PD of PDMA

[Maniacal]

less angry like dark blue (which ought to stand out more against the default theme) or even better, leave of the color entirely.

The blue one does not work very well on BlackCFC, which is quite popular and, as far as I am concerned, is best CFC. Red is a bit annoying on it too.

I wish they would just use green for all of them unless it is REALLY important to use red. EDIT: I'm also unsure if the BOLDING makes it worse or not.

Nobody here is totally nuts.

I can think of several posters whom, if they aren't actually just trolls, I have serious worries about their mental well being.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

The blue one does not work very well on BlackCFC...

I just tried this out, and can confirm that dark blue font is very hard to read on BlackCFC. Have the staff experimented lately to see if there are any other colors that would show up well on all the skins?

 

[SamSniped]

I just tried this out, and can confirm that dark blue font is very hard to read on BlackCFC. Have the staff experimented lately to see if there are any other colors that would show up well on all the skins?

Dark Slate Gray is a personal favorite of mine, and looks good on BlackCFC.

 

[Takhisis]

Magenta shows up quite nicely. And it'd help us get more girl users and, especially, girl mods.

 

[Camikaze]

So it really does boil down to Civ = good stuff worth the time and effort, and OT = inconvenient stuff that isn't really worth that much time and effort, even though both areas involve real people, with real opinions and concerns, and who usually have the desire to interact with other posters in a positive way, in a positive environment, and believe that the staff will be approachable and helpful when problems arise.

Or in other words (using myself as an example): if I happen to have an issue with someone in Civ II, the staff will make the effort to resolve the situation without necessarily handing out infractions, but if the same sort of problem happens in OT, the response will either be "Pfft. It's OT, so ignore it" or "It's OT. How many points shall we dish out?"

This is what it appears you are saying.

No, because to quote the post to which you were replying:

I guess the necessary consequence of the Civ forums being more worth our time (this being a Civ site afterall), is that the OTs are less worth our time, but that's relatively speaking, and isn't saying that the OTs aren't worth any attention. It's simply stating what the purpose of the site is.

All I am saying is that in-depth moderator involvement in interpersonal disputes would be out of step with the principles of moderation in the Tavern. Mediation would involve intensive work from moderators (as it always has when it's been engaged in; it's not a novel concept, and has been tried before, both successfully and unsuccessfully), and is towards the hand-holding end of the spectrum, as I said. Perhaps it's a good idea for the moderators to engage in that sort of thing, or to move towards that end of the spectrum in the Tavern. But that's quite a shift in policy, is my point, not just a randomly embarked upon add-on to our Tavern repertoire. Mediation is more suited to other forums, including the Chamber, and that's why we use it more in others forums. If we see a problem brewing between two posters in the Civ4 forums, for example, we adopt a more remedial approach, whereas in the Tavern, when we intervene we're generally more punitive. One reading of this is that in the Tavern we're treating you more as adults; it's not Mummy & Daddy Moderator's job to force you to shake hands and apologise. You just have to face the consequences of your actions if they're running contrary to clearly stipulated guidelines at a private venue.

To your last sentence, well ainwood asked for input so I gave it and took the time to put good effort into it to boot. But if we are talking about OT then obviously it isn't worth the time.

Did you read where I suggested it wasn't even needed at the moment, or how it could actually save time in the long run?

So what's with the rolleyes here? I haven't dismissed anyone's idea or said that people shouldn't have ideas. I was saying that in-depth mediation isn't all that well suited to the Tavern.

 

[Takhisis]

Question for the mods: why is it that the staff refuses to have regional moderators who can only act in a given subforum(s)?

 

[Camikaze]

We pretty much do, but that's flexible. The greater need for moderators in OT, for example, means that OT mods are pretty happy for any other mod to deal with OT problems if they're run-of-the-mill, and if the mod feels up to it. In the Civ5 forums, meanwhile, you would almost never see a non-local-mod performing an action.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

No, because to quote the post to which you were replying:

All I am saying is that in-depth moderator involvement in interpersonal disputes would be out of step with the principles of moderation in the Tavern.

