'Liking' Posts is Now PDMA: A Discussion

[TheMeInTeam]

After Pdox devs got slapped by dislikes on certain moderator actions they simply removed the ability to like/dislike moderated posts outright. Is that not feasible in a technical sense on CFC?

Likes are a difficult thing to interpret and in most cases I personally would not interpret them at all - excemptions being likes of posts that only have one possible interpretation - liking a post purely and unequivocally flaming another user would in my view be just as rule breaking as the post itself

In this case the post itself is quite likely scrubbed, and the like with it. Even in this instance, the like is not the same as writing out the words. It could even conceivably be accidental (I have liked random posts accidentally a few times when clicking between tabs. Flaming is rare, so these were just arbitrary posts, but still). This forum isn't in the habit of leaving pure flame posts around anyway, so surely the potential for this shouldn't be a serious consideration when it comes to enforcing/moderator actions.

Regardless, liking a flame post is presumably *not* the same thing as liking a moderator post and would not fall under PDMA anyway (let's hope CFC is never at such a level anyway ). The biggest potential problem with liking a moderator post is when someone you were arguing with gets a moderator action on them --> poster likes that moderator post. That's kind of childish, but is it worth the work to globally police over it?

 

[ori]

as for the technical side I have no idea if it is possible to merely remove likes from mod action posts (could be possible to remove likes from moderators as they are defined by user groups - but that would do nothing with regards to posts we edit our actions in - also of course it would deprive everyone of the ability to like the generally awesome and helpful and whatnot posts that moderators post when not doing anything official .

Anyways in the post you quoted I tried to describe atleast some of the reasoning that would lead us to such a policy and some of the problems we face with interpreting the like system. My personal view (and this now does not reflect site policy as it is right now) is that absent some rather obvious misuses of the like system (which I can envision in theory but would then deal with as breaking general site rules, or in OT the "don't be a jerk rule", without the need for a public policy on anything), interpreting likes one way or another is a fool's errant and they should really be simply ignored with respect to site policy (be that PDMA or other rules).

 

[Synobun]

After Pdox devs got slapped by dislikes on certain moderator actions they simply removed the ability to like/dislike moderated posts outright. Is that not feasible in a technical sense on CFC?

I don't think it's possible natively on Xenforo. However, I'm not familiar with the back-end at all. Paradox likely employs a suite that expands on the 'like' system to a far greater degree than the software usually supports. This likely costs money, either to maintain or develop (if they got it custom-made). I don't know the specifics behind it as I haven't looked into it so what I'm saying could be woefully incorrect.

Conceivably, it's possible to make it so that any post with a mod tag removes the ability for the post to be liked. It's possible from a technical standpoint. Whether or not that's feasible/viable to actually incorporate is something else. If it's something Paradox got developed for their forums privately, the cost would be exorbitant for CFC to emulate or borrow.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

That's good news; keep us posted on your progress. You could even post the best arguments (unsigned) from each side in the discussion if there are two sides.

Why should they be unsigned? If we're accountable for our arguments, let specific staff members be accountable for theirs.

the "don't be a jerk rule"

The problem with the "don't be a jerk" rule is that it's far too vague. I've seen plenty of jerk behavior that goes undealt-with, even after detailed explanations as to why the post falls into the category of a "jerk post."

 

[TheMeInTeam]

I don't think it's possible natively on Xenforo. However, I'm not familiar with the back-end at all. Paradox likely employs a suite that expands on the 'like' system to a far greater degree than the software usually supports. This likely costs money, either to maintain or develop (if they got it custom-made). I don't know the specifics behind it as I haven't looked into it so what I'm saying could be woefully incorrect.

Conceivably, it's possible to make it so that any post with a mod tag removes the ability for the post to be liked. It's possible from a technical standpoint. Whether or not that's feasible/viable to actually incorporate is something else. If it's something Paradox got developed for their forums privately, the cost would be exorbitant for CFC to emulate or borrow.

Fair enough. I was wondering if it's an easy option and it looks like the answer to that is "no".

The problem with the "don't be a jerk" rule is that it's far too vague. I've seen plenty of jerk behavior that goes undealt-with, even after detailed explanations as to why the post falls into the category of a "jerk post."

Yeah, there's a ton of room for bias to crop up in how such a rule is moderated, even unintentional bias would be expected so long as the moderator is human.

