'Liking' Posts is Now PDMA: A Discussion

[ori]

discussion is still ongoing - albeit slowly. So no it is not yet "soonish" - but then again it is taking longer than I'd like to... Reminders like this are very welcome by the way.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

discussion is still ongoing - albeit slowly. So no it is not yet "soonish" - but then again it is taking longer than I'd like to... Reminders like this are very welcome by the way.

Thanks for replying. It helps to know that staff is still actively discussing this.

 

[Buster's Uncle]

A word about being a jerk that might be genuinely helpful to staff discussions - manners and perspective on are a little bad to be dependent on where you're from, because native culture. Like, I've seen atheist European mods make very bad calls because the religious insults being protested didn't look rude at all to the irreligious. It's relative. -And that can suck, because insulting someone's religious belief can be the most toxic discourtesy of all.

I've had a minor argument just this week, on a related note, with a blog owner about a comments thread; he rewarded a couple of rude killjoys, the sort who stomp into harmless frivolous silly comedy OT threads they don't like to engage in major buzzkill action, and ruin everyone's fun getting it closed instead of just not reading. [shrug] Great guy, but I'm from Nawth Car'lina, and he's from Joisy - and I'm confident there's a cultural understanding gap going, that I found the courtesy issue significant, and it didn't seem on his radar at all.

Point being, I dunno, maybe best to err on the side of more exacting courtesy standards wherever the manager handling is from, seeking a wise balance between Nawth Car'lina and Joisy w/o being unbearably oppressive to the latter...

 

[Synobun]

I've had a minor argument just this week, on a related note, with a blog owner about a comments thread; he rewarded a couple of rude killjoys, the sort who stomp into harmless frivolous silly comedy OT threads they don't like to engage in major buzzkill action, and ruin everyone's fun getting it closed instead of just not reading. [shrug] Great guy, but I'm from Nawth Car'lina, and he's from Joisy - and I'm confident there's a cultural understanding gap going, that I found the courtesy issue significant, and it didn't seem on his radar at all.

Point being, I dunno, maybe best to err on the side of more exacting courtesy standards wherever the manager handling is from, seeking a wise balance between Nawth Car'lina and Joisy w/o being unbearably oppressive to the latter...

I don't know how intuitive such a practice would end up being, especially with the infraction review system in place. The culture of the moderator does imply an inherent bias in how they perceive certain behaviours but it's their job to shelve these biases as much as possible in deference to the 'rule of law'. Reverting this slightly so that the moderator's culture means more seems like something that would have a negative impact on moderation in general on CFC.

 

[Buster's Uncle]

Reverting? Oh, heck to tha noes. I was suggesting that a member calling something rude frivolously might not be hysterical after all, and moderators, very counterintuitively, might be able to improve their performance by trying to keep it in mind and err on the side of encouraging the polite and being careful of their individual and understandable biases of perception. On Skype, I just told the atheist European mod who blew it for me once that I was talking about him here.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

I don't know how intuitive such a practice would end up being, especially with the infraction review system in place. The culture of the moderator does imply an inherent bias in how they perceive certain behaviours but it's their job to shelve these biases as much as possible in deference to the 'rule of law'. Reverting this slightly so that the moderator's culture means more seems like something that would have a negative impact on moderation in general on CFC.

My views on moderator bias and trolling involving religion can be found here (last paragraph in the post). This is why it's helpful to have a diverse roster of moderators, so that what one person doesn't pick up on, another one will.

Not sure what this has to do with the thread topic, btw.

 

[Synobun]

My views on moderator bias and trolling involving religion can be found here (last paragraph in the post). This is why it's helpful to have a diverse roster of moderators, so that what one person doesn't pick up on, another one will.

This is true. During my short tenure there were a couple instances where the offensiveness of a statement was lost on most of us ('us' being the moderators at the time) until set straight by a couple others who were more in-the-know about the context.

This can be hit-or-miss, of course, as sometimes a moderator's opinion of what is offensive could be the outlier. And then you have to combat the potential of something being personally offensive to the moderator but not necessarily offensive from an actual conduct perspective. Having multiple people on staff all from different walks of life helps prevent these mistakes or misinterpretations.

Not sure what this has to do with the thread topic, btw.

It's related to the "don't be a jerk" rule side tangent.

 

[Buster's Uncle]

Might be a good idea to keep an eye pealed for sensible members who are, for example, partaking in the religion of submission as consultants to run specific related sorts of things past - I wouldn't dream, for another example, of rushing into judging the level of racism in a remark about people of color if I had some people of color handy whom I could just ask before trying to rule for the greatest good.

What's rude and what isn't is highly contextual. -Much depends on the demographics of the staff, of course..

 

[Buster's Uncle]

Hmm. I'd like to think I'm growing out of needing to win arguments on the net, but it suits my persuasive purpose and honest intent to try to be helpful, two weeks later to the day, to harp on this:

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.

Called it!

 

[AtlantaMarty]

You're in a heated discussion with another poster. That poster crosses the line and gets reprimanded by the moderator. You like the moderator's post. That like comes across as a message to your opponent: ha, ha, the moderator has shut you down. Stuff like that.

So, what? Overly strict moderation doesn't benefit anyone. I can understand why aggressive flame wars and low-effort crap-posting are prohibited here, but a lot of the rules on this forum are overly anal-retentive.

My suggestion would be to relax the rules and moderation on this forum, especially with regards to PDMA and mild off-topic posting. Posting irrelevant nonsense should still be prohibited, but light socialization or banter is fine.

Is thinking about moderator activity still allowed?

At the rate things are going, it will be grounds for a permaban by 2020...

 

[Synobun]

I feel one can be opposed to this possible policy without equating it with a dystopian regime.

 

[AtlantaMarty]

I feel one can be opposed to this possible policy without equating it with a dystopian regime.

I'm opposed to PDMA, which I feel serves no purpose other than to make moderators seem above reproach. This proposed policy takes PDMA to a ridiculously Orwellian level.

 

[Gori the Grey]

So, what?

Dude, I wasn't defending the policy. I was answering Tolni's question as to in what circumstances this could function as PDMA. For myself, I think moderation here could sometimes be conducted with a lighter hand.

 

[AtlantaMarty]

Dude, I wasn't defending the policy. I was answering Tolni's question as to in what circumstances this could function as PDMA. For myself, I think moderation here could sometimes be conducted with a lighter hand.

PDMA needs to go, ASAP.

 

[Arakhor]

Well, that's unlikely to happen.

 

[AtlantaMarty]

Well, that's unlikely to happen.

I know, which is quite unfortunate for this forum.

 

[Ryika]

discussion is still ongoing - albeit slowly. So no it is not yet "soonish" - but then again it is taking longer than I'd like to... Reminders like this are very welcome by the way.

Any news on this?

 

[leif erikson]

We are not going to automatically infract for PDMA because someone Likes a post. We will still evaluate each situation and contact those that we feel are trying to create issues by doing so.

 

[Synobun]

We are not going to automatically infract for PDMA because someone Likes a post. We will still evaluate each situation and contact those that we feel are trying to create issues by doing so.

I've noticed lately that it's been "okay" to reply to segments of moderator actions to request clarification publicly (by okay, I just mean not infracted or specifically discouraged afterwards). Are the PDMA rules in general loosening a little to allow fact-finding questions?

 

[Browd]

There has been no change in policy -- even questions requesting clarification should be done by private conversation. That said, individual moderators may let innocent violations slide from time to time.