You're looking at this like a bureaucrat. I'm looking at it like a social worker/counselor. What the hell difference does it make WHERE two people are having serious interpersonal problems that disrupt the forum? Some posters have problems that follow them all over the site - they feel and react the same way no matter if they're posting in a Civ forum, Other Games, OT, or some other Colosseum forum! The goal should be to help them find a way to make their interpersonal posting work civilly, should they ask for your help.

Mediation would involve intensive work from moderators (as it always has when it's been engaged in; it's not a novel concept, and has been tried before, both successfully and unsuccessfully), and is towards the hand-holding end of the spectrum, as I said.

I know that. You know I know that. And I'm well aware that some lack the patience to even try. I was one who did not lack the patience. If you want to call that by a snide term like "hand-holding," so be it.

Perhaps it's a good idea for the moderators to engage in that sort of thing, or to move towards that end of the spectrum in the Tavern. But that's quite a shift in policy, is my point, not just a randomly embarked upon add-on to our Tavern repertoire.

Nobody here is suggesting that you implement a policy of "Oh dear, Poster A and Poster B have had "x" number of instances of mutual trolling/flaming; that means it's time for a rules-mandated mediation session!" What people are suggesting is that the option be available for those who want it, or who would be willing to try.

Mediation is more suited to other forums, including the Chamber, and that's why we use it more in others forums. If we see a problem brewing between two posters in the Civ4 forums, for example, we adopt a more remedial approach, whereas in the Tavern, when we intervene we're generally more punitive. One reading of this is that in the Tavern we're treating you more as adults; it's not Mummy & Daddy Moderator's job to force you to shake hands and apologise. You just have to face the consequences of your actions if they're running contrary to clearly stipulated guidelines at a private venue.

Given that the Chamber didn't exist less than a year ago, how can you type with a straight face that a situation in the Chamber would be more worthy of mediation than a situation in the Tavern, when it all used to be one place and the people involved are likely to read/participate in both places? People don't necessarily reset their personal feelings to 0 when they click a link to go to a different subforum.

I think I've been pretty clear in stating that apologies that are not sincere are not really apologies. Someone who apologizes has to OWN the bad behavior that makes the apology necessary or appropriate, with no vague or weasel-words included. The need or desire to apologize can be present, but it can sometimes be really hard. There are several examples of people expressing this sincere sentiment in the Olive Branch thread: they feel the need to apologize, but aren't sure how. They want to make amends, but sometimes they need help to do it. Why wouldn't you consider this worth doing, just because it might be in the Tavern?

 

[Birdjaguar]

I did read this:

Spoiler :

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


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:

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.

And this too.

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?

I do spend a lot of time thinking about the bigger picture and the role of moderation above the "You've been infracted" level.

The big picture begins with CFC as a very successful site with thousands of visitors and members everyday. Within that success there are numerous smaller communities that may or not have ties to the most current version of the game. Many of those communities have flourished for many years. If you asked folks why this place has survived and done so well, you would get many different reasons all of which would probably hold some truth. The civ sites that have not survived have all failed for reasons peculiar to their management and membership. The [fascist] orderliness of this site which you disapprove of has been a significant contributor to that success. Has it also constrained its growth and development? Of course, but "anchor" of orderliness was outweighed by all the other benefits that the orderliness and other factors brought with it. If that were not true, then the site would not have prospered.

Moderation here is an evolving thing. It changes as the moderators change; it changes as anarchists push against the fascists to try new things and the fascists push back. Most of those changes are small ones, but change does come.

You are calling for a paradigm shift the way all moderation across the forum is thought about and conducted. You want a new world order that would free members from terrible shackles of oppressive rules. Except when a new version of Civ brings an influx of many many new members, 80% of moderation activity (my estimate) is in the Colosseum. and, surprisingly, almost all of the push for changes to moderation from members and staff, are from Colosseum posters and OT staff. How many infractions or warning have happened in the Alpha Centauri forum in the past year?

Your call for a renewed leadership and relationship between moderators and members is mostly unnecessary for the majority of the site. and further if you spent time nosing around the corners of the site you would find that many of the smaller communities already function under lighter hands and more casual interpretations of the rules. Keep in mind where we started: this is a hugely successful site right now. yes posters do have less freedom here than at your site. They probably have less freedom than they had at Apolyton too. You can certainly do more things at four chan than you can do here. So what?

