How highly do you rate the moderators?

How good are the moderators?

  • Very Good

    Votes: 24 22.9%

  • Good

    Votes: 48 45.7%

  • Average

    Votes: 15 14.3%

  • Poor

    Votes: 7 6.7%

  • Very Poor

    Votes: 11 10.5%
  • Total voters
    105
Status
Not open for further replies.
What does it matter if he's being sarcastic or not? It sounds like he was making a point about how silly people who are against Gays adopting are. You think that what the quote above is suggesting is dehumanizing to Christians, just like he (and I) think that denying homosexuals their right to have children is dehumanizing.

It's called hyperbole, I think, and I can't imagine on what basis anyone would infract that.
 
Yared said:
What does it matter if he's being sarcastic or not? It sounds like he was making a point about how silly people who are against Gays adopting are. You think that what the quote above is suggesting is dehumanizing to Christians, just like he (and I) think that denying homosexuals their right to have children is dehumanizing.

It's called hyperbole, I think, and I can't imagine on what basis anyone would infract that.
Click to expand...

No, he was purposely trolling. Its a different issue. I believe a child should not be raised by two fathers/mothers. But let's not debate the issue.
 
(I don't want to debate the issue either.)

He was making a statement to make you feel how silly and utterly insane we (and, above all, the Gay community) feel your proposal is. By making it more personal (ie targeting Christians), he's trying to make you understand it.

You feel like you've been trolled? Good. Then you know how the Gay community feels.
 
Yared said:
(I don't want to debate the issue either.)

He was making a statement to make you feel how silly and utterly insane we (and, above all, the Gay community) feel your proposal is. By making it more personal (ie targeting Christians), he's trying to make you understand it.

You feel like you've been trolled? Good. Then you know how the Gay community feels.
Click to expand...

No, if he legitimately believed that, that would be his privilege. Its dumb, but he's allowed. But he doesn't. Political Parodying has its place, April 1st (May 1st for people who celebrate it I suppose.)
 
Look, Domination, this is not the place to discuss particular cases, but a post like that is intended to show the absurdity of a certain position by applying the same logic to a different situation and reaching an absurd conclusion. The fact that an absurd conclusion is reached shows that there must have been something wrong with the original reasoning.

That is not trolling or parodying for the sake of it. It is reductio ad absurdum, which is a perfectly legitimate debating technique. Thus:

Person A: I think X, because of this reasoning.
Person B: But if we apply that reasoning elsewhere, we must conclude Y. But Y is ridiculous. So there must have been something wrong with the reasoning, in which case your argument for X is undermined.

So someone might say something apparently absurd which they don't believe, but they are doing so in order to show what is wrong with the other person's reasoning. That is an entirely reasonable thing to do. Of course they might not make the full argument explicit. They might say something like "But by that reasoning, Y" without making explicit that Y is absurd, so the argument for X is undermined. If someone makes a post like that you need to think about what the person is trying to say rather than simply reacting as if they are seriously arguing for Y or being absurd for the sake of it.

In fact one of the key skills needed to participate in debating at anything like an intelligent level is the ability to understand what someone is saying and why they are saying it. Often people don't express themselves enormously clearly, but it is important to try to make the imaginative leap, put yourself in their shoes, and try to think about why they might be saying that and what the point is that they're trying to make. That is intellectual empathy and it's fundamental to constructive discourse of all kinds, because if you can't do that then you can't construct a good response to your interlocutors.
 
The thing that you should do the next time that happens, Domination, is to argue for how the two scenarios aren't analogous.
 
Plotinus said:
Look, Domination, this is not the place to discuss particular cases, but a post like that is intended to show the absurdity of a certain position by applying the same logic to a different situation and reaching an absurd conclusion. The fact that an absurd conclusion is reached shows that there must have been something wrong with the original reasoning.

That is not trolling or parodying for the sake of it. It is reductio ad absurdum, which is a perfectly legitimate debating technique. Thus:

Person A: I think X, because of this reasoning.
Person B: But if we apply that reasoning elsewhere, we must conclude Y. But Y is ridiculous. So there must have been something wrong with the reasoning, in which case your argument for X is undermined.

