PD of PDMA

[Valka D'Ur]

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.

By "take seriously" I mean "go ballistic over and infract when either no infraction is needed at all, or at least not as harsh a one."

An example is the sort of infraction levied in these circumstances (or similar) - note that this post is copy/pasted from the Olive Branch thread, post #78

Of course there is a point I read all your posts. Thanks for thinking of me. And, BTW, your magic number is: "up".

I assume that, while PDMA is unacceptable, public discussion of your existence is fair game?

Or is that also covered under 'to be is to do'.

In this instance, I am referring to occasions when a poster has said something like, "Moderator X said he doesn't like strawberry jam on his toast" and Moderator X promptly infracted the poster for PDMA. Nothing that was mod-tagged was quoted. There was no reference to any infractions or warnings Moderator X had issued. Just a casual reference to something Moderator X said, and Moderator X flew off the handle and was completely unreasonable about the whole situation.

Please note that in reference to what Birdjaguar and bathsheba666 are saying about each other, I have not the slightest idea what that's about. It's bathsheba666's questions that matter in the context of the current thread here. I think they're valid questions. I can't give more specific examples of why I'm concerned about this, because that would be PDMA.

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.

So if a poster's reputation and personal honor get impugned by an over-zealous moderator's reaction to a basically harmless post and they get justifiably angry about it, you find that "delicious?"

Words fail me. I need to go unpack my thesaurus and dictionary to find some. For now I will settle for "I find that attitude repugnant."

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).

How about you actually read some threads before being so dismissive? People have posted here about political issues that affect their jobs, schooling, where they live, where they might move to, if they would feel accepted (ie. would a not-particularly-religious Democrat feel comfortable moving to an ultra-religious Republican-run state for the sake of a new job), and lots of other issues. If that's not RL importance, then I don't know what is.

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

My use of "it" was meant to be general. And don't tell me that there haven't been times when the minority has actually been right. That happens all the time in the "real" world, and sometimes on internet discussion boards.

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.

It's not quite clear what you mean by "moderator exchange". Do you mean increased moderator turnover, as in the older ones take more frequent breaks and newer ones step up, you all go on a rotating system of breaks to avoid burnout, and other similar suggestions that have been made over the years?

Or do you mean "moderator exchange" to mean moderators interacting with posters in counselor/mentor/mediator roles?

I get a very strong impression that you wouldn't be a candidate for a moderator who would lead a mediation. What I get from your posts here is this: You don't think it's important, therefore it's not important, period. If I'm wrong about this, please enlighten me.

And how do you know the situation wouldn't improve? There have been mediations done on this forum - I know because I observed, and also participated. Some worked, at least for awhile. A couple of small ones resulted in improved interactions that have been working for years (not going to name names, for the sake of those members' privacy). And granted, some attempts haven't worked at all - either because the participants fell back into old patterns, or at least one of them wasn't going into it honestly, in good faith.

None of the less-than-perfect ones are valid reasons for waving your hand and saying, "This isn't important. It doesn't relate to RL as I see it, therefore it's a waste of time."

I'm pretty sure that if two people in your area of the forum had a problem and asked for mediation, nobody would force you to be the mediator if you didn't want to. But that doesn't mean it's a waste of time. It could lead to a lasting solution, amicable interactions in the forum, and increased respect all around. How is that a bad thing?

@s.bernbaum: It's nice to hear that CivIV has settled down. I posted there a bit in the days before I discovered OT. There were some flareups and flamewars, and I remember quaking in my socks, wondering if the reason a moderator had closed a thread was because of something I'd said. The mod (can't remember who; this was many years ago) was nice enough to PM and say, "No, not your fault. The thread itself was in trouble."

There have been difficulties in Civ3 and Civ5. There have been personality clashes that are poster/poster and poster/staff (this is obvious to anyone reading the threads). So the problem isn't confined to OT. It's other places, too.

 

[Lone Wolf]

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.

Sort of yes. People have been talking about the sorry state of the OT for years, and the OT is indeed ramshaky (though, like one of its regulars said, it feels horrible, and you know it's bad for you, yet you still keep coming for more), but the Civ section doesn't have the OT's problems even in places with relatively confrontative characters (I rarely visit the Civ5 fora, though).

