NES/IOT Merger Poll

[erez87]

Whatever the case the trial will hopefully be wonderful; I look forward to the great co-operations and the potential blurring that will see new identities emerge then just simply NES or IOT. I look forward to help ensure the glories of both houses under the new roof of a great estate we hence create together. May this be but a step in improving the forums.

You do know how to give the red wedding feeling there

 

[Ailedhoo]

You do know how to give the red wedding feeling there

We Lanisters BTLees always pay our debts.

 

[SamSniped]

We Lanisters BTLees always pay our debts.

And no one else in the IOT community frequents that forum as far as I know.

 

[Camikaze]

I legitimately don't understand. Why is something a non-starter? You and EQ are the mods managing this transition. If you brought this to the admins as the community consensus for how a merge could work, they would listen.

I just can't tell if you actively want to antagonize us or you are just incredibly unfamiliar with how political compromise as a concept works.

There's no site position on wanting a merge or not wanting a merge. Individual moderators closer to the communities might have their own opinions, but it doesn't matter to staff as a whole whether 'yes' or 'no' wins. Whether the forums are merged or not is simply a matter of whether those who use those forums would prefer it that way, and the site has no interest in trying to convince people that they would. So we're not trying to sell the 'yes' side of things. As such, this isn't really the right topic to be shoehorning a negotiation into. If you're not happy indicating approval for a merge without a specific proposal, that's fine by us. If you're not happy supporting a merge without other changes, then noting what those changes would be is fair enough, but it's important to understand that this thread isn't a negotiation with staff, and you shouldn't expect us to try switching your vote from a 'no' to a 'yes'. BSmith is just being honest about the prospects of success on those matters raised, not opening a dialogue about how we can convince you to vote 'yes'.

 

[Thlayli]

He's entirely opaque about why, though. We've never known who the moderators are who oppose any of the sensible reforms that have wide-scale majority support, such as PDMA, or improvements in the mod selection process.

To our view, these decisions happen in total secrecy, without context or explanation, and the lack of transparency is extremely frustrating to those of us who seek reform when such an opinion as "That will never work" is basically pulled from what seems to be thin air.

The fact that some "reforms" such as a server merge are given attention to while other reforms such as a PDMA compromise are put off the table is also pretty much an ad hoc thing based on the power and will of the moderators. And you might not be trying to sell us a yes, but BSmith and EQ certainly are. Just read the thread.

Which is another issue, long ignored; the mods claim to act with one voice on matters of policy, but rather like the upper officials of Communist China, you are in reality organized into various opinionated factions behind a veil of secrecy, the members of which are only speculated at, except when specific information on your disagreements is directly told or leaks out to us. Not that we have the privilege of openly discussing your disagreements, as PDMA makes very clear.

In order for something to be a negotiation, you're correct that both sides require leverage of some sort. What you have to ask yourself is what might happen when frustration with the moderator culture at CFC rises to a certain level, and whether or not that will be a greater impediment to the proper functioning of the site going forward.

If you don't see the slow decline of a forum based on creative talent because of this medieval leadership system, perhaps you simply need to reconsider how it could be better. It becomes necessary for me and others to broaden the discussion beyond a server merge, because it seems highly unlikely that the moderators will ever embrace a culture of democracy and accountability without sustained outside pressure to do so.

The historical record for the behaviors of privileged groups and their willingness to surrender power is far too informative in that regard.

 

[BSmith1068]

I legitimately don't understand. Why is something a non-starter? You and EQ are the mods managing this transition. If you brought this to the admins as the community consensus for how a merge could work, they would listen.

I just can't tell if you actively want to antagonize us or you are just incredibly unfamiliar with how political compromise as a concept works.

To further Camikaze's point, I am not trying to antagonize anything. I am trying to provide my input as someone who can see both sides of the "negotiation" here and apply my knowledge of the attitudes of staff and how CFC as a whole is organized and run.

I am not trying to belittle your suggestions or demean you personally. I know that you are coming at this with the best of intentions from your perspective and I don't want to take that away from you.

But I also don't want you and others getting excited about something that is just not going to happen. A look a the posts after your suggestion shows IOTers already having an active discussion about potential moderators to elect and their likes and dislikes of said nominations. Not only is this an extremely premature discussion at best, but it was starting to lead to places where moderation would have to step in and enforce forum rules about discussing specific posters in negative ways.

There is a process by which moderators are chosen here on CFC. On rare occasions that process is modified slightly to reflect a specific need or circumstance but even then it is still tightly controlled by staff. CFC never has been, and will likely never be a democracy. Butting your head against that wall is likely only to result in you getting a headache. Doing so in a manner that undermines and demeans the existing members of staff is even less likely to have the desired effect.

I am sorry if this came across as personally insulting or demeaning. It was not intended as such. I am just being honest and realistic in my expectations as to what is possible and what is pie-in-the-sky thinking.

 

[gay_Aleks]

You could also return to the status quo, and pretend the vote and the subsequent discussion never ever happened.

 

[Thlayli]

I'm going to say some difficult things now.

I do not dislike you either BSmith, but nor do I lie when I say that the vast majority of NES and IOT do not want you as a moderator, and that furthermore, you are an active impediment towards improving the situation in our forums.

