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

[JollyRoger]

We have Red Diamond threads were the moderation is allegedly tougher than standard. Why not experiment with the anti-Red Diamond - specially designated threads where there is very little moderation? Those that choose to participate in the thread know that the discussion will be a bit more of a free-for-all. With the trolling and flaming directed there, perhaps there might be less of it in the standard threads.

If the anti-Red Diamond concept is more or less popular in use than the Red Diamond concept, it might give the moderation team a better idea of what the community really wants.

 

[Birdjaguar]

Well, that would be interesting, but I am not sure staff could ever agree on what the standards for such threads would be. At a minimum we could not allow mean or hateful posts.

 

[GhostWriter16]

I think JR has a good idea here. Outright flaming, racism, death threats, that sort of thing should be disallowed everywhere, but the more harmless "Joking with friends" variety of trolling and rampant spam could perhaps be allowed in such a thread.

 

[JollyRoger]

Well, that would be interesting, but I am not sure staff could ever agree on what the standards for such threads would be. At a minimum we could not allow mean or hateful posts.

Obviously, any poster who has not entered the thread is off limits. Mean and hateful would be off the table, but it should be fairly clear as mean or hateful. There is a segment of OT that wants to engage on a more free-for-all level and there is an audience that would find it entertaining. This allows to serve a market demand and keep it restricted to a portion of threads, rather than every thread in OT.

 

[ParadigmShifter]

Mean and hateful posts are already tolerated. If you point it out, you get infracted and sometimes even insulted, by the mods.

 

[JollyRoger]

I, for one, would dial back quite a bit in standard threads if there was a free-for-all option.

 

[ParadigmShifter]

Any policy that makes JR post more gets my vote.

 

[NickyJ]

Obviously, any poster who has not entered the thread is off limits. Mean and hateful would be off the table, but it should be fairly clear as mean or hateful. There is a segment of OT that wants to engage on a more free-for-all level and there is an audience that would find it entertaining. This allows to serve a market demand and keep it restricted to a portion of threads, rather than every thread in OT.

I like that. I'll start polishing my gladiator armor, in hopes the mods look into this.

 

[JollyRoger]

There has been some discussion in this thread on how to have an open discussion on trolling & flaming with examples of posts.

Why not take some posts from a heated thread, such as this one:

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=456995

and get permission from posters to have their posts publically discussed. For sake of discussion, you can pick out a number of posts or a particularally heated portion of an exchange. So far as I recall, no posts have yet been infracted, so there would be no moderator defending a personal action, just an open discussion of how the community feels certain types of posts should be moderated. I would opt in my posts, so long as I am allowed to openly defend or explain them.

Perhaps have the thread in OT (maybe even stickied) so you get wide participation.

 

[classical_hero]

I think we should have a separate forum for Religions and the stuff like that, so we can discuss things freely.

 

[JollyRoger]

I think we should have a separate forum for Religions and the stuff like that, so we can discuss things freely.

Separation of church and state threads?

 

[Camikaze]

So far as I recall, no posts have yet been infracted, so there would be no moderator defending a personal action, just an open discussion of how the community feels certain types of posts should be moderated.

PDMA rules cover moderator action and inaction (as inaction is often a conscious action).

 

[JollyRoger]

PDMA rules cover moderator action and inaction (as inaction is often a conscious action).

I recognize that. My point was, in reviewing an uninfracted slate (whether worthy of infraction or not) a moderator is not singled out for criticism in the open discussion. The thread I linked to has posts new enough to have not been acted or inacted on at this point.

 

[Birdjaguar]

I recognize that. My point was, in reviewing an uninfracted slate (whether worthy of infraction or not) a moderator is not singled out for criticism in the open discussion. The thread I linked to has posts new enough to have not been acted or inacted on at this point.

You must be a lawyer.

This has been a really good thread.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

Obviously, any poster who has not entered the thread is off limits. Mean and hateful would be off the table, but it should be fairly clear as mean or hateful. There is a segment of OT that wants to engage on a more free-for-all level and there is an audience that would find it entertaining. This allows to serve a market demand and keep it restricted to a portion of threads, rather than every thread in OT.

Isn't something like that already available? I believe it's called "fiftychat."

PDMA rules cover moderator action and inaction (as inaction is often a conscious action).

At some point, you guys are going to come up with a rule that says anybody who even mentions a moderator's name or the fact that he (and Chieftess) exist is committing PDMA.

Honestly, it's one thing to point to something in mod tags and say, "That's PDMA." It's there, and we can see it. But to say that actions that are not taken are also PDMA is ridiculous, since:

A. Nobody can see that it not-happened;

B. There are many different reasons why no action might have been taken, ranging from no moderator being on duty for several hours or a couple of days, to the very unhelpful "nat" notation that doesn't tend to make clear if the person posting it means he didn't take any action, or he doesn't think any action needs to be taken... to a thread spanning 4 pages where 6 moderators argue a dozen ways from Sunday about a particular incident over a period of 3 days, and in the end conclude (not necessarily unanimously) that no action should be taken.



When the regular members have no idea which of these scenarios is closest to the truth, how can justice and fairness be SEEN to be done - something that ainwood always stressed?

 

[Atticus]

At some point, you guys are going to come up with a rule that says anybody who even mentions a moderator's name or the fact that he (and Chieftess) exist is committing PDMA.

That's ridiculous! Of course it's not PDMA. It's PDME, public discussion of moderator existence. Notice also that similarly PDME of nonexistent moderators is forbidden.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

"To be" is a verb. Verbs are actions.

I realize you're trying to inject some humor here, Atticus, but I'm not kidding.

 

[JollyRoger]

Isn't something like that already available? I believe it's called "fiftychat."

Sure, that's where some non-moderators freely give their take with an occassional appearance by a moderator. What I am talking about is an open discussion here between the community where specific posts can be discussed. I think I have addressed some of the key objections that were brought up when this type of discussion was proposed by others earlier in this thread.

EDIT: In closer reading of what you quoted from my post, it appears I missed the point you were addressing. Fiftychat only contains a subset of OT posters and, so far as I can tell, those that members of Fiftychat would more freely engage with on OT rarely brave fiftychat and when they do, there is a general dialing back. Plus, it is in chat format, not a forum which really cuts against sustained debate.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

EDIT: In closer reading of what you quoted from my post, it appears I missed the point you were addressing. Fiftychat only contains a subset of OT posters and, so far as I can tell, those that members of Fiftychat would more freely engage with on OT rarely brave fiftychat and when they do, there is a general dialing back. Plus, it is in chat format, not a forum which really cuts against sustained debate.

I'm glad you realized what I was getting at. And you're right in that the chat format doesn't help sustained debate. I've tried chat (not that particular one, though), and neither my fingers nor my brain can keep up with the conversation fast enough to follow what's going on. I don't even like the way Yahoo! groups do it, since it's so easy to get the timeline and context mixed up.

 

[Birdjaguar]

What I am talking about is an open discussion here between the community where specific posts can be discussed. I think I have addressed some of the key objections that were brought up when this type of discussion was proposed by others earlier in this thread.

I'd like a solution where such discussions are not needed. Posters and moderators "guessing" at what is acceptable is not a good solution. I'm pretty sure that my desired clarity can only come through significant structural changes that shape posting habits. For example, in NESing we have the WWW thread (while we wait) to collect most of the spammy chatter and keep it out of the game threads. Content and moderation expectations are different in WWW than elsewhere. Now, this example is not on the scale of OT, but it does illustrate the concept.