 

[Kyriakos]

Sort of yes. People have been talking about the sorry state of the OT for years, and the OT is indeed ramshaky (though, like one of its regulars said, it feels horrible, and you know it's bad for you, yet you still keep coming for more), but the Civ section doesn't have the OT's problems even in places with relatively confrontative characters (I rarely visit the Civ5 fora, though).

True, and it makes perfect sense given that in the Civ-related forums the people tend to be there so that they can discuss, or even mod, the Civ games. Some even create work for the games. So they are less likely to be there so as to attack others.

Then again i do not see how one's reputation is supposedly suffering from anything, just because there was a confrontation with another poster on some web forum, moreso in OT-land, where that is pretty much a regular thing (sadly).

I visit two other forums, both about the same size as CivFanatics. There are, sometimes, problematic posters there as well, but due to the forums being about specific subject-matter they tend to just leave after a short while. OT forums in computer-game sites are sometimes hard to keep running, which is why many known game-sites dedicated to the one or the other title have even removed them.

However- at least in my view- things have become mildly better even in the OT forums at CFC. I guess though that it was mostly for me that i don't expect something more from the OT than what merely exists to be found there, ie at best some moments of interesting discussion- from my point of view.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

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.

Uh huh, sure you're not here to hold our hands. Yet there are occasions where you end up slapping enough hands that you might as well be holding them because you haven't yet found a good way to deal with hands that need to be slapped in a more long-term manner. You lap, slap slap away and then deal with the consequences of forum-wide outrage while the problem only gets larger and draws in more people because it wasn't contained well to begin with.

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.

I'm rolling my eyes because you (as a group, and not even all of you) are engaging in double-speak. On the one hand, you don't want to hold our hands and you don't want to do something that will increase moderator workload. On the other hand, you all admit that OT already generates the most infractions, the most hand-slapping and a disproportionate amount of moderator time. I offered suggestions that *could* cut down on the amount of time and work you have to do in the long run. I also explicitly stated that I didn't feel it was necessary at the moment but might be considered in the future if needed. You turned around and said it was handholding and would take more moderator time. Do you see what I'm getting at and why I got frustrated?

Your comments also lead me to believe that you didn't either carefully read what I wrote (understandable, it was tl;dr) or you didn't try very hard to understand what I said or more importantly why I said it. It wasn't meant to be a panacea and a magic pill that will cure all problems and should be liberally applied. I even stated that there are quite a number of instances - and I would go so far as to state that the majority of instances - where this kind of communication between mods/members isn't needed, warranted or even helpful. Most time the infraction(s) needs to be handed out and that's the end of that. It was a suggestion targeted to specific situations, situations that aren't currently an issue, situations that aren't necessarily widespread when they do become an issue and most importantly could potentially save you all a lot of mod work.

Maybe they won't and I do understand that similar approaches have been tried. I have thoughts on this and I will share it with you in a PM that I will also send to ainwood, The_J and Birdjaguar because what I have to say on it isn't suited for public discussion.

 

[Takhisis]

Part of all this is that societies across the world have suddenly frown more expaserated, the US and their War on Terror/Ward on Drugs, global terrorism, the economic meltdown in Europe, Russia's resurgence of repressive policies, Latin American caudillos who make a career out of keeping their countries in some sort of permanent 'revolution', etc. and all thsi anger pours out onto the Web.

Since CFC has a sort of 'government', we can point out that the same frustration felt by people IRL -governments never take the fall for their misdeeds- is felt here. There are and have been abusive moderators. Yet they always 'choose to step down' and are showered with public praise instead of people finding out 'hey this mod exceeded his/her ability, he's being punished'. You are holier than us and never make any mistakes, and if anyone asks they get told to mind their own business and/or infracted.

 

[ainwood]

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.

No; Thunderfall is and always will be the guy who's really in charge. Padma, Plotinus and myself have delegated authority.

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.

Aww!

If only that was the whole story.

Aww!

And conversely, it may have been your intent to create sufficient stir and step over what you thought the line to be sufficiently far, that you could force us into action, thus "proving" your point. That would be more in-line with your "PhD level of trolling" comment, and consistent with your other comment "Obvious troll is obvious".

