PD of PDMA

[hobbsyoyo]

It goes further than just shooting down ideas, it's actively trying to shut down dialogue. I'm sure there's some golf clapping going on right now, 'see, look at how we let them talk about how we need to change, it's so cute!'. We get to spin our wheels but it's not going anywhere, at this point I feel that we're only being listened to as some sort of pressure relief valve and not to actually take us or our ideas seriously.

And I say this as someone who looked at a lot of this thread and completely dismissed it as users just whining mostly, to be frank. It's turned into a serious discussion with valid points and suggestions and the only reason I feel the mods tune in is to nitpick and wantonly shoot down ideas that they didn't understand to begin with while letting us blow off steam.

*golf claps all around*

 

[ainwood]

Seriously though can we get some kind of commitment from the admins that the idea in the OP will be investigated, preferably with some timescales?

I don't have time at the moment to respond to other comments in this thread (will try to do it later, this weekend probably).

On the idea of a log, I have some immediate views, and at the risk of simply confirming your view that good ideas always get shot down, I want to understand a bit more....

Simply put: what is the objective?

A log of moderator actions is "a" solution, but depending on what the underlying concern is, it may not be the best solution. If the objective is to see what the moderators do, then the logs will show that. However, I as it that people want to know the why. An automated log is not going to address that; it requires that the moderators actually create transparency by logging their reasoning.

My view is that moderators should be detailed in their explanations when they take an action (eg when closing a thread, they state explicitly why). It is better for all, because it hopefully then removes the need for follow up discussions, or alternatively helps frame those follow up discussions as to where any difference of opinion lies.

Of course, when an entire thad is deleted, then logging in that thread is not transparent. Easier solution to that is not to delete threads!

For info, this is essentially what I have asked the moderators to do, and i actually think it is a fairly basic expectation.

I am happy to consider centralised logging in addition to this, provide that the benefit to the community is worth the time and effort. When I get a chance, I will post an example of the existing logs that are available (bot-harvesting them may be somewhat tricky, as they are output only to the admin control panel, in a horrible format). I think people should see the content before starting to program a bot.

Edit:
Actually, to help frame it, here is the automated log of all my actions in the last week:

218953 ainwood
23:13, 18th Aug 2013 Closed Thread Thread: [Civ5 - Strategy & Tips: Reported Post by (redacted)]
Forum: [Reported Post Discussion]

218952 ainwood
23:12, 18th Aug 2013 Thread moved to 'Recycle Bin'. Thread: [80-year-old man had been attacked]
Forum: [Civ5 - Brave New World]

218951 ainwood
23:11, 18th Aug 2013 Post merged from multiple posts Post: [80-year-old man had been attacked]
Forum: [Civ5 - Brave New World]

218950 ainwood
23:11, 18th Aug 2013 Thread Removed Thread: [the city centre on August 10]
Forum: [Civ5 - Brave New World]

218949 ainwood
23:11, 18th Aug 2013 Thread Removed Thread: [is due to appear at Coventry]
Forum: [Civ5 - Strategy & Tips]

218945 ainwood
23:09, 18th Aug 2013 Thread Soft Deleted Thread: [80-year-old man had been attacked]
Forum: [Civ5 - Brave New World]

218946 ainwood
23:09, 18th Aug 2013 Thread Soft Deleted Thread: [is due to appear at Coventry]
Forum: [Civ5 - Strategy & Tips]

218947 ainwood
23:09, 18th Aug 2013 Thread Soft Deleted Thread: [the city centre on August 10]
Forum: [Civ5 - Brave New World]

218948 ainwood
23:09, 18th Aug 2013 Thread Soft Deleted Thread: [is due to appear at Coventry]
Forum: [Civ5 - Strategy & Tips]

218944 ainwood
22:02, 18th Aug 2013 Posts copied to threadid 507103 Thread: [CivFanatics Theme Thread]
Forum: [Community Art Project]

218943 ainwood
22:01, 18th Aug 2013 Posts copied to threadid 507102 Thread: [Civ 5 Theme Development]
Forum: [Community Art Project]

218942 ainwood
21:58, 18th Aug 2013 Stuck Thread Thread: [What is this place?]
Forum: [Community Art Project]

218941 ainwood
21:43, 18th Aug 2013 Thread moved with redirect to 'Community Art Project'. Thread: [Community Forum Skin Project]
Forum: [Site Feedback]

218872 ainwood
10:24, 17th Aug 2013 Closed Thread Thread: [Site Feedback: Reported Post by (redacted)]
Forum: [Reported Post Discussion]

For info, it does appear as .html, so I could enable html for myself and then links would appear.