So someone might say something apparently absurd which they don't believe, but they are doing so in order to show what is wrong with the other person's reasoning. That is an entirely reasonable thing to do. Of course they might not make the full argument explicit. They might say something like "But by that reasoning, Y" without making explicit that Y is absurd, so the argument for X is undermined. If someone makes a post like that you need to think about what the person is trying to say rather than simply reacting as if they are seriously arguing for Y or being absurd for the sake of it.

In fact one of the key skills needed to participate in debating at anything like an intelligent level is the ability to understand what someone is saying and why they are saying it. Often people don't express themselves enormously clearly, but it is important to try to make the imaginative leap, put yourself in their shoes, and try to think about why they might be saying that and what the point is that they're trying to make. That is intellectual empathy and it's fundamental to constructive discourse of all kinds, because if you can't do that then you can't construct a good response to your interlocutors.
Click to expand...

The post in question was infracted, a long time after the post was made. But, in fact, I think it is obvious that in this scenario that X and Y are not synonymous. Scenarios like this one are reasons why I think the mods overall are good rather than very good. Just an opinion.

Yared said:
The thing that you should do the next time that happens, Domination, is to argue for how the two scenarios aren't analogous.
Click to expand...

I could, but why? Its obvious, and JollyRoger knows it.
 
Then call him out on it, explaining why it isn't analogous instead of complaining that you were getting trolled. How else do you expect to get serious responses?
 
Birdjaguar said:
Yes and the same applies to posters. If you guys all followed the rules we wouldn't be inconsistent in our moderating.

TheAlamo said:
That doesn't make sense...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

The reference is to inconsistent moderating. If posters followed the rules, which they don't currently, then we would have no moderating to do and would thereby be consistent. This is not a likely scenario, hence the ;) , but it highlights the point that the reason we have to moderate posts is because posters don't follow the rules and not because we are bored.

*****

What is quite evident from this thread is that there are many of you that have not thought about what consistency actually means given the dynamics of a forum like CFC and what the goals are.

With spammed ads, we are close to 100% consistent. We know what they are and can all agree on how to respond. Few posters would disagree that we have wrongly infracted and banned innocent posters in regards to ads.

We could be more consistent about tripping the auto censor and swearing, but I think we do a pretty good job here. Again violations are pretty cut and dried. In fact it is so cut and dried, that there is no excuse for any poster to ever have a post that trips it. And yet we see it every day. Why is that? I think it would change if we consistently gave 4 points per incident without exception. Do you want a more rigorous and strident consistency for tripping the auto censor?

One way to achieve consistency regarding members posts is to not infract at all and let anything be said anytime. Not everybody would be happy, but we would be consistent.

Or we could smack hard every post that had the slightest wiff of a rules violation. By clamping down very tightly on everyone and everything we could also be far more consistent. No one would get away with anything. Again, not everyone would be happy, but we would be more consistent.

We have chosen the more difficult "middle way" that allows many grey/gray areas that require judgment and considers context and poster history. It sacrifices consistency for reasonableness and fun.

Consistent moderation is very nice, but IMNSHO, it is not the primary goal of CFC. Our goal is a lively and energetic discussion community where people have fun talking about Civ and the other things that interest them.

Posters look at the rules as constraints/boundaries on their individual behavior. They take infractions and bans personally and see them often as infringements of their personal rights and ability to express the truth as they see it. I have never received a pm saying " Thanks for banning me, I know it is better for the community for me to spend a week away."

The whining and complaining are almost always that "I got infracted and somebody else didn't for doing the same thing, why can't you guys be consistent". One thing we see repeatedly is that after a poster is infracted for some particular offense, they will immediately go looking for posts made by others (with whom they often disagree) and report them saying "See so and so does it too now infract them. You're picking on me because...why can't you be consistent?"

You all want and expect some degree of moderation, but there is a very vocal group who want it mostly for those with whom they disagree.

Members posts are often difficult to moderate and each mod has his or her own standards for what they think is acceptable. There is no clear standard like with ads or swearing that are easy to agree on. I often see witty, clever posts that other mods see as offensive. I see them as contributing to the dynamics of of a smart and intelligent community. Other see them as trolling, and vice versa. Should someone with 60 posts and no infractions be treated just like those with 80 infractions and 12,000 posts?

So as a group we try to compromise and let things stay lively and fun without being allowing meanness and incivility.