The goal as I see it is to have a successful community where folks like to hang out. Our task is to figure that our for CFC even as its dynamics change as members grow up and change or come and go. The OT "tail" wants to wag the dog and the staff recognizes that we have many smart and dedicated members who call OT home. But if the goal is the continued success of CFC, you don't change the business model from what has been proven to work and cast it aside for for an untried model based on a different model of success.

You throw leadership around like it is something to be plucked off a tree. You are probably a fine leader and genuinely want improved leadership at CFC. We all do. But good leaderships is not a commodity and it is certainly not always the same from person to person. Not all great leaders get along with other great leaders. You cannot mandate leadership and having good leadership does not guarantee great followers. Success usually comes with teamwork and building a team of 20 among folks whose only contact is a keyboard is not a simple task. Add the dynamics of comings and goings and failed selection processes and soon to be discovered personality conflicts and the whole team building takes on nightmarish qualities.

So, as I see it, we face the challenge of how much risk do we subject our success to, in order to improve the community experience of the OT tail. I'm a risk taker and I would push the envelop pretty far. I already do in NESing. Not everyone agrees with me, nor should they. I think the best approach is to compartmentalize the risk and see what happens before betting the entire organization in the game.

Good leadership has more to do with being right and successful than with any particular way of interacting with those you lead. Its about taking those for whom you are responsible for to the "promised land" however you define it. Each of our CFC communities has their own "promised land" and we should not think that they are all the same.


BTW, M. Bonaparte, whom you dismiss with disdain above, was a very effective and successful leader. Perhaps even better than you.

 

[The_J]

[...]

That is good to know, because I've seriously lost track about what you want to achieve.

You are calling for a paradigm shift the way all moderation across the forum is thought about and conducted. You want a new world order that would free members from terrible shackles of oppressive rules. Except when a new version of Civ brings an influx of many many new members, 80% of moderation activity (my estimate) is in the Colosseum. and, surprisingly, almost all of the push for changes to moderation from members and staff, are from Colosseum posters and OT staff. How many infractions or warning have happened in the Alpha Centauri forum in the past year?

To answer the rhetorical question: 0.
(For some other numbers: OT is more 50% regarding infractions though, with another 20% from Civ5 GD, and the rest scattered over all other forums (at least last year). Adding the involved PM exchanges in number and length, headaches, SF threads and bigger internal discussions, the 80% are probably an underestimation).

 

[Valka D'Ur]

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

I'll use an example from a forum I belonged to years ago. On two occasions, there were incidents of epic failure from a technical standpoint. The first time was moving to vBulletin from a different kind of forum. We discovered tons of broken links, image code that had turned into alphabet soup, and other problems that I couldn't personally begin to understand, not being knowledgeable enough. I just knew the forum wasn't working right, and everyone's nerves were frayed - from the site owner and admins down to the casual posters. The second time was when the servers crashed. This was a crash of epic proportions. When we got back, it was like someone had taken a blender to the place. It took days to chase down orphan threads and posts, fix links and image code. The staff enlisted as many of us as possible to help find the problems and report them, and if any of the links and code issues happened to be in our own posts, we were encouraged to fix them.

This was one hell of an exercise in community cooperation. The tech-capable people fixed the major problems, and the rest of us hunted down the orphaned threads and posts and did our best to help in any way we could. This was a tedious, often frustrating time, but did it build community morale? You bet it did! And a huge part of it was the staff trusting the members to actively help, rather than patting us on the heads and telling us to go away. And if something didn't work that wasn't vital to the forum but was still annoying, they didn't dismiss it; for the sake of community morale, they fixed it.

Short version: Morale is important.

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

And those 20-30 people aren't worth it? Thanks. Thanks a lot.

...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.

Does your keyboard have a stuttering problem?

CFC does have a lot of casual posters, but the regularly active ones here have a hell of a lot more than 5 posts. We have invested time and energy and creativity into this place. We deserve respect for that.

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.