In my view, this absolutely shows the mechanics of what I did, but not the rationale. All of those soft-deleted and moved threads were advertising spam, by the way.

Heh - for info, I just pruned 2,117,889 records from the spam protection logs - ad bots whot tried to register and failed!

 

[Valka D'Ur]

I can only offer my usual recommendation, that I've been saying for many years when it comes to new things: Give it a trial run - in this case, 3 months should be long enough to get a goodly amount of data to see how well it works, both from the technical aspects and the social aspects. No matter if it works or not, I think it would be a valuable learning experience for everyone who has taken the time and effort to post here, and for the people who have read this thread but chosen not to post.

 

[Buster's Uncle]

Note: a lackluster, not-really-trying attempt, just to shut people up would be a lie. An honest attempt to make it work is the right thing to do, AND if you're proved wrong by the trial succeeding, the people will notice your integrity and trust you that much more the next time.

That's leadership.

 

[Birdjaguar]

Blah blah blah...BirdJaguar...blah blah blah.

You are too kind, but thank you.

I am not a programmer; I do not know VBB from BVD, but I do imagine that the smart guys here can make most things programmable happen.

I see each post having a another button that only mods can see like the infract buttons and similar to the report button that everyone sees. When a moderator decides to take action on a post, he clicks the button and it opens an edit window that shows the post as it was originally written. The mod then edits the post as he/she sees fit. They would also add mod tags explaining the whys of what they have done. When finished, the mod clicks submit and the edited post shows up in the thread with the changes and something like this shows up in a log thread:

August 21, 2013 Birdjaguar logged Moderator Action: It wasn't cute, funny or mildly clever;
It was a troll and is now, gone forever. in this post:

.....

My example is of course not formated well. With such a system each mod could determine which posts would be logged to avoid adding inappropriate material to the public setting. The idea is to make it easy for mods to add to the log and 'force' better explanations without having and endless and unusable end product.

Folks could see what I've done, go to the original post and view it in the context of the thread. This would not take any extra work for a moderator. I do not know if any infractions would have to be done separately or if they could be incorporated into the logging process. I think it would just be a variation on what we see in the reported posts forum.

 

[The_J]

The solution is that nobody is asking for any of that to be logged.

That's a good point, Valka.

The admins/supermods etc can always decide what particular moderator actions they want to log publicly afterwards, and change it as we go along. There's simply no need to say that 5% of moderator actions shouldn't be logged, therefore the other 95% of moderator actions shouldn't be logged either.

...that's not going to work either, also due to the reason that people are not always reasonable.
As soon as something is not logged, and the wrong person sees it, that person will go berserk on that and demand...whatever. "Transparency", or so.
And unless it has been detailed in hundreds of paragraphs, what has to be logged, and what not, and how exactly that is defined, you'll get a fuss after every not logged action.
And as soon as something is simply forgotten, due to being busy, forgetful, or whatever, you'll have the next fuss.

That's not fun.

For info, it does appear as .html, so I could enable html for myself and then links would appear.

That's possible to activate per user?

In my view, this absolutely shows the mechanics of what I did, but not the rationale. All of those soft-deleted and moved threads were advertising spam, by the way.

...I'd totally be interested to see a log of one of the high traffic times.
That would be as useful as no log, since everybody would drown in the info .

 

[Valka D'Ur]

...that's not going to work either, also due to the reason that people are not always reasonable.
As soon as something is not logged, and the wrong person sees it, that person will go berserk on that and demand...whatever. "Transparency", or so.
And unless it has been detailed in hundreds of paragraphs, what has to be logged, and what not, and how exactly that is defined, you'll get a fuss after every not logged action.
And as soon as something is simply forgotten, due to being busy, forgetful, or whatever, you'll have the next fuss.

That's not fun.

Moderating is not always fun. Sometimes it can be tedious and repetitive. I know this, having been both moderator and admin on various forums for over 8 years. Sometimes it involves soul-searching, looking to one's conscience to do the ethical, moral, and honorable thing.

Some of the people on this forum are asking for greater transparency of moderator actions than there is currently. That's a reasonable thing to ask for, given the circumstances.

I'm pretty sure people don't care much about logging the trivial stuff, like banning spambots, moving threads, reminding people to watch their language, and so on. It's the more serious stuff we are concerned about.

Dismissing a reasonable request or proposal because it won't be "fun" is not a responsible argument. It's a disrespectful one.

And if something is forgotten, there's a very simple solution. Take care of it as soon as possible, and post this: "We're sorry for the mistake, and will try not to let it happen again."