So let me add some additional info here:

And that one infraction that I gave was, on reflection, somewhat unfair (checking them reminded me of it, and I will now reverse it).

I am not "protecting" you from the other staff. No-one has even suggested infracting you. Moderation is more lenient in site feedback, and generally the people posting here contribute constructively.

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.

Great - and so do I. I could probably have saved you the hassle - the correspondence is logged against infractions (unless it was in a PM unrelated to an infraction).

 

[The_J]

Since CFC has a sort of 'government', we can point out that the same frustration felt by people IRL -governments never take the fall for their misdeeds- is felt here. There are and have been abusive moderators. Yet they always 'choose to step down' and are showered with public praise instead of people finding out 'hey this mod exceeded his/her ability, he's being punished'. You are holier than us and never make any mistakes, and if anyone asks they get told to mind their own business and/or infracted.

That's all because a public witch hunt/humiliation is not condoned by anyone.
That's also why infractions and bans are not intentionally broadcasted.

In this instance, I am referring to occasions when a poster has said something like, "Moderator X said he doesn't like strawberry jam on his toast" and Moderator X promptly infracted the poster for PDMA. Nothing that was mod-tagged was quoted. There was no reference to any infractions or warnings Moderator X had issued. Just a casual reference to something Moderator X said, and Moderator X flew off the handle and was completely unreasonable about the whole situation.

...where?

So if a poster's reputation and personal honor get impugned by an over-zealous moderator's reaction to a basically harmless post and they get justifiably angry about it, you find that "delicious?"

Words fail me. I need to go unpack my thesaurus and dictionary to find some. For now I will settle for "I find that attitude repugnant."

No, it's more about "someone gets freakin' angry about something which doesn't have any impact at all (-> warning), and then accuses you for being too serious". That's just irony, pure irony.

How about you actually read some threads before being so dismissive? People have posted here about political issues that affect their jobs, schooling, where they live, where they might move to, if they would feel accepted (ie. would a not-particularly-religious Democrat feel comfortable moving to an ultra-religious Republican-run state for the sake of a new job), and lots of other issues. If that's not RL importance, then I don't know what is.

Yes, you're right, I haven't read anything there, and it seems that you're right, might be of some importance.
But that really doesn't apply to the majority of all internet forums.

My use of "it" was meant to be general. And don't tell me that there haven't been times when the minority has actually been right. That happens all the time in the "real" world, and sometimes on internet discussion boards.

You're also sure right on that. But I still don't any indicator in the current situation.

It's not quite clear what you mean by "moderator exchange". Do you mean increased moderator turnover, as in the older ones take more frequent breaks and newer ones step up, you all go on a rotating system of breaks to avoid burnout, and other similar suggestions that have been made over the years?

I meant the former.

Or do you mean "moderator exchange" to mean moderators interacting with posters in counselor/mentor/mediator roles?

I get a very strong impression that you wouldn't be a candidate for a moderator who would lead a mediation. What I get from your posts here is this: You don't think it's important, therefore it's not important, period. If I'm wrong about this, please enlighten me.

No, in that case you're right. If I deem something to be unimportant, then I'm not going into bigger discussions about it.
If I think something has some sort of importance, then I do.
Has only happened a few times here for me, but it has happend (not always succesful though).

 

[Takhisis]

No; Thunderfall is and always will be the guy who's really in charge. Padma, Plotinus and myself have delegated authority.

Does THunderfall ever show up? This sounds more and more like a mantra you keep repeating, but we never see him.

That's all because a public witch hunt/humiliation is not condoned by anyone.
That's also why infractions and bans are not intentionally broadcasted.

I wasn't asking for a witch hunt, you're blatantly and shamelessly twisting my words.

What I did say is that there's hardly ever an admission of guilt and some blatant misdeeds have simply been whitewashed. Moderators can do no wrong.

 

[ainwood]

Does THunderfall ever show up? This sounds more and more like a mantra you keep repeating, but we never see him.

He's more like a patron than a CEO, but he was here yesterday and he sent me an email as well.

 

[Buster's Uncle]

I stand behind my Guy in Charge remark, as it appears your relationship with the owner and function here are similar to mine with the owner of AC2. -Which is a pretty irrelevant detail, anyway.