For how long do you think you can successfully govern a community of people who are steadfastly opposed to your rule? Whether or not you have tried to antagonize anything, I desperately wish that you had never been appointed to govern NES in Birdjaguar's stead, for it was your appointment, and your utter unfamiliarity with the people whom you governed, that led to the Amon crisis and the Frontier rebellion. That never would have happened under Birdjaguar, but it happened under you.

IOT is now in a state of functional anarchy where you hardly even set foot, according to the IOTers I speak to. You constantly speak of the RL demands on your time which make it impossible for you to participate in the communities you govern, but it seems clear to me that these selfsame demands make it very hard for you to effectively govern our communities.

In all honesty BSmith, the best thing you could do for our communities is to step down. And on behalf of the IOT/NES consultation group, I feel confident in saying that Tyo, thomas.berubeg, and SK will ultimately second my vote of no confidence.

I have already made the required consultations with IOT, and if you put the matter to a vote, you will find that the vast majority of forum members would seek your replacement. Again, none of this is personal. It's just the way things are. I urge you to step down, moderate another forum, and then maybe get to know us in your limited free time by playing a NES or an IOT. My door is always open.

But we do not want you as our moderator, and we never did. Please don't force yourself on a community that doesn't want you.

 

[Sonereal]

The biggest reason the moderation doesn't come into IOT often is because they're not called in often except to hand out for infractions for extremely aggressive forum arguments between players that derail games, and those interventions are usually quiet affairs involving just the post getting infracted and the moderator not posting. The last major incident needing heavy moderation intervention was like, three years ago. The last time a moderator was called in because a player reported a GM to the moderation, the incident was resolved quickly in favor of the GM.

I am, however, against the democratic approval or removal of moderation on any and all boards. Power to select moderation should ultimately remain in the hands of the owner and admins.

 

[Civ'ed]

I think BSmith's a good mod, and who exactly is the majority of IOT?

 

[gay_Aleks]

Well, I have not seen enough of BSmith to judge him. I do not know how would a merge effect him. If it'll have any merge.

For all it's worth, a "democratic" election of mod is a slippery slope that could lead to God knows where.

 

[Mosher]

However the mods are picked, whether democratically or picked by the administration staff, or (I heard a good suggestion by polyblank - people pm mods their picks who would make a good mod and why) I think that it's important that we have mods that are active in the community and represent its best interests, so that that mod can properly mediate disputes.

 

[Thlayli]

However the mods are picked, whether democratically or picked by the administration staff, or (I heard a good suggestion by polyblank - people pm mods their picks who would make a good mod and why) I think that it's important that we have mods that are active in the community and represent its best interests, so that that mod can properly mediate disputes.

Just so. I support the Mosher/Polyblank proposal for moving forward here. A pure democratic election would obviously be too radical for the mods to accept, and would set a difficult precedent, but a democratic selection of a roster of respected players who the mods can then pick for the new IOT/NES mods would be ideal.

And people shouldn't nominate themselves, obviously.

 

[Lefty Scaevola]

I'm going to say some difficult things now.

I do not dislike you either BSmith, but nor do I lie when I say that the vast majority of NES and IOT do not want you as a moderator, and that furthermore, you are an active impediment towards improving the situation in our forums.

For how long do you think you can successfully govern a community of people who are steadfastly opposed to your rule? Whether or not you have tried to antagonize anything, I desperately wish that you had never been appointed to govern NES in Birdjaguar's stead, for it was your appointment, and your utter unfamiliarity with the people whom you governed, that led to the Amon crisis and the Frontier rebellion. That never would have happened under Birdjaguar, but it happened under you.

BSmith has the full confidence of administration, not in despite of any of his actions, but more so because of them. He handled the flaming and trolling in NES exactly according to CFC policy, just as ainwood would have handled it, just as I would have handled it, just as super and senior moderators would have done it (and many of involved or in the loop in real time there), and with more diplomacy that the majority of us would have given towards some outrageous behavior by some bad actors. Members do not get to do that at CFC, and any moderator is required to stop flaming, trolling, and disruptions, or he will not last here. He handled a difficult situation very well.

 

[SamSniped]

If that is true, then why weren't more IOTers infracted recently over certain comments?

 

[BSmith1068]

Nobody has been infracted over their recent comments, even though they probably should have been. And it is not just IOTers that fall into that category.

 

[erez87]

If that is true, then why weren't more IOTers infracted recently over certain comments?

Maybe they are trying to give us some leeway to discuss this without quick moderation reaction? I wonder how far people will push the limits...

 

[sophie]

Maybe they are trying to give us some leeway to discuss this without quick moderation reaction? I wonder how far people will push the limits...

They weren't "discussing" the merger - they were trolling Lucky and then high-fiving/gloating over that trolling. There was nothing productive coming from the discussion.

 

[SamSniped]

Nobody has been infracted over their recent comments, even though they probably should have been.

That single statement completely nullifies Lefty's point, as almost no moderator action was done to stop trolling and flaming here, in IOT, and in NES.

 

[BSmith1068]

Maybe they are trying to give us some leeway to discuss this without quick moderation reaction? I wonder how far people will push the limits...

This. But I certainly can become more strict on enforcement.