 

[ori]

I actually agree that that particular rule is not terribly fleshed out and this reminds me to bump an internal discussion I started a couple months ago on that point - lets say I expect some more explanation about what it means to come along soonish. That said hard and fast rules are not terribly good for forum moderation with the exception of things that are essentially binary (spam, banned words/phrases, some flaming rules) and problematic behavior will almost always be context dependent and frankly any moderator action on that will also be user dependent as we do treat repeat offenders differently than those that generally have fine posts so some or even a lot of leeway for moderators is actually a good thing in my view - in cases of problematic moderator actions users should appeal any warnings and we do discuss those as well as reported posts in which opinions differ quite a bit which does edge us towards a commonish approach on moderation. I think what OT moderation suffers from more than lack of reasonably clear guidance is lack of moderation in that moderation time has been limited in the past and not all problematic behavior was acted upon as it was simply not seen. We did make the conscious choice to allow standards of civility to be less strictly enforced in OT than in all other parts of this forum but the lesser enforcement standards then slipped a bit for lack of moderator activity.

 

[Zack]

Pardon the minor PDMA here. It was recently revealed that 'liking' moderator actions will now constitute as an infractable offense.

Is thinking about moderator activity still allowed?

 

[metatron]

Liking a moderator's post consisting exclusively of a mod action (in whatever color) should not be allowed.
Of course that is PDMA. Obviously it is.
It's practically a vote on the mod action.

Frankly, the mods occasionally appear tempted enough by vague "democratic" (in the worst sense) sensibilities in the realm of vague categories such as "rudeness" and "offensiveness" as it is.
Less of that would be good, not more by way of allowing public votes on mod actions.
I am sure they try their best. But that's what it is, what with all of us being human.

The practicality of the prohibition i am endorsing here is another matter.
I would think, though, that most cases could be easily resolved by a friendly copy-pasted 3 line PM explaining the policy.

 

[x2Madda]

The solution is simple and has always been simple since 'likes' were introduced.
Remove the option to like any post. It adds nothing to an ongoing conversation and often becomes a beating stick, a metric that I am correct or incorrect not based on logic or reason but because my like stick is bigger than yours.
People get heated and conflict is normal behavior hence why we have moderators in the first place so adding a bunch of knives to the floor and telling people to only use them to eat food with and certainly not stab each other is just not going to happen.

Not once, not ever once, on civfanatics has liking a post helped cement a viewpoint, make change for the better or improved the visibility of meaningful posts. We do not have a reddit system here where things rated highly float to the top and things rated negatively become obscured so all it serves for is e-peen points.

Please for the sake of reason, just disable the like system.

 

[Hygro]

or improved the visibility of meaningful posts.

I've skimmed past posts only to see respected posters liked it and went back to enjoy what I would have missed.

 

[x2Madda]

I've skimmed past posts only to see respected posters liked it and went back to enjoy what I would have missed.

Not saying your attitude is wrong or right, it works for you. If anything however it highlights why a system like reddit works as well as it does where as here, you can (and probably do) miss important posts simply because they are not sexy enough for the community to upvote them.

If I say "you can win a space victory in 10 turns by doing certain things", that is interesting but may not garner anywhere near as many likes (or any at all) as it would if I say "this someone is a stupid idiot who should kill themselves and here is my top 10 list as to why".
There is a reason we live in an era of commercialized news and it's because it works.

I feel civfanatics should be for people who love the game and want to discuss it meaningfully and respectfully not a place to try and garner the most likes in order for senpai to notice them. Those forums already exist, they are called reddit, steam and *****.

Edit: I cannot help but feel a sense of irony that 40cheeps is censored.

 

[warpus]

Why should they be unsigned? If we're accountable for our arguments, let specific staff members be accountable for theirs.


The problem with the "don't be a jerk" rule is that it's far too vague. I've seen plenty of jerk behavior that goes undealt-with, even after detailed explanations as to why the post falls into the category of a "jerk post."

I've seen straight up sexism and racism that was not dealt with, so I don't think too much of the "don't be a jerk" rule.

As for the likes, the mods gave us the ability to like posts. If you don't want us to like certain posts, take away our ability to do so. If you can't, don't make stupid rules saying we can't like certain posts.

 

[Horizons]

It is very gratifying to the ego to receive likes.

The world needs more love and positivity. I've noticed that the internet has very little of either.

 

[Birdjaguar]

I feel civfanatics should be for people who love the game and want to discuss it meaningfully and respectfully not a place to try and garner the most likes in order for senpai to notice them. Those forums already exist, they are called reddit, steam and *****.

Well there are folks here who don't play civ at all anymore. Maybe they should turn off likes in the civ forums only.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

Not saying your attitude is wrong or right, it works for you. If anything however it highlights why a system like reddit works as well as it does where as here, you can (and probably do) miss important posts simply because they are not sexy enough for the community to upvote them.

"Sexy"?

If I say "you can win a space victory in 10 turns by doing certain things", that is interesting but may not garner anywhere near as many likes (or any at all) as it would if I say "this someone is a stupid idiot who should kill themselves and here is my top 10 list as to why".

Advocating suicide is a serious breach of forum rules on this site, whether directed to a member or someone else.

I feel civfanatics should be for people who love the game and want to discuss it meaningfully and respectfully not a place to try and garner the most likes in order for senpai to notice them. Those forums already exist, they are called reddit, steam and *****.