And conversely, it may have been your intent to create sufficient stir and step over what you thought the line to be sufficiently far, that you could force us into action, thus "proving" your point. That would be more in-line with your "PhD level of trolling" comment, and consistent with your other comment "Obvious troll is obvious".

I assure you that my intent is merely to "create sufficient stir" that members who have a far superior command of the details of how the areas they frequent are run, and I do not, will have time to notice and not be afraid to speak up. I wouldn't have made the point to you in private that I don't want to win something by getting punished if I was trying to provoke you - rather the contrary. I want to go on happy to be a regular in the AC folder, trying to create/encourage activity there. I'd like to be more comfortable in the rest of CFC, too, which is already happening as I gain faith in your good judgment. Truth.

Life is complex (a concept I had trouble learning, as befits a nerd) and truth itself can have intricate facets, difficult to comprehend in their entirety. Is the truth that there are (arguably) trollish elements to my manner in explicating a meta-issue I am passionate about (with a grudge in the mix of my complex feelings about CFC) more important than the truth that I believe I see a Better Way and want to help by persuading you of it?

I find the latter truth far more significant, and hope that you recognize my rhetorical technique of making (risky) admissions again interest as a part of establishing my basic honesty, and hopefully trust between us. Note that I'm capable of admitting when I'm wrong, too; there's a lesson there.

(unless it was in a PM unrelated to an infraction).

There was one that, IMO, was and wasn't, but I was still wrong about the all-caps - he only all-capped one word, and the .txt files I have present no evidence of bold or red.

Alas, I'm a strong believer in the community policing itself and the positive social power of the right peer pressure, and had PMed some suggestions to said mod offering to help with a friend who was a problem poster, not realizing that CFC has an actual rule against that. I was unhappy, to say the least, with the reply and the TONE of the reply -jeeze, I was trying to help- and that little exchange informed my adverse reaction to getting infracted for something so trivial, and I strongly suspect it informed said harsh reaction. As I've already admitted, I was a problem elsewhere, which I believe was also known to him. [shrugs] The whole truth is rarely a simple thing, and not that frequently known.

This (and a few other things) became a bit clearer as I poured through my records, so the time was not entirely wasted...

...

Now, might I suggest we try to avoid continuing to get bogged down in discussing often irrelevant details and focus on the big picture? I've asked a lot of important questions that no one has attempted to answer at all.

 

[Takhisis]

For all intents and purposes, you're the leader and director of all that happens here, ainwood. You're a deputy first minister like in Northern Ireland.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

That's all because a public witch hunt/humiliation is not condoned by anyone.

Uh-huh...

...where?

Cute. You know I can't post that information here, in public.

No, it's more about "someone gets freakin' angry about something which doesn't have any impact at all (-> warning), and then accuses you for being too serious". That's just irony, pure irony.

My post in this case was addressed to Camikaze. I would like him to answer, please.

Yes, you're right, I haven't read anything there, and it seems that you're right, might be of some importance.

Wow, thank you for conceding that such potentially life-altering discussions might be of SOME importance! (given that people are asking for advice and suggestions and recommendations on what things are like in some other part of the country or even the world, to help them make these decisions)

But that really doesn't apply to the majority of all internet forums.

I'll concede that there are many where this is true. I've been to some that were pretty shallow and boring. But CFC isn't among those.

You're also sure right on that. But I still don't any indicator in the current situation.

Of course you don't. Because it's ludicrous to imagine there could be more people who feel as we do, but who don't speak up for whatever reasons they may have.

No, in that case you're right. If I deem something to be unimportant, then I'm not going into bigger discussions about it.
If I think something has some sort of importance, then I do.
Has only happened a few times here for me, but it has happend (not always succesful though).

You missed one aspect of my reply: It's one thing for you to decide something is unimportant for yourself, but it's sheer arrogance to decide that because it's not important to you, it's not important TO ANYONE AT ALL.

He's more like a patron than a CEO, but he was here yesterday and he sent me an email as well.

He should post more in Site Feedback - even just an occasional "Hi all, I'm here" would be reassuring for folks who might wonder at his absence.