A simple, sincere apology can do wonders for morale, and it's not a sign of weakness or "undermining" anyone's authority. It's simply a respectful way of acknowledging a mistake.

 

[Buster's Uncle]

The PDMA policy is only the tip of an iceberg and not even the ugliest crag, only the most blatant expression of -as they say on [a notorious board that I see I may not mention], DOING IT WRONG. I think it's entirely possible that only an outsider has the perspective to see the truth. I honestly think the staff here, most of them anyway, believe the excuses they shovel all over Site. And the membership is so used to it and/or cowed by constant harshness that those not blind choose not to speak.

To answer a charge The_J leveled: I did open my comments in this thread by insulting the entire staff, and I am comparing CFC to a totalitarian state at the same time, yes. As I implied about taunting Yang, I believe that a genuinely strong person can afford to be gentle, as Julius Caesar was in showing his enemies mercy. A need for minute control of every trivial aspect of everything -in a social setting, of all things, which is what this place ultimately is- is a sign of weakness and/or insecurity. [shrugs] I don't say it out of malice; I do to perhaps shock people into questioning themselves.

The lists staff keeps supplying of possible problems and exceptions and bad behavior by the inevitable troublemakers miss the point. The real point is that, while it's great that CFC is a spic-and-span operation, it's spanned by nerdz, an internet-dwelling species well known for having little or no sense of perspective and little or no people skills.

That challenge is pandemic throughout almost all forums everywhere - and CFC has adjusted in a way unique among the English-speaking Civ family of forums.

It's very important that you understand that I'm articulating the straight-up overwhelming perception in the rest of the Civ community, that CFC is the CivCentration Camp. I don't know that I would want CFC to change TOO much -a selection of atmosphere and styles among the different forums to choose from is good for the fans- but a few of the right tweaks to the behavior of the staff here could shift that bad reputation over to 'runs a tight ship'...

But I have to ask - why do they not need a PDMA rule at the Troll Pit or the Frog Pond, but you do in the CivCentration Camp? I was on staff for a while at the Pond, and a well-informed insider for years, and it was never a problem. Period. And do you think those nice young men in the Pit are prone to making it easy for the management? Do you think the gentlemen running those places are fools (shhh! Let me finish) for allowing a problem they don't have to (not) exist?

Shoot - at my forum, I explicitly announced that

You can sass us to your heart's content under the same limitations you're under about anyone else; don't piss us off.

So what's so different/wrong with CFC that you need a PDMA rule that makes you look so Big Brother Chairman Yang Godwin's Law invoked bad? I don't know - I'm asking. Is it because CFC is run by bullies, he asked rhetorically. From the outside, it looks like it's run by bullies for bullies, so I'm asking.

Then there's this lovely detail spicing up CFC:
MODERATOR ACTION: I AM GOD ALMIGHTY OR YOUR DAD, AND I'M SHOUTING FOR SOME REASON; I HAVE A NERDBADGE AND YOU DON'T.

That bit just gets up my nose something fierce, even just seeing it done to others. I don't let God or my dad talk to me like that, and no one else better even try. Big red bold all-caps just demonstrate a wrong attitude, IMAO. It's no way to communicate anything in an atmosphere of even bare civility, let alone the level of respect a human being should command from another human being.

It LOOKS, however, a lot like the level of respect a bully gives a human being. Twice today I've seen Birdjaguar posts that at least left off the all-caps - drop the bold and change the color to something less angry like dark blue (which ought to stand out more against the default theme) or even better, leave of the color entirely. I'm aware that the style hardly originated here, but ask yourself why doing it so loudly, in a way that intimidates, is needed. Is the intimidation a coincidence? No, really? Is your control so precarious? People's feelings matter. Maybe the staff doesn't know they hurt people who are really invested in this, their online home. Maybe the staff doesn't care. Maybe some of them enjoy it. I raising the issue, because these questions need to be asked and answered.

I don't care why; I care that it isn't right. We take callous abuse, all of us, in RL, whether at work, school, the DMV, from the insurance companies or waiting to be treated like nothing by the receptionist at the doctor's office -a million little things, and too many not so little- and come here to escape that.

