It is time for a change in the way things are moderated

[Turner]

At the end of the day, this is a forum on the Internet. While usually a fun, interesting and often educational place to visit, I highly doubt it forms one of the most important aspects of any members' lives, including the moderators. This is a place of relaxation, fun, and light discussion, or a hobby if you would.

However, I think the moderators don't see it this way. I think the moderators see CFC as their own personal domain, somewhere where they have control over the posters and somewhere where their egos can go a little over-the-top. A forum of this size does need moderation, yes, to protect the more vulnerable posters from harassment or harm, and no one can argue this point otherwise. But CFC's mods take it a step too far, where we all have to conform to a set of rules that may as well be named the Commandments. One little deviation from these Commandments, be it in the interest of making a point, making a joke or having some fun, and you will receive punishment for it. That's not fun.

I'd like to refer to my complaint on the first page on this thread, to continue the discussion regarding mod's PMs and such. I probably should discuss this via PM with a moderator but I've already tried that; the mod in question simply stopped replying to me once I shown him that I didn't actually create a spam post and it was meant to be a joke. However, no efforts were made to remove my card. They just stopped responding and assumed this behaviour will go unnoticed, so I am glad that this thread exists where I can explain this.

Did you try to appeal to the supermods or the admins? Granted, the admins probably would have referred you to the supermods, but there is an appeals process in place for when you feel that the mod who dinged you is not listening to your reasons.

They will be ignored, as I've just explained. Perhaps if the mods were to prove they actually took these complaints on board the tensions would ease a little bit. But the general opinion is that nothing gets done. The posters can't all think like that by sheer coincidence, can they.

Try it, and if it happens then you'd be justified in feeling that way. There have been plenty of mods here who have said "PM us." So try it.

 

[classical_hero]

There was a time when I used to try to engage in discussion with the moderators. I've realised that's a waste of my time, since it's practically impossible to get you to change your mind unless you've blatantly made a mistake.

That is my thoughts exactly. Every single time I have complained it has gone nowhere, so it is not much point trying to argue.

 

[Cutlass]

When you joined the site, you agreed to abide by certain rules. It seems you have forgotten them? You can read them here. A couple of basics:

These seem to indicate that it is the moderators that set the standards and who are responsible to ensure you live by them. Seems to also say that if you fail to follow the guidelines and break the rules severely, you may be banned by the moderators. Seems to me the moderator staff signed up to serve the web site, not to conform to your idea of what we should do?

This post is dangerously close to saying STFU.

 

[shadowplay]

It's been my own experience that not all private messages to moderators get answered. And I'm not talking about my own time as a moderator. I'm talking about both before and after. I'm prepared to give people the benefit of the doubt if they're having computer problems, they get sick, there is a natural disaster going on locally, etc., but if it's not an offline problem of that degree, I expect to be given the courtesy of not only a reply, but a reply that straightforwardly answers my questions and addresses my concerns.

Boy is this the truth. I've given up asking the moderators questions and now only PM the admins if there's something I really want to ask.

 

[GenMarshall]

There was a time when I used to try to engage in discussion with the moderators. I've realised that's a waste of my time, since it's practically impossible to get you to change your mind unless you've blatantly made a mistake.

This is generally why I rarely engage with the moderators. Especially when appealing to an infraction. At the end of the day, I realise it's just a waste of my time to make an appeal. IMHO, the mods seem to be distant from the rest of the posters. Weather it be not in discussions and/or lurking in invisible mode like a cop waiting for a speeder.

Not all mods are like this since there were some good ones that I've engaged with on a person to person basis (as opposed to person to moderator basis).

 

[North King]

Try it, and if it happens then you'd be justified in feeling that way. There have been plenty of mods here who have said "PM us." So try it.

There have also been mods in this very thread who have explicitly discouraged suggestions. There have also been suggestions and grievances in this very thread which have been summarily ignored. Or maybe you're discussing them in your invisible forum -- we have no way of knowing. But lacking evidence to the contrary I'll have to assume the ignoring bit.

 

[DaveShack]

I got a PM out of this thread, and responded to it. See, PMs really do work.
I even went to the trouble to PM another member on a different subject without waiting to receive a question.

There are many discussions in staff about how to be more consistent, strict enough to keep it civil, but lenient enough to keep it fun. The vast majority of my limited mod time is devoted to that kind of activity. Others have more time to spend on actual enforcement. Edit: And we have made improvements, just sometimes not all the suggested ones.

You wouldn't know it from the average SF discussion, but the mod action/post ratio is actually quite low. I don't have actual numbers to quote, but there are 100's to 1000's of posts with no action for every post with an action.