Fine. That's you. That's not how everyone thinks.

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).

A lot of the political discussions here may not be serious (many are, though); but you really can't say that as a blanket statement for all forums. Go to the discussion areas of Care2 where people are talking about the politics of child slavery or climate change or animal abuse in some country on the other side of the world - you'd find out in 5 seconds flat after posting that political discussions ARE taken seriously in some parts of the internet.

If I don't like it there, then I go away.

Fair enough. Nobody will force you to stay on a forum where you don't want to be.

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.

What I've been getting from your previous posts and replies to me is that you seem to consider regular, active, loyal CFC users as no better than some drive-by casual visitor, and worth about as much consideration.

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

I'm angry because of what YOU said:

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.

This basically adds up to a big "we'll do it any way we want, and if it doesn't work, so what?"

It suggests to me that you're fine with taking the easiest way, which is not necessarily the best way. And just shrug if it doesn't work out or if people don't like it or ask for some change to be made. Professional apathy doesn't impress me. And one of the things moderators here are encouraged to do is act in a professional manner. Shrugging and saying "so what?" is not professional.

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

You're the one who brought up frayed nerves. I'm offering you a solution. That makes it relevant.

 

[Buster's Uncle]

J, I need accept no responsibility for the failure of others to keep up.

BTW, M. Bonaparte, whom you dismiss with disdain above, was a very effective and successful leader. Perhaps even better than you.

Sir, I did no such thing. I dismissed nerdz who thought an unpaid mod position on some lousy innerwebs forum made them important, or better than anyone else with contempt. I've never tried to rule France or conquer Europe, and rather think I would suck at either - and what does that have to do with anything?

You have given me the best answer yet, though. None of that 'we can't be arsed' nonsense, and from a fellow with a reputation for being interested in trying new things. I am indeed "calling for a paradigm shift the way all moderation across the forum is thought about and conducted."

I've never seen Matrix so much as browse AC in well over four years, and Petek is a VERY laid-back gentleman, so of course the answer is zero - I'll do you one better and admit that I've never seen a warning or infraction there at all; but then, we're not talking about a folder with an exactly impressive per-day post average, are we? I don't behave myself in there when I post because I fear Petek, or think Matrix will ever show up, or a supermod will wander by (though two other SMACers among the staff are known to me). My idea of decent behavior has always been good enough there. Most people's is, witness that a not stone-dead folder effectively went without a mod for years. (I find it hard to believe too, honestly.)

You have me correctly pegged as a passionate egalitarian with a radical streak - in my showbiz days, I was migrant labor, and boy, oh boy, did I not like being treated like migrant labor. And CFC treats members like migrant labor WAY too much of the time.

You can tell me that I see an imaginary problem outside off-topic areas, but what I witness every time I browse Site puts the -it turns out not to be the case, to put it diplomatically. Was it you or someone else who answered me pages ago admitting that yes, it's the kids fault? Whoever it was, good job on the manning up and taking responsibility. There is an institutional bad attitude here. It shows unmistakably in roughly 80% of the posts from staff members in this very thread.

As long as you think of the kids as a troublesome rabble (and this is an all-staff "you", as it's too much work to keep track of precisely who said which arrogant/self-centered/lazy thing), you are nothing but a dirty bossman, and you. are. part. of. the. problem. The world is full of crap managers who don't care who they hurt, and CFC is part of the crapulence of life when it ought to be an escape from the crap. I don't see rabble posting in Site, I only see clearly intelligent people clearly interested in the welfare of their online home - so why do I keep seeing bossman behavior?

No one on staff seems to be able to admit that there's a problem there.

I need to get to bed two hours ago, so I will leave you with this quote from the 9th, long before I discovered this thread or was thinking about CFC:

Well, I've learned a lot from seeing it done wrong on other forums.

If I run this place like it was the army, it's a place I wouldn't support as a member. We've all done our time, in real life, as children, in the military, at our RL jobs, dealing with RL bureaucracy, -being treated like our time is worth nothing and we ourselves are unworthy of respect. Intercourse that cacophony, I say. I'm here to have a good time. Period. And I'm willing to invest the work into this community it takes to gather enough people to have my good time. And I'd be stupid to hand out treatment I wouldn't take myself; aside from my pride in not being what I hate, harsh moderation would drive off the proud people I'm most likely to understand and enjoy. The logic scans, doesn't it?