In Civ forum circles, going OT answering a question is only a crime at CFC, especially in an OT folder. Maybe it was to teach me a lesson because the moderator knew I was a problem newb elsewhere at the time - well, the only lesson I learned was that I ain't got time for &^%$#@! CFC.

ainwood likes to say that "moderators need to own their own crap" but that he doesn't want to embarrass them or make their lives tougher. Fair enough, as far as it goes - but where it goes is the middle ages, and regular citizens ain't the nobles, nor is their humiliation and tougher lives taken into account when staff defends policy. Who is this all for, then? Surely not the ruling class.

ain will surely admit that he isn't better than me, or at least not because he's management staff at a forum (it seems like about one third of everyone is or has been forum management somewhere) but I've SEEN people pin on a nerdbadge for the first time and suddenly start going everywhere in a Napoleon uniform. Easily a third of the rules/policy at this place sure do look like a little blue coat (avec hand-tuck) to me.

I feel like Don Quixote. I try not to let my back up seeing people being wrong on the internet - but evil prospers when good men do nothing. This is important enough to waste time at a place I gave up on a long time ago. This is important enough to risk the commitment I have to support Petek and the SMACX subforum, because I don't trust everyone on the staff here to not do something foolish to a dissenter.

PDMA? Jesus. I suppose it's a coincidence that this policy that none of the other places I browse/post needs is exactly what bullies and power-mad jerks would do. I will give up and leave the internet forever before I ever have an outrageous rule like that at my place. I wouldn't be able to live with myself. I would be too ashamed to show my face among decent people.

THINK. Think about what you're doing.


-There IS A Better Way.


In another one of those strange coincidences, one of my people volunteered this embarrassing tidbit yesterday:

Which raises a question.... now that I've been throwing around things about forums, ( let me count, I frequent 4 other forums as often as I check my e-mail accounts, others from time to time ) Have I ever seen a better moderator? ..... No. Never. Not even myself, because I didn't have your energy level.

Leadership. Take really good care of them, make a lot of speeches to set the tone and persuade them to do things and understand your vision and style and set the culture of the forum, go out of your way to make them feel empowered while reserving a veto for the important things, and they love you for it.

It only takes two people to have a flamewar, so it's not all just the numbers; I've stumbled onto something powerful that works. -Because believe me, it's not that I'm good with people, or I wouldn't live online. Leadership; it works.

I invite inspection of the following thread, when I invited the citizens to make up the rules for the forum themselves:
http://alphacentauri2.info/index.php?topic=2653.0
I said in the quote in the OP that forums are never democracies. I later call myself an absolute dictator. -Because that's the way it is, and I don't lie to my people; and that's how I earned their trust. That and running the forum on respect flowing in all directions. And hiding my Admin status in my postbit, because I'm the janitor and their leader, but I don't need a crown, just persuasion and common sense. I give them freedom in most things that will do no harm, unashamedly hold and wield absolute power in things that will, and asked two members for permission today before I split a thread gone OT - it wasn't important enough to take instant action.

I don't remember the last time I gave an order. Seriously.

I treat them like they're cool and admirable and mature -with respect- and they act cool and admirable and mature in return -and I get respect back, not because I demanded it or asked for it, but because I gave it and earned it. Leadership. It's not just the most powerful tool I have as admin, it's also my job.

Go look around, and tell me the place is out of order. There's a wildly OT thread in MP because of a sick member - where's the harm? I'll step on it if 15 people start sick threads, but they won't, and I won't have to.

All this because I have a bad attitude -I do- and a chip on my shoulder -you've noticed- and I'll be dipped if I'm going to run things like I'm The Man, and treat people the way I HATED! being treated as a citizen.

And it got me a bunch of friends and a growing forum full of happy men and women. I feel pretty good when I look in the mirror. There Is a Better Way, and Its Name Is Leadership.

CFC can pull out a mirror, the rules/policy list and the staff roster, and take a good long look and make some scary/hard choices and do the right thing. Or it can tell me excuses and go on with business as usual and a bad reputation in the community. Whatever.

 

[ainwood]

Note: a lackluster, not-really-trying attempt, just to shut people up would be a lie. An honest attempt to make it work is the right thing to do, AND if you're proved wrong by the trial succeeding, the people will notice your integrity and trust you that much more the next time.

That's leadership.

And to be specific, it is authenticity in leadership. But another part of leadership is providing a vision to draw people along with you, rather than instructing them to do something without understanding why. And on that point, I will reiterate my question, so I can be lead:

Simply put: what is the objective?

A log of moderator actions is "a" solution, but depending on what the underlying concern is, it may not be the best solution. If the objective is to see what the moderators do, then the logs will show that. However, I as it that people want to know the why. An automated log is not going to address that; it requires that the moderators actually create transparency by logging their reasoning.

 

[Mise]

Thanks for taking the time to reply Ainwood.

I see that the volume of deletion events, entirely due to spam, would make such a log rather useless without some kind of filtering. I think there are two ways around this. Either we filter the list after the fact, i.e. filter the .html file that is generated, or we follow BJ's route and filter at the time that the moderator performs the action.

