OT Changes Q&A

[SuperJay]

That's... impressive?

And ironic in the extreme.

BJ, thanks for the heads-up, clearly this doesn't effect most of us but the information is nice. I don't understand the complaints over the situation of 12 people who should have been permabanned years ago, frankly.

I mean, I know infractions can be fall like rain sometimes and yeah, once in awhile they are unfair, but so what? If you habitually tread along the bleeding edge of the rules, so close that you're courting the constant risk of infractions - fair or unfair - then it shouldn't be shocking when you do get infracted and eventually banned. Newsflash: You control the words that appear in your posts, and you don't need to post in such a way that you're regularly infracted.

If anything, it's too easy to avoid long-term bans on CFC.

 

[Catharsis]

I'm shocked that there isn't such a guideline / rulebook on what is and what is not point worthy, available to posters to see, and transparent.

Why not write it yourself? You've been around for a long time, you surely have the nous to write a loophole-free rulebook.

 

[JerichoHill]

Why not write it yourself? You've been around for a long time, you surely have the nous to write a loophole-free rulebook.

I am not a moderator. I do not make the rules, nor do I understand fully how they implement and interpret them.

 

[aelf]

Think it this way: the infraction itself isn't a punishment, the ban is. If you get an infraction every now and then, it isn't that bad, it happens.

That would undoubtedly be true if infraction history isn't a significant and self-perpetuating reference material for mod action. It's often the case that when I inquire about mod action, the justification I get is essentially "You have a history of infractions, so you must have been bad this time too".

It would help if infractions would disappear from the record after some time, but they don't. So right now there really isn't much of an incentive to stay infraction-free once you have some history, except for the threat of harsher action. And, usually, a carrot-and-stick approach is better than just stick.

 

[Catharsis]

I am not a moderator. I do not make the rules, nor do I understand fully how they implement and interpret them.

Just a first draft, then. Things like exact point totals can be fixed later on, it's the wording that's important, and I imagine the mods would be willing to offer criticism: such a ruleset would be as much in their interests as yours.

 

[NickyJ]

Why not write it yourself? You've been around for a long time, you surely have the nous to write a loophole-free rulebook.

Just a first draft, then. Things like exact point totals can be fixed later on, it's the wording that's important, and I imagine the mods would be willing to offer criticism: such a ruleset would be as much in their interests as yours.

Either way, I doubt the mods would want someone to right a rulebook made out of guessing and assumptions.

 

[Arakhor]

Well, given that we're expected to follow rules supposed from guessing and assumptions, it's not too much of a stretch.

 

[azzaman333]

Either way, I doubt the mods would want someone to right a rulebook made out of guessing and assumptions.

Guesses and assumptions are how they expect us to figure out what is and isn't infractible. There's practically no consistency.

 

[NickyJ]

Guesses and assumptions are how they expect us to figure out what is and isn't infractible. There's practically no consistency.

Yeah, but personal use and manuals for the entire site is a rather large jump.

 

[Berzerker]

Yes, we know that mods have very different tolerances for what they infract and that creates real certainty for some of you. Life is like that sometimes, so post carefully. People may report your posts just because they don't like you, hoping you will get infracted. Post carefully.

sounds like a commie paradise...

 

[SuperJay]

That would undoubtedly be true if infraction history isn't a significant and self-perpetuating reference material for mod action. It's often the case that when I inquire about mod action, the justification I get is essentially "You have a history of infractions, so you must have been bad this time too".

I think this is a very valid point.

Turns out there's more going on here than I realized, so I recant my earlier testimony.

 

[Atticus]

Aelf does have a point. If someone has a habit of some sort of wrong doing, I think it's correct to try to crack it down. If a poster has a history and has reformed, it's a different thing. However, I think this is something that should be discussed in private, since it can't be done properly without specific examples.

Well, given that we're expected to follow rules supposed from guessing and assumptions, it's not too much of a stretch.

The truth is that huge part of our lives is directed by guessing and assumptions. Just think how people learn to speak and how humans have made all their great discoveries. This to point out that guessing isn't that hard and arbitrary it sounds at first.

There are also juridical systems that include guessing and assumptions. It's up to courts to decide what counts as libel and what doesn't. At least in Finland we have several laws that require "good habit" to be followed without defining what it means (for example good habit in economical interactions, which roughly includes no cheating etc).

Everyone here has a sense of what is trolling and spamming. Or if someone doesn't, he surely has some problems that we can do nothing about.

There are of course some hard to determine cases or mistakes, but most of the time people who complain about the lack of precise rules or something similar are just playing innocent. It's like arguing with a teenage cartesian, who doesn't really believe that we don't exist, but claims so because it's possible. [Not directed at you, Arakhor].

 

[brennan]

What a lot of bellyaching! I have a record of getting in quite robust exchanges, but I have less than one point per 3000 posts, because I feel I know the rules and I frequently delete whole posts or whole swathes of a post because I read through what I have written before I press 'submit' and honestly reflect on whether I have been outright rude or need to tone it down in the interests of the quality of this forum, which on the whole is far more civilised and respectful than many others I have contributed to over the years. May this situation long continue and good work Mods.

