on their laurels if they see 90% "very good".

The moderators are definitely a plus. I rarely join forums, let alone participate significantly in forums, due to the commonality of either anarchy, or a snobby attitude, or both. Neither is present in any significant quality at CFC, which makes it one of only three forums I have ever frequented, the only one I currently frequent, and the one I have actively participated in the longest. On the whole, it's a much more Civilized forum than most!

FWIW, I'm in the Civ3 forums the most. Thus those moderators are the ones that I see the most.

 

[Omega124]

I voted "Poor", because at points I think they are way too strict. I got a thread locked (and infarcted), in the spam boards, just because the thread was a hypothetical match between Chuck Norris and Zheng He, due to /flamming/. I also got an infraction because I posted about how hate the modern fiction genre for /flamming/. Seriouslly, if you guys want something lock/delete something, give me a charge that makes sense! Don't just pull out "flamming lol" to get what you want.

Moderator Action: Warned. Public discussion of moderator actions is not allowed.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[Zack]

There are no spam boards.

 

[Perfection]

Sure there is

 

[Tee Kay]

The majority of the mods here are excellent, but not all. I gave an average rating.

 

[GhostWriter16]

I think a few are a little bit biased. Sometimes they are too strict, sometimes too lenient. That said, I don't think anyone who obviously broke a rule has been ignored after reporting, and vice versa. It depends, but I think the worst mods are average, the best ones very good. I vote good.

 

[Ahriman]

On point: Mostly fine, but highly variable.
And sometimes humorless (a joke is not an off-topic infraction).
* * *
Can I ask the moderators; where is the appropriate place to challenge overzealous Moderator action?

Is this best done through PMs, or is there some other procedure?

 

[ainwood]

Can I ask the moderators; where is the appropriate place to challenge overzealous Moderator action?

Is this best done through PMs, or is there some other procedure?

PM the moderator who made the action first. If you don't get a response to your satisfaction, PM one of the forum administrators (Padma, Thunderfall or myself).

 

[GhostWriter16]

PM the moderator who made the action first. If you don't get a response to your satisfaction, PM one of the forum administrators (Padma, Thunderfall or myself).

Is there any chance the Admins could make the rules a bit more specific eventually, like clearly defining whether calling someone's post idiotic, stupid, uninelligent, ignorant, exc. is flaming and the like? I'm not dissing any moderators here, I'm just asking it be made more clear. Obviously not everything will be covered, and some things are common sense, for instance, if calling someone's post is idiotic is flaming, obviously calling it stupid is as well, but what about just ignorant? I'm not specifically asking for an answer here, but the rules aren't completely clear. Define "Civilized."

Also, and again, not dissing anyone, but can it also be required that mods explain their reasoning for the infraction, if not right away, then certainly when asked? I know of moderators who have just said "PM an administrator, I stand by my opinion" as soon as asked. I am pretty sure they are currently allowed to do this, so, not dissing them, just saying, interpretation is ugly, the less the better.

Finally, if this post is too personal, please don't infract it, just please PM me letting me know. This post is intended to be in good faith, not dissing any particular mods, and trying to simply state an opinion. I would appreciate this being explained if it isn't, and I'll edit it.

 

[Birdjaguar]

Is there any chance the Admins could make the rules a bit more specific eventually, like clearly defining whether calling someone's post idiotic, stupid, uninelligent, ignorant, exc. is flaming and the like? I'm not dissing any moderators here, I'm just asking it be made more clear. Obviously not everything will be covered, and some things are common sense, for instance, if calling someone's post is idiotic is flaming, obviously calling it stupid is as well, but what about just ignorant? I'm not specifically asking for an answer here, but the rules aren't completely clear. Define "Civilized."

Criticizing the post rather than the poster is a good plan. In addition, you should stay away from words like stupid, idiotic, ignorant, ******** etc. Even when directed at the arguments presented, they tend to in flame people. Saying things like: "your arguments makes no sense because because because with a list of reasons is a much better approach; of course that takes more time and thought than just saying "you're ********."

Also, and again, not dissing anyone, but can it also be required that mods explain their reasoning for the infraction, if not right away, then certainly when asked? I know of moderators who have just said "PM an administrator, I stand by my opinion" as soon as asked. I am pretty sure they are currently allowed to do this, so, not dissing them, just saying, interpretation is ugly, the less the better.

I suggest you pm the mod in question directly and ask them to be more explicit, or you could just improve your posting so that you are no longer infracted and you never get those too cryptic messages ever again.

 

[GhostWriter16]

Criticizing the post rather than the poster is a good plan. In addition, you should stay away from words like stupid, idiotic, ignorant, ******** etc. Even when directed at the arguments presented, they tend to in flame people. Saying things like: "your arguments makes no sense because because because with a list of reasons is a much better approach; of course that takes more time and thought than just saying "you're ********."
I suggest you pm the mod in question directly and ask them to be more explicit, or you could just improve your posting so that you are no longer infracted and you never get those too cryptic messages ever again.