Considering that CFC existed for many years before the "like" system came in (only since XenForo), people's motivation for posting here was hardly to garner "likes."

The two main groups of posters on this site are Civ players and Colosseum posters. As with many people, I first came here for the Civ forums; I spent a lot of time in the Civ II, III, and IV subforums. Then out of curiosity I wandered down to the Colosseum, found some interesting conversations, and have mostly stayed there. I do take a wander through Civ II occasionally as my favorite Civ game is ToT. Sometimes a new person (new to ToT) will ask for tips or explanations of strategy and how to use the multi-level maps in that game. I'm happy to share the strategies that have worked for me and to talk about some of the game's absurdities.

Some people who are Colosseum regulars either don't play Civ or haven't played Civ in a long time. That doesn't mean they merit someone looking down his nose at them and accusing them of only being here for the "likes."

And there are plenty of CFC members who are active Civ players, modders, strategists, and who are active participants in Colosseum discussions. It's the best of both worlds, in my not remotely humble opinion.

 

[Hygro]

Well there are folks here who don't play civ at all anymore. Maybe they should turn off likes in the civ forums only.

Off topic is best topic.

 

[Sonereal]

I feel civfanatics should be for people who love the game and want to discuss it meaningfully and respectfully not a place to try and garner the most likes in order for senpai to notice them.

Most people honestly don't get bent out of shape about getting likes. This isn't a thing that happens. This thing that you are complaining about isn't happening.

I disagree with the idea of turning off likes in the Civilization forums. Its a quick and easy way to say "hey that was good/funny/insightful/I liked it" without having to post.

 

[Buster's Uncle]

Yah - we risk infraction if we post briefly enough just to agree, and sometimes that's all you have to say. That like button beats posting with just the nod smilie and "5char".


Y'know, I retired from fighting the power at CFC when Petek was promoted, out of respect for, and trust of, him - that I haven't had any problems here worth bringing up in the interim helps, too. But the policy at issue very strongly strikes me as --- unwisely looking for something to be a problem, thus making a problem.

I know from experience here in Site that when I ask "Where's the harm if members use a positive-feedback-only mechanism to support management action they approve of? I've read the reasoning and find it to be looking for a problem unlikely to be proven in reality; where's the harm?" attempts to even answer are unlikely -no one's ever attempted to answer my old question of why CFC needs a PDMA rule and I don't running my place- and the probability of a satisfactory answer approaches zero. I submit that we, as the common members who make up CFC, ought to have enough say in how our place is run to be allowed at least doggon positive feedback on individual management behavior as if most of us are freakin' adults.

What you gentlemen traditionally address with inflexible hard-butt rules, if often sketchily enforced (which is problematic in itself), I, usually a one-man management band at AC2, address with not going looking for every little thing going on that I don't much care for to become a problem, asking myself if a problem is really a problem, talking to my people and doing a lot of moderating-that-doesn't-look-like-moderating - and the biggest (near only serious) problem I ever have to deal with is when somebody comes after me, an inherent risk of personal-touch buddy-moderating when I have to manage my own personal disputes. "AH," you say, "but that's why PDMA, BU; we are volunteer servants of the community and we are not here to be abused." -And I'm not either, but I have all the power and own the place, and that inequity morally obligates me to be willing to take more crap than I'd allow anyone else to be given in my house. I am a member at AC2 as much as anyone else, and official published policy is that I may invoke my member rights at some reasonable point - and then go to the gruesome aspect of brandishing the hammer and enforcing, the absolute worst part of the job. "That's foolish masochism," you may say, "doing it the hard way, and besides, you shouldn't be moderating those situations". Well yeah to that last, but I ain't got no choice -shorn of staff d00dz who get the way we want the place run and haven't had kids and gotten too busy to help- and I'd rather do what's right than what's easy.


TL;DR: Likes are a positive-feedback-only mechanism -which ought to be a positive-only feature on the face of it- and if anything immature happens because of it, it can be dealt with and the policy taken out and amended. PDMA is doing what's easy instead of what's right, and ought to be taken out and given a hard looking-over.

Thank you for listening.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

I actually agree that that particular rule is not terribly fleshed out and this reminds me to bump an internal discussion I started a couple months ago on that point - lets say I expect some more explanation about what it means to come along soonish.

Just wondering... is it soonish yet? Is discussion of the "don't be a jerk" rule still happening?

 

[Buster's Uncle]

I couldn't agree more and wish to speak up in support. Nothing can be done about the stealth-trolling that goes on here way too much, alas, but I see just plain open nasty rudeness going on and on on this site w/o so much as a gentle 'knock it off' far too often for far too long.

Far be it from me to advocate staff being more hardcore, but a spirited exchange of ideas among them to reach a better balance may very well be called for.