 

[Catharsis]

Either way, I doubt the mods would want someone to right a rulebook made out of guessing and assumptions.

It doesn't have to be for CFC. Make up your own forum and write one for that.

Spoiler :

The point I'm trying to make is that it isn't possible to write this rulebook, or at least, it isn't worth trying. If the mods try to make the rules more precise then their changes will be shot down entirely within the first two pages of the thread, because it's the easiest thing in the world to do.

I'd prefer a less precise ruleset, because then the mods can use judgment instead of having to enforce these rules to the letter. It would lead to more leniency I think, but known awful posters would not be able to escape punishment unless they cleaned up their act. Something along the lines of:

Don't be a wally. No piracy.

Best rulebook

 

[Patroklos]

Not quite. A mod will never infract you for a totally constructive, clearly OK post. And if they did, the Supermods would just reverse it.

It should work this way, it does not work this way. In reality mods don't over rule each other, they think it undermines their authority. The most heinous abuses are always sanctioned. Your only hope is to convince the actual infracting mod, nobody is going to go over their head.

The problems come up when people disagree on rules interpretations. Although generally if you're on that list, you'd have enough experience to know exactly how the mods apply the rules (Something I happen to be basically aware of at this point.)

You never know what mod is going to infract you, what subject might set them off, or in a lot of cases which of their poster buddies they are defending.

 

[Atticus]

What Catharsis said.

If we had precise rules of trolling that should be followed, the modding would become just awful. Let's say that name calling absolutely forbidden. Then someone says "you jerk!" in a PBEM thread in a playful manner after suffering a loss, and we'd have to infract him because the rulebook says so.

I'd much rather take the consideration than rigid consistency. The moderating is IMO more police than judge work: our primary duty is to keep the forums nice and civil place, to keep the discussions in line, not to deal out justice.

 

[aimeeandbeatles]

It doesn't have to be for CFC. Make up your own forum and write one for that.

Spoiler :

The point I'm trying to make is that it isn't possible to write this rulebook, or at least, it isn't worth trying. If the mods try to make the rules more precise then their changes will be shot down entirely within the first two pages of the thread, because it's the easiest thing in the world to do.

I'd prefer a less precise ruleset, because then the mods can use judgment instead of having to enforce these rules to the letter. It would lead to more leniency I think, but known awful posters would not be able to escape punishment unless they cleaned up their act. Something along the lines of:



Best rulebook

For an interesting example, the only rule on my forum is "Don't be a [butt]hole." Works quite well.

 

[IglooDame]

It should work this way, it does not work this way. In reality mods don't over rule each other, they think it undermines their authority. The most heinous abuses are always sanctioned. Your only hope is to convince the actual infracting mod, nobody is going to go over their head.

During my moderating stint I saw several instances where it did indeed "work this way".

You never know what mod is going to infract you, what subject might set them off, or in a lot of cases which of their poster buddies they are defending.

And I have never seen (among a couple hundred or so infractions that I saw) mods "defending their poster buddies". What I have seen is the occasional comment like "I agree with his point, but he is flaming/trolling/whatever so he gets the infraction." I can't say much in support or opposition to the consistency complaints (some of the people wanting consistency want it so that they can continuously stay between one to two nanometers inside the line, but there is certainly something demoralizing about getting infracted for a post that a day earlier or later wouldn't have gotten carded). But, I think it is both untrue and unfair to claim that the moderators are motivated by anything other than implementing Thunderfall's guidelines and making the forum as good a place as possible.

 

[GhostWriter16]

It should work this way, it does not work this way. In reality mods don't over rule each other, they think it undermines their authority. The most heinous abuses are always sanctioned. Your only hope is to convince the actual infracting mod, nobody is going to go over their head.

Well, in my numerous infractions I've never seen anyone reverse an infraction except the infracting mod, so there could be truth to this.

That said, I once was banned for absolutely no reason, and I got that one overturned, so I think they deal with the really really bad ones.

But oftentimes they don't. How sad it is.

 

[Patroklos]

During my moderating stint I saw several instances where it did indeed "work this way".



And I have never seen (among a couple hundred or so infractions that I saw) mods "defending their poster buddies". What I have seen is the occasional comment like "I agree with his point, but he is flaming/trolling/whatever so he gets the infraction." I can't say much in support or opposition to the consistency complaints (some of the people wanting consistency want it so that they can continuously stay between one to two nanometers inside the line, but there is certainly something demoralizing about getting infracted for a post that a day earlier or later wouldn't have gotten carded). But, I think it is both untrue and unfair to claim that the moderators are motivated by anything other than implementing Thunderfall's guidelines and making the forum as good a place as possible.

You were a moderator during a much more civilized time on this board. Its been several years since you were in a position to make observations from that vantage point relevant to this discussion, with all due respect.

Can you honestly say you have inside knowledge of any infractions recently? That is really the source of some of the angst against moderation. Some of us have been here for 10 years without changing our style of posting. In many cases going from valued long standing memeber of the community to paria infracted without cause or reason was an arbitrary application of moderators personalities, not anything a poster did differently.

Note mods, he brought his personal experiances as a moderator into the discussion, I am limiting my addressing him personally to that specifically volunteered information.