Does the html file record mod-tag edits? I.e. when a moderator edits a post and puts mod-tags in them, do those events get recorded? Or is it just deletion, thread move/merge, etc events? If mod-tag edits do get recorded, then I'd be happy to just have a log of those, ignoring the deleted threads. There are two structural changes that would occur from this:

A big complaint is that moderators simply don't do enough. This would go a long way to showing that, actually, moderators do do a lot. Most contact people have with moderators are when they themselves are the "victim" of an infraction; they think that the moderators are out to get them and only ever seem to infract them or "their side". Well, a public log would show that, actually, this moderator is an equal opportunities infractor -- they have infracted quite a number of people and locked quite a number of threads.

That's the first change. The second change is more about you guys than it is about us. You've been pretty open with your post so I'll reply in kind and tell you honestly how I want this to play out. I actually want people to complain more about threads being deleted or locked without explanation. I want moderators to receive flack when they delete or lock a thread without explanation. A log of all locked threads that do contain explanations will give us some ammunition for that: it will allow us (and other moderators -- they need to self police too) to say, "look! look at all these moderators who took the time to post an explanation in mod-tags when they locked the thread! Why couldn't you have done that?"

The answer to that question is almost always "it's too much effort". Fine, fair enough, moderation is a time-consuming and often thankless chore. But a log of all the instances where moderators do take the time to explain stuff will help on that front, too. It will allow us to see with hard data exactly which moderators are being polite and open, and which are being brusque and dismissive. I think this will encourage moderators to be better moderators, because it will be those who we see being open and polite who we go to when we have issues, who we trust in the future, who we see as friends rather than enemies. I don't know whether moderators care about being liked, but I like to think they care about being better moderators.

I think it's just bad form to lock or delete a thread without giving us any explanation -- or indeed without trying other options first, such as hiving off offending posts into a new thread and locking that thread, which I saw a few moderators do to their credit in the past. When I see moderators taking the time to find the best possible solution, rather than reverting to their big ol' mod-stick, I think, "hey, that moderator is great". In my head, this isn't a record of moderator actions, this is a record of which moderators take the time to explain their stuff. It's a big list of the best moderators. If it turns out that basically every moderator explains every action they do, and the list becomes unmanageably long, then, to me, that's a win...


EDIT: I realise that this all sounds a bit vague and in reality may not actually pan out at all as I've described, but I hope that there is at least some impoetus to structure this forum in a way that encourages good behaviour, both from users and from mods.

 

[ainwood]

Then there's this lovely detail spicing up CFC:
MODERATOR ACTION: I AM GOD ALMIGHTY OR YOUR DAD, AND I'M SHOUTING FOR SOME REASON; I HAVE A NERDBADGE AND YOU DON'T.

We have three options:
Moderator Action: For warnings, infractions etc, linking to the rules.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889
Moderator Action: As above, but not reminding people of the rules.
Moderator Action: A bit more formal - get it back on track type.
Moderator Action: For general notes about stuff or perhaps more gentle reminders.

Nowhere is ALL CAPS A SETTING. So I honestly don't know where you're getting this ALL CAPS VIEW.

 

[Mise]

Oh one last thing, if I see a massive list of what you mods are up against on a daily basis, I might have a better appreciation of the time mods spend on cleaning up mess, which might discourage me from creating mess myself.

Again, wishful thinking perhaps....

 

[The_J]

1 week around the Civ5 release probably wouldn't fit on that page here ^^.

Moderating is not always fun. [...]
Dismissing a reasonable request or proposal because it won't be "fun" is not a responsible argument. It's a disrespectful one.

*sigh*
I should have maybe written: That's not the crap I'd want to keep up with, because it's tedious, nerv consuming, and non productive.

The PDMA policy is only the tip of an iceberg and not even the ugliest crag, only the most blatant expression of -as they say on [a notorious board that I see I may not mention], DOING IT WRONG. I think it's entirely possible that only an outsider has the perspective to see the truth.

The truth?
The truth is that this here is a gaming forum. Which some people take way too serious.

To answer a charge The_J leveled: I did open my comments in this thread by insulting the entire staff, and I am comparing CFC to a totalitarian state at the same time, yes. As I implied about taunting Yang, I believe that a genuinely strong person can afford to be gentle, as Julius Caesar was in showing his enemies mercy. A need for minute control of every trivial aspect of everything -in a social setting, of all things, which is what this place ultimately is- is a sign of weakness and/or insecurity. [shrugs] I don't say it out of malice; I do to perhaps shock people into questioning themselves.