And since the last time I mentioned never having to moderate people in this thread, I banned a troll for two weeks. It's the only trolling I know of happening at all in the history of AC2, but it was the third trolling attempt in days, and we ain't gonna have trolling here. I've seen what happens when there are no real rules. That free-for-all ocean of insults and harassment may be some people's idea of a good time, (and I used to be a nasty-mouthed 13 year-old, so I do understand those guys) but it ain't mine. Somebody's got to be in charge.

So, you know, the velvet glove seems like a good idea, and it's the only way I could do this and stand myself. I'm a bossy, aggressive, angry person, and being gentle is the way I ride heard on my bad tendencies. It's wonderful that that's good for everyone else.

And I really do want to be your friend, absent you giving me a reason not to. I've been lucky in that, as in so much else, here at AC2.

 

[Camikaze]

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 by 'take seriously' you mean 'enforce', then I think that's confusing two different attitudes. Contrary to popular belief, inappropriate language on an internet forum does not consume my daily thoughts or make it hard for me to sleep at night. Yet I'm quite happy to enforce the inappropriate language rules. If I do so zealously, this is not because I'm taking it uber-seriously, but because it's a fairly clear rule with a fairly clear response. You enter a bar with a no smoking policy and start smoking, the bouncers are going to ask you to stop or kick you out. They may be smokers themselves, and may not be on sort of crusade against smoking, but are just making sure the rule at this private venue is abided by.

As an aside, my 'favourite' type of response to an infraction is the one where people, in the process of complaining about moderation on an internet forum, accuse the moderator of taking things too seriously. Depending on how vociferously it's worded, it can be really delicious.

 

[The_J]

Would be funny, if that hadn't consumed too much of my time ^^.


-------------

I'm omitting some things, because this is going in too many directions.

And those 20-30 people aren't worth it? Thanks. Thanks a lot.

If it makes moderating a hell lot more complicated, then not.

A lot of the political discussions here may not be serious (many are, though); but you really can't say that as a blanket statement for all forums. Go to the discussion areas of Care2 where people are talking about the politics of child slavery or climate change or animal abuse in some country on the other side of the world

With "serious" I meant something with RL importance. Nothing of that (or anything here) has any RL importance (in contrast to e.g. your mentioned example of medical self help).

I'm angry because of what YOU said:
This basically adds up to a big "we'll do it any way we want, and if it doesn't work, so what?"

It suggests to me that you're fine with taking the easiest way, which is not necessarily the best way. And just shrug if it doesn't work out or if people don't like it or ask for some change to be made. Professional apathy doesn't impress me. And one of the things moderators here are encouraged to do is act in a professional manner. Shrugging and saying "so what?" is not professional.

What's your indication that it doesn't work?
(serious question; a few unhappy people are no indication for a not working setting)

You're the one who brought up frayed nerves. I'm offering you a solution. That makes it relevant.

Ah, okay. But it's only a partial solution, because increasing moderator exchange and increasing nerv pressure doesn't end up in a better situation, at best in an equal one.

 

[ainwood]

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

<snip>

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.

So why haven't you been? You keep claiming that this is the CivCentration camp / fascist police state.

Do you also appreciate that perhaps you are characterising those that frequent our site, and actually like it here as victims?

And I have no way of proving that I speak without malice -but speaking truth to power and challenging preconceptions is inherently painful.

Do you challenge your own preconceptions?

 

[Kyriakos]

Regarding the Chamber/Tavern notes:

-I think it is great that the rules are on the one hand not entirely clearly set, on the other hand are obviously allowing for more "funny remarks" (even though i suspect that a great deal of those remarks are really not intended as funny, but as attacks). Which is why i prefer starting threads which can only work, in my view, if some seriousness is kept, in the Chamber, but more than 90% of my threads are in the Tavern or other parts of the forum.

