Ad-hom? I think not. On the contrary, I'm merely stating bluntly what everyone else is patiently trying to point out to you: CFC has a system, and it works for CFC even if it wouldn't work other forums.
PD of PDMA
- Thread starter RobAnybody
- Start date
- Status
Ad-hom? I think not. On the contrary, I'm merely stating bluntly what everyone else is patiently trying to point out to you: CFC has a system, and it works for CFC even if it wouldn't work other forums.
Buster's Uncle
AC2 Owner
Bj, ain, you'll have heard by the time you see this. it's okay to laugh at me now... 
Moderator Action: unapproved a post, I'll let admins decide on whether to do anything else - please heed the warning you (poster of unapproved post) received from the other thread about dragging disputes from other sites to this forum. Just to be sure I'll post the short version: Don't.
Heard what?Bj, ain, you'll have heard by the time you see this. it's okay to laugh at me now...
Buster's Uncle
AC2 Owner
Really? Nothing I may discuss according to site policy, but not the policy this thread is about.
No, of course there is no panacea. Perhaps there are some fairly universal principals, though.
You need not try to be Kirk or King or Patton standing before the big flag to inspire your people. Write up some policy statements and share them. Don't be afraid to aim for the sky sometimes; you have managed a very successful thing, and you should have confidence. You are a thinker, so convey your thoughts. Get everybody on the same page; steer the culture. You don't need to be a John F. Kennedy to do that. -Though it does help.
This area, your style and how you see the lay of the land, and how those interact with inspirational leadership, vision expressed, is one of the most profitable things we can possibly kick around, I think.
The Kirk thing was a joke, you know, by about half.
I've been thinking about a thread, "Owners Gone Wild" encouraging people to stand up to me when I show insufficient regard for the rails of a thread. I need to do more to make my place safe for those who like rails. I'm thinking about it.
Admitting it was authenticity in being a person. It was owning my crap, like I just did again. I am not a lawyer out to win an argument. I told you that winning an argument wasn't what I was looking for. You asked me some good questions, and I tried to give you good answers - the tone of the discourse was thereby dramatically improved.
Have you provided any examples of letting up gone wrong as I asked? I'd like to do the homework, not presume and assume.
As you surely have deduced, I've been dealing with a situation, so I may not have been coherent here as usual. More later when I can. I definitely need to turn down the resolution...
No, I have not said everything I could say on the subject, most of which is nothing you need to hear, in my view. There's a difference.
Which I think we agree is important... I never intended to imply that there is no leadership - to the contrary.
When I make those speeches, I want to heckle myself; I feel like a politician and a phony. They are too much work and I usually feel like no one is reading, so no, not that much fun. And yet they work. I am a cynic only trying to be an optimist, but trying makes me a happier and more successful person. That is not a lack of authenticity on my part, but a striving for the better, something I authentically try to communicate. I tell them it won't be easy and it won't happen fast, and much toil is required, but that we CAN do it, if we'll pull together and try hard enough.
No, of course there is no panacea. Perhaps there are some fairly universal principals, though.
You need not try to be Kirk or King or Patton standing before the big flag to inspire your people. Write up some policy statements and share them. Don't be afraid to aim for the sky sometimes; you have managed a very successful thing, and you should have confidence. You are a thinker, so convey your thoughts. Get everybody on the same page; steer the culture. You don't need to be a John F. Kennedy to do that. -Though it does help.
This area, your style and how you see the lay of the land, and how those interact with inspirational leadership, vision expressed, is one of the most profitable things we can possibly kick around, I think.
The Kirk thing was a joke, you know, by about half.
From what I've seen you have gravitas, dignitas and authoritas, as the Romans would say. It's a lot in your favor to work with. I don't really have those things, being a big loud goon by nature. I do pretty well with the common touch and trying to be everybody's friend. You have different strengths that demand a different approach, sure. But perhaps there are some fairly universal principals.
I think more of you for admitting error. First and most, we must own our own crap. Otherwise we will never learn. Often later, we need to admit to our crap to others. Admitting at the right times about the right things establishes trust and honesty.