Eh, so what?
Maybe the moderation is weak and insecure.
Doesn't change the fact that this place still has to be moderated, and this is the easiest way to do it.
Or maybe the moderation is strong, and just wants to go this way. Doesn't change anything.

In Civ forum circles, going OT answering a question is only a crime at CFC, especially in an OT folder.

...where does that happen? Besides the notorious problem topics, which have to be kept strictly ontopic.

Leadership. Take really good care of them, make a lot of speeches to set the tone and persuade them to do things and understand your vision and style and set the culture of the forum, go out of your way to make them feel empowered while reserving a veto for the important things, and they love you for it.

It only takes two people to have a flamewar, so it's not all just the numbers; I've stumbled onto something powerful that works. -Because believe me, it's not that I'm good with people, or I wouldn't live online. Leadership; it works.

That sounds great.
But maybe the moderators are just regular people, who just want to invest a bit time to have some fun, and not time and nerves to satisfy some nerd rage on the internet.

EDIT: Please don't forget, I'm still talking about unreasonable people.
Most disputes with normal minded people can be resolved within 2, max. 3 PMs (from my experience).

Go look around, and tell me the place is out of order. There's a wildly OT thread in MP because of a sick member - where's the harm? I'll step on it if 15 people start sick threads, but they won't, and I won't have to.

If you think that would be done here, then you really have the wrong impression of this place.
EDIT: Rephrassed, for better understanding, to make more clear what I mean: It wouldn't be different here.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

Moderating is not always fun. [...]
Dismissing a reasonable request or proposal because it won't be "fun" is not a responsible argument. It's a disrespectful one.

*sigh*
I should have maybe written: That's not the crap I'd want to keep up with, because it's tedious, nerv consuming, and non productive.

Kindly don't patronize me, The_J. You knew what I meant. If you're on staff on a forum, there will always be times when you have to do tedious chores, whether it's what I call "housekeeping" or addressing issues that may fray your nerves, but for the morale of the community, they need to be done.

And how do you know this would be "non productive"? Mise just offered a whole list of ways in which it would be productive.

The truth?
The truth is that this here is a gaming forum. Which some people take way too serious.

It really doesn't matter if a forum is about world politics, gaming, or Beanie Babies. The people who are members need to know that the staff respects them. If they know this through staff actions, and not just because a couple of lines in the rules say they do, the members will reciprocate. Respect, courtesy, and honor are things that are serious everywhere. They matter.

And the flip side: You can't say members take things way too seriously, when we've all seen how seriously the moderators take some things - things that are really not earth-shaking things at all. Obviously I can't give specific examples here, or I'd be infracted for PDMA.

Would you be amenable to a member being treated like crap on a forum for politics, or self-help for a medical condition? Hopefully not. The above post of yours suggests that you're okay with it happening on a gaming forum, just because it's a gaming forum. Why can't you see the problem here? It's not that CFC is a gaming forum that matters. It's that these issues are happening at all.

Eh, so what?
Maybe the moderation is weak and insecure.
Doesn't change the fact that this place still has to be moderated, and this is the easiest way to do it.
Or maybe the moderation is strong, and just wants to go this way. Doesn't change anything.

...

Words are failing me right now. I can't begin to express how disrespectful and arrogant this sounds.

That sounds great.
But maybe the moderators are just regular people, who just want to invest a bit time to have some fun, and not time and nerves to satisfy some nerd rage on the internet.

The OT regulars around here know that there are some OT moderators who occasionally take leaves of absence. They may go away from CFC completely, or they may want to step back from moderating for awhile. Then they come back a few weeks or months later. Maybe that should be incorporated into how all the OT moderators (or anywhere else on CFC where moderators' nerves are likely to be frayed) work. I'm pretty sure somebody else suggested this a few years ago.

EDIT: Please don't forget, I'm still talking about unreasonable people.
Most disputes with normal minded people can be resolved within 2, max. 3 PMs (from my experience).

There are members who are quite reasonable who prefer not to have the rules link parroted back at them, and basically told, "because I'm the moderator and I said so!". I am a reasonable person and I wanted the moderator to explain to me - in his own words - his take on the situation. That's something I did during my time as a moderator. Even the rudest members got my explanations in my own words, because I thought they deserved to be treated like people, not inconvenient problems.

And sometimes there are language or cultural barriers that make it necessary to take more time to resolve... taking that time is worth it, in my experience. It can lead to mutual understanding and respect, which is never a bad thing.

If you think that would be done here, then you really have the wrong impression of this place.