1. I've basically learned this through experience, however, I think that making me get infraction points each time something unclear comes up isn't right. It isn't fair, and things like this should be clear. I also don't see how Poster B possibly be infracted.

Poster A: I believe in evolution because of blah blah blah.

Poster B: This shows ignorance on the issue because blah blah blah

Poster C: Agreed, poster A's post is idiotic and shows a lack of reason because blah blah blah.

Poster C is arguable. How is poster B flaming?

2. Yeah, I'm working on that, and trying to just ignore the people that can't post respectably. However, again, it still isn't clear what's legit and what isn't. It really should be in the forum rules. Interpretation is ugly, and starts wars.

3. I'm not complaining about a specific instance, but a general trend.

 

[Birdjaguar]

You have to keep in mind that there are hundreds of regular posters here from many cultures, with different educational backgrounds, different ages and different religious affiliations (or none). The same applies to the mods who try to keep everything from falling into chaos. the clarity you want does not exist. You just have to be a responsible poster and be careful of what you say and how you say it knowing that some cranky mod who lives half way around the world is going to read it and pass judgment on it.

You have to be smart enough to figure it out for yourself. Would you say it to your mother? To your grandmother? to your teacher? On TV? To their face? Life is not fair and neither is posting here. You have to learn and move on. There are some givens: you will make friends and create enemies, some of your posts will be reported just because of who you are, posters with lots of infractions get looked at harder than those who have few or none, this is a community and word gets around, and lastly, Perfection always wins the creation vs evolution arguments.

When in doubt, don't say it.

 

[Earthling]

You're not allowed to call anything a lie, stupid, idiotic, etc... or in general such negative words. About as far as you can go is to say something is wrong or false. Or rather, some moderators will inconsistently infract such things, while others let them slide, so the way to be sure you're within the rules is to avoid such situations altogether. And yes, calling an argument wrong will get people infracted too, hence moderator inconsistency, but anyway, if say some journalist being quoted lied about something, and you post "that is a lie" you could still be infracted for flaming.

 

[Yared]

And yes, calling an argument wrong will get people infracted too, hence moderator inconsistency, but anyway, if say some journalist being quoted lied about something, and you post "that is a lie" you could still be infracted for flaming.

I could imagine a situation where a person is infracted for spamming because he just said "That is a lie," as opposed to "That is a lie because that's not how blabla works at all,".

 

[GhostWriter16]

You have to keep in mind that there are hundreds of regular posters here from many cultures, with different educational backgrounds, different ages and different religious affiliations (or none). The same applies to the mods who try to keep everything from falling into chaos. the clarity you want does not exist. You just have to be a responsible poster and be careful of what you say and how you say it knowing that some cranky mod who lives half way around the world is going to read it and pass judgment on it.

You have to be smart enough to figure it out for yourself. Would you say it to your mother? To your grandmother? to your teacher? On TV? To their face? Life is not fair and neither is posting here. You have to learn and move on. There are some givens: you will make friends and create enemies, some of your posts will be reported just because of who you are, posters with lots of infractions get looked at harder than those who have few or none, this is a community and word gets around, and lastly, Perfection always wins the creation vs evolution arguments.

When in doubt, don't say it.

I say "When in doubt, don't waste your time giving an infraction" (Do you all enjoy it or something) (JK about you enjoying it.) Seriously though, I recognize I cannot control that, so your post is relatively fair.

However, about that, if my mother was saying something untrue, I would say "That is ignorance, xy is why..."

Other than the "Perfection always wins," your point is fair though, and I will try not to post such things. I'd still prefer clarity.

 

[Whomp]

I'm not sure there's any doubt when someone attacks the poster. Beyond this forum people need to realize that social media requires extra attention to what you say. Once it's in print you own it.

 

[GhostWriter16]

I'm not sure there's any doubt when someone attacks the poster. Beyond this forum people need to realize that social media requires extra attention to what you say. Once it's in print you own it.

I don't really understand the post. Assuming I understand it correctly, no, it isn't clear. "You are an idiot" is obviously flaming. "Your post is idiotic" is according to you, and understandably considered flaming but unclear as to whether it is. "That is an assumption made in ignorance because..." I see no reason why would be flaming, but maybe some picky mods would consider it to be so. It just isn't plain in the forum rules.

NOTE- Everything in quotation marks is hypothetical, not actually saying those things about Whomp (Or anyone else on here.)

 

[Whomp]

"Your post is idiotic" is clearly flaming because you're attacking the poster rather than the issue. In fact, if you tried saying that in an email to another employee it might get you fired.

As I said, be careful what you put in print and learn how to frame your words when you disagree with someone. Once something is sent electronically it becomes a permanent so give great care to how you say things. It's why I often take a second look at emails I'm replying to.

 

[Yared]

Definitions of idiotic:
"having a mental age of three to seven years"
"a person of subnormal intelligence"
"extreme mental retardation"

I suppose "your post is idiotic" implies that the poster who made it must be any of those three definitions.

 

[Gary Childress]

I voted "poor".