Here is the reality as I see it:

**We will do our best to keep CFC an interesting place worthy of your time and within TFs vision for it
**Consistent application of the rules against trolling, flaming, name calling and inappropriate content are not going to happen in a manner that you will all agree on.
**You might well be infracted for something and someone else will do what you see as the same thing and not be infracted. All things are not equal and life is not fair.
**Some moderators will ignore posts while others will not
**Moderators and admins will respond to your personal pms and do their best to listen. That does not mean agree.
 
Birdjaguar said:
**We will do our best to keep CFC an interesting place worthy of your time and within TFs vision for it
**Consistent application of the rules against trolling, flaming, name calling and inappropriate content are not going to happen in a manner that you will all agree on.
**You might well be infracted for something and someone else will do what you see as the same thing and not be infracted. All things are not equal and life is not fair.
**Some moderators will ignore posts while others will not
**Moderators and admins will respond to your personal pms and do their best to listen. That does not mean agree.
Click to expand...

1. I believe you try

2. Obviously, but I think they should be consistent. Not 100 percent, I obviously know why this will not happen, but more than you currently do.

3. This is true unfortunately.

4. Unfortunately

5. They try, but some don't completely.
 
Domination3000 said:
For instance, one time I called an action someone's character was considering taking in a Forum Game ********, and I got two points (This is not PDMA as I did not name either the moderator in question or the post in question, I simply stated this happened...) which, how is flaming I do not know, but its definitely not clear.
Click to expand...
Moderator Action: Yes, it is PDMA. I spent many hours explaining this to you, and I certainly made it clear why it was flaming.

I explained that we don't have one set of rules for forums games and one set for the rest of the forums.
I explained that we make no distinction between insulting someones' game character and insulting them.
I explained that you didn't call their character '********', but actually implied it was them.
I explained that even if you had been referring to the actions and not the game character, and the game character and not the poster, in a forum game and not the forums, it was still unacceptable.

I am using this as an example of why PDMA should not be allowed. Next time, I will infract you for it.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889
 
How consistent are we?

How many posts you make daily, on average?
How many posts do you make a month (hint: multiple by 30):

On average...
How many of your monthly posts are infracted that shouldn't be?
How many of your monthly posts that should be infracted are not?
How many posts from regular members should be, but are not infracted in a typical month?
How many posts do you think are reported in an average month?
What percent of those do you think should be infracted?
In what forum do you make most of your posts?
 
Birdjaguar said:
How consistent are we?

How many posts you make daily, on average?
How many posts do you make a month (hint: multiple by 30):

On average...
How many of your monthly posts are infracted that shouldn't be?
How many of your monthly posts that should be infracted are not?
How many posts from regular members should be, but are not infracted in a typical month?
How many posts do you think are reported in an average month?
What percent of those do you think should be infracted?
In what forum do you make most of your posts?
Click to expand...

What is this post supposed to be responding too? I really am not sure.
 
One of the problems is the fact that half of us are commonwealth; we use different curses to yanks, and with different connotations.
We have a very different set of rules as to what constitutes "offensive" over here.
 
They've added a few British swearwords recently ;)

There are some strange things that get censored though.
 
azzaman333 said:
99% of the time I do follow the rules, 1% of the time the moderators change their interpretations.
Click to expand...

um...

IIRC once you talked about drugs and prostitution being awesome, I then commented about it and in the time between I quoted it and posted Birdjaguar delete parts of it and the he threatened me with a one week ban, but when we talked it over he realized I wasn't PDMA'ing intentional and everything became all nice

tl;dr if you get in trouble and you don't understand why the best thing to do is discuss it with the moderator, they are reasonable
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Quintillus
Forum customization scripts
Replies
1
Views
2K
Quintillus
Quintillus
Seek
  • Poll Poll
Which UI Elements Do You Think Need Work The Most?
2 3
Replies
45
Views
3K
Seek
Seek
Nizef
  • Sticky
TSG 271 Annoucement
Replies
15
Views
1K
Bol
B
V
  • Sticky
TSG 270 Announcement
Replies
6
Views
847
raider980
raider980
Samson
  • Poll Poll
How do you secure your online identity?
2
Replies
31
Views
2K
Samson
Samson
Back
Top Bottom