For the sake of clarity, would you please explain what wouldn't be done here - that 15 people wouldn't start personal threads, or that if even one person did that, the moderators wouldn't shut it down?

 

[The_J]

Kindly don't patronize me, The_J. You knew what I meant. If you're on staff on a forum, there will always be times when you have to do tedious chores, whether it's what I call "housekeeping" or addressing issues that may fray your nerves, but for the morale of the community, they need to be done.

I'm sure this here doesn't have much to do with morale.

And how do you know this would be "non productive"? Mise just offered a whole list of ways in which it would be productive.

...er...IMHO that would be interesting for maybe 20 - 30 people, but not really productive. Productive in the sense that it makes moderating easier.

It really doesn't matter if a forum is about world politics, gaming, or Beanie Babies. The people who are members need to know that the staff respects them.

...er....why?
If I register at a random internet forum, and leave 5 posts there, one which might get deleted by a mod...I couldn't care less if that guy respects me or not.

And the flip side: You can't say members take things way too seriously, when we've all seen how seriously the moderators take some things - things that are really not earth-shaking things at all.

If something would consume my time and nerves, then I take it seriously.
Not having 100% freedom of speech and maybe getting a random post deleted in a random thread is less important for me.

Would you be amenable to a member being treated like crap on a forum for politics, or self-help for a medical condition? Hopefully not. The above post of yours suggests that you're okay with it happening on a gaming forum, just because it's a gaming forum. Why can't you see the problem here? It's not that CFC is a gaming forum that matters. It's that these issues are happening at all.

I'm actually also okay with that on other forums (if the matter of subject is actually serious, then I hope though that it gets treated as serious; a forum for political discussions is nothing serious though).
If I don't like it there, then I go away.
It's not so that I'm entitled to anything there. I'm a random visitor on a random site, I choose if I stay or if I leave, and for most of the times it doesn't even matter what I choose.

Words are failing me right now. I can't begin to express how disrespectful and arrogant this sounds.

I've only pointed out that there's no argument in his insult, and I'm the bad boy?

The OT regulars around here know that there are some OT moderators who occasionally take leaves of absence. They may go away from CFC completely, or they may want to step back from moderating for awhile. Then they come back a few weeks or months later. Maybe that should be incorporated into how all the OT moderators (or anywhere else on CFC where moderators' nerves are likely to be frayed) work. I'm pretty sure somebody else suggested this a few years ago.

That is a good idea, but not really relevant for this discussion here, as far as I can see .

For the sake of clarity, would you please explain what wouldn't be done here - that 15 people wouldn't start personal threads, or that if even one person did that, the moderators wouldn't shut it down?

I've rephrased my answer, sorry.

 

[Buster's Uncle]

A major theme of my post last night was losing sight of the forest for the trees, yet I'm answered only in a few cherry-picked specifics, not the moral meta-issue, not the observation about appearances -which do matter- and reputation, and ainwood's very correct remark about leadership rather ignores that I did already say that. (This is what I get for spending hours writing a TL;DR post [not a complaint - that's human and understandable]).

ainwood, are you telling me there's actually a button for the loud mod voice format? If you really want, I'll go dig through PMs saved for four+ years ago, and determine if I remember all-caps correctly or not. HOWEVER - you missed the forest for the trees again, there. Colors and bold are still loud and (by design, I think) intimidating, it's no way for decent people to treat anyone, and I stand behind my remarks.

The_J, I regret that I wasn't more diplomatic than to open in a somewhat trolly way, notwithstanding that the coincidence was what inspired me to trouble myself to get into it. Now, a constant and consistent theme of your remarks in this thread have been about what mods are up against and what they're in this for, to have a good time, just like the rest of us. I've never made any bones about my activities as an organizer and manager being all because I want bright people to talk to, and I read you loud and clear about that, yessiree bob.

However, while I agree that the log is a mediocre idea that's too much trouble and won't work, you always speak as staff do among themselves anywhere - of pragmatic detail. The annoyances and downside for management DO matter, but this is something everyone on staff who bothers to reply in this sort of compliant/suggestion thread covers more than adequately, and it's pretty much all you talk about, as if this is a feudal fief run on behalf of the nobles. I see that everywhere in this thread from teh Bosses. I say that without hostility, but ask that you examine yourself - I need no answer.

Back to addressing all staff; in individual detail, these answers of 'it would suck for us' sound reasonable, but in the aggregate, -the forest- are sending (Loudly) more of those bad messages I talked about last night, whether intended or not.