 

[NickyJ]

You wouldn't know it from the average SF discussion, but the mod action/post ratio is actually quite low. I don't have actual numbers to quote, but there are 100's to 1000's of posts with no action for every post with an action.

That isn't necessarily a good thing. Sometimes, there are blatant trolls and spammers (no, not the light-hearted type of spam) that post in a topic. It gets reported, yet nothing is done about it. However, if someone posts something light-hearted, or even just quotes a certain musician in their final post on CFC (leaving CFC for good), they'll get infracted or even banned. That is my main problem with the moderation of OT. They'll ignore particular trolls, but they'll crackdown on perfectly normal posts that are well within the written rules of the site.

 

[GenMarshall]

That's what irks me as well that it's gone to the point where the report button is useless.

 

[Synobun]

Did you try to appeal to the supermods or the admins? Granted, the admins probably would have referred you to the supermods, but there is an appeals process in place for when you feel that the mod who dinged you is not listening to your reasons.

Try it, and if it happens then you'd be justified in feeling that way. There have been plenty of mods here who have said "PM us." So try it.

It is rather inefficient of a system if you have to go to an admin or super mod to get a result. Why can't moderators themselves just be reliable? Is that too hard?

I got a PM out of this thread, and responded to it. See, PMs really do work.
I even went to the trouble to PM another member on a different subject without waiting to receive a question.

There are many discussions in staff about how to be more consistent, strict enough to keep it civil, but lenient enough to keep it fun. The vast majority of my limited mod time is devoted to that kind of activity. Others have more time to spend on actual enforcement. Edit: And we have made improvements, just sometimes not all the suggested ones.

You wouldn't know it from the average SF discussion, but the mod action/post ratio is actually quite low. I don't have actual numbers to quote, but there are 100's to 1000's of posts with no action for every post with an action.

Saying that you got a PM proves that the moderator system is a-okay is really, really, terribly wrong. While some of us do get ignored, moderators tend to respond, but they usually respond with "It's the rules. Bye." or something along those lines, and any argument further simply gets the same response or then you get ignored.

I also feel that this thread would have a lot more specific complaints if they were allowed to say it. I had 3 posts deleted in this thread because I first 1) specifically complained, and then, 2) congratulated the mod on deleting my posts, and then promptly got a PM going "NO PDMA K THX" after I complained for the third time.

You're never going to find out what we EXACTLY think is wrong if you simply silence us.

 

[DaveShack]

You're never going to find out what we EXACTLY think is wrong if you simply silence us.

I'm not sure why this is so hard. You can say what you think is wrong in general terms in public, or you can give specifics in private. That's a very easy rule to understand. There don't appear to be any signs that it will change. I have plenty of inbox space.

 

[Synobun]

I'm not sure why this is so hard. You can say what you think is wrong in general terms in public, or you can give specifics in private. That's a very easy rule to understand. There don't appear to be any signs that it will change. I have plenty of inbox space.

Private to whom, exactly? A supermod? Still a mod. An Admin? Takes them days to even read it and even then, they'd probably just post it in the mod forum to see what the mods think. Then in turn, the moderators will be able to have hidden bias against you in the future. Yay, what an achievement?

Private sort of defeats the purpose, too. Doing everything behind closed doors simply encourages people to keep their mouth shut or to post vague messages in a support thread, which, conveniently enough, is what we're doing right now.

 

[Maniacal]

I got a PM out of this thread, and responded to it. See, PMs really do work.
I even went to the trouble to PM another member on a different subject without waiting to receive a question.

Well congratulations on actually responding to PMs in a timely manner, but that isn't true of all the mods. However, I am unlikely to contact someone whom I have hardly ever seen post and actually I don't even know which parts of the forums you moderate. You could be an amazing and very active civ4 subforum poster but that wouldn't be my first thought of someone to contact about an issue in OT, AoG or with the forums in general.

There are many discussions in staff about how to be more consistent, strict enough to keep it civil, but lenient enough to keep it fun. The vast majority of my limited mod time is devoted to that kind of activity. Others have more time to spend on actual enforcement. Edit: And we have made improvements, just sometimes not all the suggested ones.

That's cool, but if it is all done behind closed doors we have no idea if anything is actually really going on or getting done unless there is some big announcement about it like the RD threads. It also lends the impression that user feedback is usually ignored.

You wouldn't know it from the average SF discussion, but the mod action/post ratio is actually quite low. I don't have actual numbers to quote, but there are 100's to 1000's of posts with no action for every post with an action.

Well there are The_j's statistics threads, but I don't really know what you're getting at here. Are you saying there are hundreds of posts they don't infract that they should, or that most mods don't actually give out that many infractions?