I've been thinking about a thread, "Owners Gone Wild" encouraging people to stand up to me when I show insufficient regard for the rails of a thread. I need to do more to make my place safe for those who like rails. I'm thinking about it.
Agreed.
Heck no. I am nothing here but a subforum hermit of several years standing and I had an old resentment and a strongly-held opinion. The coincidence I opened with was insulting, but it was a coincidence and there was no plan. I made a hostile and foolishly candid post that was what it appeared to be, an undiplomatic critism of the policy.
Admitting it was authenticity in being a person. It was owning my crap, like I just did again. I am not a lawyer out to win an argument. I told you that winning an argument wasn't what I was looking for. You asked me some good questions, and I tried to give you good answers - the tone of the discourse was thereby dramatically improved.
I see that in the charge leveled. You know I've been doing a lot of reading.
The final line of my first post with IMO, IIRC, inserted? My position on the specifc issue at issue has not shifted at all. I think it's bad policy in numerous ways that I've attempted to articulate since.
Have you provided any examples of letting up gone wrong as I asked? I'd like to do the homework, not presume and assume.
As you surely have deduced, I've been dealing with a situation, so I may not have been coherent here as usual. More later when I can. I definitely need to turn down the resolution...
If you say that 'it works the best that it can' then you mean that this is the best we (moderators and other users) can do, and that we can't get any better. Others of us contend that that is wrong.
I'm not quite sure that the reluctance to allow PDMA is a fear of a bunch of threads where there are irrational attacks on particular moderator actions. I think the reluctance may be more tied to a fear of a bunch of threads where there is convincing critique of particular moderator actions.
Ah.. fear of what could be true. Maybe, but so much of what moderators do is very subjective and the interpretive nature of it tends to keep things murky.
The biggest downside I see is that such a thread will "force" mods to spend time defending what they have done days and weeks after the fact. Such discussions can easily get very protracted and are a sucky way to spend you time here. If I ban a members for a week because they were "acting like a jerk", the last thing I want to do is spend a week arguing about it with people who most likely not involved and only want to join the discussion for reasons unrelated to the incident.
I don't think the discussion is a problem, it is the abuse of the discussion that will cause problems.
It does work the best it can. It's not allowed to work better.
How often has a good idea been brought to the staff to change the way CFC is managed only for it to be shot down? Obviously there are plenty of decent ideas that deserve a shot that don't get past the presentation, and these ideas would make life better here. I'm not talking about ideas such as PD of PDMA, as the staff will never allow it. But there have been other ideas, good ideas, that crash and burn.
I won't sit here and attempt to cite chapter and verse as to what is bad and what could be changed here. We've all been around long enough - yes, even me - to see good ideas go no where.
I won't sit here and attempt to cite chapter and verse as to what is bad and what could be changed here. We've all been around long enough - yes, even me - to see good ideas go no where.
Buster's Uncle
AC2 Owner
But there are ways to step on a discussion gone bad - if only you were allowed to use them. PDMA doesn't pass the smell test, the mod accountability issue is a REAL one, and it's at the heart of what makes the site look bad - when it's become clear that you guys are really a bunch of pussycats who policy requires to be rude. [shrugs]
This really is me, Mr. 'talk to them and be their friend' stating it, but I say less modshouting and more permabans. I've been reading about how hard it is to get one here, and now I've seen it in action - wow, did I not expect THAT. I am way more hardcore than CFC about a management policy. Wow.
Several pages ago I posted a link to a large, active vBulletin forum where there is a "Moderators' Actions" thread. The discussions there do NOT go on for days or weeks. Sometimes they don't even last an hour. And there are other steps required of the member and moderators before the member is allowed to post there. I posted the link so the CFC staff could see an example of a comparably large forum that uses this approach. I guess none of you bothered to look at it.
There are a lot of different definitions and perceptions of what a "jerk" is. Part of the problem is the staff reluctance to spell out such things too concisely, lest we members see just how close we can get to those definitions without crossing over. 'Cause we're all just looking for trouble all the time, y'know, like a bunch of 4-year-olds...