The moderator log is trying to improvise a band aid onto a gaping wound. What's needed is absolutely greater transparency and accountability, but the solution I see working is an informal one involving a radical change to the way management carries out its duties. You guys have GOTS to wake up and see how things like the PDMA rule look. You gotta lead, not just administer /w mod-stick.


No one has tried to answer my question about why no one else seems to need a PDMA rule. It's not 1999 no more, and maybe, just maybe, you're stuck in outdated old traditions you don't need without realizing it?

 

[Buster's Uncle]

In Civ forum circles, going OT answering a question is only a crime at CFC, especially in an OT folder.

...where does that happen? Besides the notorious problem topics, which have to be kept strictly ontopic.

Ha! I am very amused by the irony that I may not answer this question. See the rule this thread is for discussing.

If you think that would be done here, then you really have the wrong impression of this place.
EDIT: Rephrassed, for better understanding, to make more clear what I mean: It wouldn't be different here.

I still don't quite follow.

 

[The_J]

ainwood, are you telling me there's actually a button for the loud mod voice format? If you really want, I'll go dig through PMs saved for four+ years ago, and determine if I remember all-caps correctly or not.

There isn't an automatic setting for that.
You can sure still write only in caps, but who does that?

HOWEVER - you missed the forest for the trees again, there. Colors and bold are still loud and (by design, I think) intimidating, it's no way for decent people to treat anyone, and I stand behind my remarks.

If I have someone here, who doesn't listen, and who doesn't behave appropriately, then you want to be intimidating.

Besides that: It should be made clear what has been done, and to which point the rules go, what is okay, and what is not okay. And the easiest way to make that obvious, is by putting an indicator into a post which says "This is not okay".
Because you don't want that the users get the impression, that every misbehaviour is okay, because you don't make it clear to everyone that it already has been dealt with.

But apparently even the loud and intimidating remarks in the posts are not enough, else users wouldn't report posts, which have already been flagged as inappropriate (doesn't happen often though, but even senior users sometimes do that).

No one has tried to answer my question about why no one else seems to need a PDMA rule. It's not 1999 no more, and maybe, just maybe, you're stuck in outdated old traditions you don't need without realizing it?

Or maybe we have supreme trolls here ^^?

Ha! I am very amused by the irony that I may not answer this question. See the rule this thread is for discussing.

That's a specific issue then.
But in general you don't get smacked if you go mildly offtopic in any thread here.
(unless indicated otherwise)

I still don't quite follow.

I say: Here the same decision would be made as you would make.
Nobody here is totally nuts.

 

[Takhisis]

Need I remind you that accusing others of trolling is an infractable offense, The_J?

 

[Buster's Uncle]

Okay, fair enough. I'm extremely relaxed about thread drift, preferring to let what Mainac calls "the natural flow of conversation" happen. Naturally, context makes a big difference, and I believe the ancient tradition of respecting the wishes of the OP is a very sound one. I, the admin, did some thread surgery and apologized to the OP last week in such a circumstance, then apologized to everyone who'd had their posts moved without consultation in the thread I moved it all to. That last wasn't strictly necessary, but observing the courtesies matters, and is my job as a leader.

I agree that it is sometimes necessary to hit them with the ol' Zeus come down from Olympus, pissed, routine, though I've never needed to -but I can imagine 15 probable circumstances requiring it faster than I can type this aside- and I do not agree that it is needed 1/10th so often as I see it here.

Or maybe we have supreme trolls here ^^?

I wonder whether you're insinuating something or I should just take this on face value.

I already privately characterized my conduct in this thread as trolling to ainwood, so a few remarks are in order:

Obvious troll is obvious, and half my distain for full-on trolling is that it generally lacks style. Most of the people in the community I could name with that reputation as arch-trolls do their work on a pretty kindergarten level, and only get their reputation for volume and enthusiasm, not much for cleverness. Trolling is a whole spectrum of behavior that begins with something so harmless as talking crap with friends who enjoy it. I'm a huge green troll when it comes to that.

Where it's done with malice or just for the pleasure of making 'em squeal -playing for blood- that's a difference of degree so great as to constitute a difference in kind, of course. If you're doing it with style even then, a good troll is sort of invisible.

By some definitions, I'm trolling CFC in Site, and that's pretty PhD-level trolling to get away with, according to the site's reputation. And if that was what I meant to be doing, I rightly ought to be shut down. Full stop. And I have no way of proving that I speak without malice -but speaking truth to power and challenging preconceptions is inherently painful. I don't see a better way to nag about this important cluster of issues than some frank talk.

Nobody here is totally nuts.

I wouldn't know.

There isn't an automatic setting for that.
You can sure still write only in caps, but who does that?

I may not answer that question according to site rules.