 

[North King]

I'm not sure why this is so hard. You can say what you think is wrong in general terms in public, or you can give specifics in private. That's a very easy rule to understand. There don't appear to be any signs that it will change. I have plenty of inbox space.

This is "so hard" because

I'm not really invested in this topic at all, but I do have to say that this is one of the most ridiculous rules you could have in this context. Providing evidence and examples is one of the most important facets of a competent, cogent argument. By stripping that away, you're neutering any idea that we could raise, and ultimately making posters' commentary look weak because they're forced to deal in such vague terminology.

Quoted because I can't be bothered to rephrase something when no one bothered to respond to it coherently yet.

Suggestions in a public place allow for

1) People to make additional suggestions, or to nuance ones already stated.
2) To allow the mods to actually take the pulse of the community, rather than work based off of scattered PMs.
3) Gives the forum the impression that you actually care.
4) Allows frustrated posters the knowledge that their problems are, in fact, being addressed.
5) Allows for people to defend their criticisms and suggestions to the moderator community, instead of allowing the moderators to effectively pick away at the argument.
6) Gives people a precedent for future, similar cases.
7) Fosters a friendlier community atmosphere between moderators and forum-goers.
8) Will shut up people who are whining about "mod bias" if they in fact have no data to back up these supposed trends.
9) Will stop mods from poo-pooing these biases (if they do in fact exist) by claiming ignorance of them.

The reasons for not allowing PDMA, as have been previously articulated to me, are:

1) It will force moderators into the awkward position of defending individual infractions.
2) It will ruin the image of solidarity among moderators and make them look weak.

Well, 1 is easily solved. I already mentioned how in that post which no one gave a cogent reply to. 2 is less simply solved, but also a less serious problem. The moderators are already so disrespected by the community at present that revealing a sympathetic individual among you would probably just improve your image.

Posters should be mature enough to be able to deal with this. If they tromp into the thread and PDMA in a stupid fashion, then infract them.

I, in turn, am not sure why this is so hard. It's not a slippery slope to anarchy because moderators hold all the power here. If it gets out of hand, it can be pretty easily cleaned up. As it currently stands, PDMA occurs all the time, just in public venues which happen to not be located on CFC. This is how I know exactly which situations everyone in this thread is talking about despite never frequenting OT, and never getting in trouble with the moderators in question. By forcing these discussions off-site, you are not helping anything; if anything you are adding to a besieged mentality.

In any case, I don't really expect good replies anymore, or any sort of reply, but as I said before, I'm not particularly invested...

 

[Moss]

North King, a lot of what you suggest is what SF is for. It's perfectly fine to discuss rule changes, or discuss rules in general. The only thing we disallow is specific PDMA.

As for taking the pulse of the community, we've had in the past couple of years, 2 OT surveys - the first one had a bunch of responses, the second one, hardly anyone responded. We also have a rules discussion group - both of those - the surveys and the rules discussion - HAVE helped moderators get the pulse of the community and changes were made because of those things. We also make changes due to suggestions in posted right here in SF.

 

[North King]

No, that is not "a lot of what (I) suggest." The entire suggestion is oriented around the PDMA issue. Do not characterize my post as suggesting that people should be allowed to talk about moderators "in general." That is precisely counter to what the post says.

This is getting ridiculous.

 

[Moss]

No, that is not "a lot of what (I) suggest." The entire suggestion is oriented around the PDMA issue. Do not characterize my post as suggesting that people should be allowed to talk about moderators "in general." That is precisely counter to what the post says.

This is getting ridiculous.

My apologies for misreading your post.

 

[DaveShack]

If you want real suggestions for how to change things, you'd allow posts which outline systematic biases in moderation. PDMA should be allowed if you can cite >10 separate examples* of a trend in moderation; this way it is not directed at a specific infraction, but rather towards underlying trends which we've all been doing a verbal dance around for the past seven pages.


*arbitrary number

Could this be done in a way which eliminates references to specific members and moderators? I would think that would be a requirement for anything like this to be even considered, as including the member/moderator identities would make it sanctioned trolling/flaming. It still might be a hard sell, so no promises.

 

[GenMarshall]

As for taking the pulse of the community, we've had in the past couple of years, 2 OT surveys - the first one had a bunch of responses, the second one, hardly anyone responded.

I think it was perhaps due to the "Server is busy" that was plaguing the forums at the time.

 

[Camikaze]

This thread has become a little unwieldy. Having not read it in one sitting, I'm having trouble thinking what the specific complaints actually are. I don't have time right now, so if someone would like to go through the thread and summarise the complaints raised (avoiding PDMA), that would be great.

No-one?

I see.