If I remember that right, the issue here was that there was a sort of behaviour, which many people (also from the OT survey) saw as troublesome, but which could not be defined as any rule.
Since the goal was still to make this here an enjoyable forum, a shortcut was implemented to get quickly rid of people (for a limited amount of time) who are just disturbing (that's one part of it).
Which is not a bad thing, isn't it?
...god...
I remember that one guy...he got a single warning from me...and then got on my nerves for more than a dozen PMs, about freedom of speech, and that I should permanently ban him if I consider him a problem...after the dozen PMs I did that, because at that point he was a problem. Nothing what he'd posted was a real problem...just that he acted completely crazy in the PMs.
But hardly anyone here will consider a permanent ban before you got 10 times banned or so, and then also only if you're a continous or very special problem.
I don't think anything else has ever anywhere been implied.
I wonder where you get that from.
That has to be closely evaluated with a view on the forum culture.
I know another forum, with a similar target audience than this here.
And the culture is different.
Which e.g. leads to the situation, that if a moderator removes offending illegal material from the site (which happens maybe once a month, because barely anything is moderated there), then you'll then definitely find a 10 pages long thread about freedom of speech, filled with insults.
I'm not saying that this might be the case here. Just that if one thing works in one forum, that it doesn't have to work in another, and that the leaders have to know their community, to see what is possible, what not, what is the best way, what is the easiest way, and if there's maybe a possibility to combine them.
Interesting. I was told a long time back in this very forum that if I mentioned any specific incident I was involved in as a moderator (as in giving an infraction or warning), that would also be PDMA. Looks like we're both guilty, doesn't it?
The_J, I posted that link for the STAFF to be able to see an example for themselves of something that COULD work IF they were willing to try it.
Therefore, I would appreciate the input of a CURRENT moderator or two on this point.
That Moderator Action section doesn't seem to be visible for non-members.
However, I have seen several such Sections in other Forums I visit, I wasn't terribly impressed. In most places it was just a eternal pleading to let their best buddies free / complain about ones. Usually coupled with some undercurrent of conspiracy theory in the post...
Personally, I'm a bit indifferent to the issue of PDMA. I could live with it, but just don't see the big benefit.
Sorry, I hadn't realized that non-members couldn't see it.
There is some ranting against specific moderators at times, but the main points I'm trying to make is that first of all, there is a place where people can have one last chance to make their case IF the previous required steps don't produce a resolution. I realize that here we have the option of appealing. But that's still not letting the general populace SEE that the staff is doing something about the situation.
People are not allowed to make threads there on behalf of anyone but themselves. Anyone trying that gets shut down immediately. And the threads don't remain open for days on end; most end in hours at most. Sometimes they only last minutes. The thread you see in the attached screenshot lasted a whopping two posts. The admin who closed it was the second poster.
The idea itself is a good one, at least worth trying. The specifics would need tweaking to suit CFC.
Attachments
- Joined
- Oct 5, 2001
- Messages
- 30,075
One other point to note (not particularly relevant to this specific post, but this is as good as any to reply to). Asymmetric information. Moderators have more background and more information than the general users about many things. Without this information, important context is lost.
What I am saying is that prima facie, it may appear that a moderator has been unfair or inconsistent. With the additional information, such as relationship or previous history between posters, or previous history of a specific poster, there is a completely different perspective.
As an example, moderators will take a very different view of someone with a history of racism posting a borderline thread on racial equality than if exactly the same thread was posted by a more moderate poster.
I am somewhat uncomfortable in being forced into a position where the defence of our moderation requires us to provide a whole lot of historical information and context, perhaps essentially showing that we believe someone to be a bigot. Or start publishing IP addresses to support DL assertions. Or similar.
Has anyone ever asked you to publish IP addresses to support DL claims? From my observations over the years here (whether member or moderator), most DLs are reasonably easy to spot. It tends to be the posting style that gives people away, not their IP addresses. Anyway, those fall under information not to be made public in the first place (as in don't publish personal RL information without the consent of the individual affected; isn't there already something in the rules about that?).
As for context... that can be a problem. However, in some cases, it's plain for everyone to see, when enough situations have occurred in public.
- Status