I also agree with The_J (others may have said pretty much the same thing) that no matter how the moderating is, you can never actually please a lot of people if they have specific expectations from this site, which in the end is about the Civ computer games and not about general debates on unrelated issues. Indeed some take the OT forums way too seriously (even the Tavern, which in its definition here is mentioned to be a clearly more fun-oriented forum), and that leads to problems by itself- i used to take such forums too seriously too, a couple of years ago, and it was not at all a good idea.

 

[ainwood]

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:

it logs edit, but not what was edited. Looking to see if the existing logs can be customised (figure there should be a way of adding the "reasofor editing", but don't see how)

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.

not actually vague, and I agree with most of it. I would like go think that logging of the "why" was something that was regularly done around here (I certainly used to do it), and is just a thing that has slowly eroded. I don't think it's a big paradigm shift to get people to justify / explain what they did (logging it in the post as the "reason for edit" or in mod tags in the thread is not a big deal - certainly not as big a deal as having to go log in a separate thread - although before the card system came in for infractions, that is exactly what we did).

 

[Buster's Uncle]

So why haven't you been? You keep claiming that this is the CivCentration camp / fascist police state.

Per Site rules, I may not answer that question.

However, I have some trust for you and will do so anyway. If you, ainwood, the Guy In Charge, wanted to get me, I can think of multiple places I'm already technically in breach of some rule or another (I did read the rules in full a long time ago); you know that it would be extremely impolitic to treat me harshly. You know that on some level doing that would lose your argument that CFC ain't so bad, and send the wrong message to everyone. I suspect you're protecting me from less-cool heads on the staff.

And I must say that what I've experienced here in this thread this week has been acceptable treatment. Your 'we're not as bad as you claim' argument thus gains that much traction.

If only that was the whole story.

Do you also appreciate that perhaps you are characterising those that frequent our site, and actually like it here as victims?

A valid point. [shrugs] One imagines that there are people who haven't had bad experiences, whether through immaculate behavior or a very different standard of what treatment bothers them.

The Buster's Uncle who got upset over his treatment at CFC at age 44 got so more easily and intensely than the 48 year-old you're talking to now. Standards differ according to contextual elements so complex that my TL;DR posts here would be a full-time job should I attempt total and complete accuracy in every detail. I can only apologize to anyone completely happy at CFC who feels diminished to be lumped in with the victims.

Do you challenge your own preconceptions?

I think a lot about how the world works, about how nerdz work, and so on. I put a lot of effort into trying to understand tea party Republicans and other people who annoy me by being so wrong. I spend a lot of time trying to figure out why I'm so bad with people and how to do it better, and I'm impressed with my own progress in the last decade, and so is my family.

I burned hours, literally hours, last night doing my due diligence to find out if I remembered the all-caps thing right - and it turns out I did not.

So I'd like to think that amidst all that, that yes, I do.



Birdjaguar, your thoughtful essay deserves more answer than I had time for last night; I'll try to get to that today, multitasking and my duties permitting.

 

[s.bernbaum]

I spend nearly all of my time on Civfanatics in the Civ IV forums. I frequently have a look at this forum but very rarely have anything to add. I have looked at the Colosseum forums and found them of no interest, so I never looked at them again. The general trend in this thread seems to be antagonistic to the moderators. The vast majority of the posters in this thread seem to be Colosseum users. As a member who prefers the game threads, I would like to voice my support of the moderators and the current methods they use. If I wanted to read threads where people are trolling, flaming, insulting one another, or just going way off topic, I would be somewhere else on the web. I don't want to see those things allowed in the CFC game threads. If the staff decides to change the way moderation is done, please confine the changes to the Colosseum, which those unhappy with the current approach seem to frequent.

 

[Buster's Uncle]

To be clear, I've never advocated allowing trolling, flaming, or insulting one another - and just going way off topic is a very contextual matter, with it doing no harm in some contexts and being not to be tolerated in others. Those are basic "Moby Dick" issues (literary types joke that Moby Dick doesn't work as anything if he doesn't work as a whale) that forum management must stay on top of.

No, I'm on about attitude and expressions of such, mostly in small things that matter in the aggregate, and a few huge ones like the policy this thread is about.