 

[Birdjaguar]

By "take seriously" I mean "go ballistic over and infract when either no infraction is needed at all, or at least not as harsh a one."

An example is the sort of infraction levied in these circumstances (or similar) - note that this post is copy/pasted from the Olive Branch thread, post #78

Of course there is a point I read all your posts. Thanks for thinking of me. And, BTW, your magic number is: "up".

I assume that, while PDMA is unacceptable, public discussion of your existence is fair game?

Or is that also covered under 'to be is to do'.

In this instance, I am referring to occasions when a poster has said something like, "Moderator X said he doesn't like strawberry jam on his toast" and Moderator X promptly infracted the poster for PDMA. Nothing that was mod-tagged was quoted. There was no reference to any infractions or warnings Moderator X had issued. Just a casual reference to something Moderator X said, and Moderator X flew off the handle and was completely unreasonable about the whole situation.

Please note that in reference to what Birdjaguar and bathsheba666 are saying about each other, I have not the slightest idea what that's about. It's bathsheba666's questions that matter in the context of the current thread here. I think they're valid questions. I can't give more specific examples of why I'm concerned about this, because that would be PDMA.

Here is the story behind the above. the thread was Hobbs' Olive branch thread for making amends. Bathsheba made a less than serious post that was ripe for a response.

I would like to apologise to god, as I have said some fairly dismissive things about her.

But I see no evidence for her reading this forum, so perhaps there is no point.

However, should she reply, quoting my magic number through her omniscience, then I will truly know.

And so I did:

Of course there is a point, I read all your posts. Thanks for thinking of me. And, BTW, your magic number is: "up".

I assumed my alter ego "god" and replied as he requested, complete with his magic number reference. Then he, continuing the play...

I assume that, while PDMA is unacceptable, public discussion of your existence is fair game?

Or is that also covered under 'to be is to do'.

He added a very nice and perfectly acceptable twist with his PDMA side step and raising the stakes to question my very existence. There wasn't any moderation action, there wasn't any PDMA. This was just good fun.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

Thank you for explaining.

However, his question:

I assume that, while PDMA is unacceptable, public discussion of your existence is fair game?

is relevant to this discussion as a whole. Leaving off the role-playing between you and bathsheba666, it's a valid question, because there have been instances where infractions have been issued for harmless posts as I mentioned above. The_J wants to know specifics, but of course we all know that if I provided specifics, I'd be committing PDMA.

(Which brings home rather nicely how difficult this is to discuss, when one side of the discussion isn't allowed to fully explain itself.)

 

[Buster's Uncle]

Yes. As I keep pointing out, some of the rules themselves make discussing the rules extremely difficult - at best, awkward.

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

God bless you, sir. That is not sarcasm - any place needs someone thinking about the big picture. I'm glad ainwood reports something similar.

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.

Here, I paraphrase what an old 'poly hand who goes all the way back told me: CFC is a tight-run ship. It always has been. The janitorial functions of management have tended to always be aggressively attended to, and the essential leadership function of visible moderation has never been a problem - like the baby monkeys in the 50s experiments, a mother substitute that hurt them made for INFINITELY more functional monkeys than the ones raised in an empty cage. (That's not a dig; more of an attaboy.) -Other sites have failed to varying degrees in this basic Moby Dick issue. Period.

CFC has been doing a lot of neat, fun community projects since always, witness that admirable community theme building project commenced this week. CFC is THE place for front-page Civ news. Then there's "demo games, HOF, mod project sites, easy to use download database, etc etc".

I had to have this explained to me, but I did recognize the truth of it right away. Those kind of things in the latter category are lurker bait, and important tools in recruiting/retention/community building - something I fancy I know a bit about.

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.

It's a thing you can work on of your own initiative, (I assume.) What do you need your people doing in NES? If the answer isn't "what they're already doing", think a little about why NES needs it and why doing it would be good for the group and the individual participants. Write up a little something expressing your thoughts, and explaining why cooperating is The Right Thing To Do, and how they will profit. Shoot for the moon, man. Inspire them to greatness.

Leadership.

If, hypothetically, what your people are doing is fine, and the general tenor of the culture/conversation there is satisfactory and sound, but you could really use more activity, same goes for encouraging recruiting. Or say you'd like to see more AARs -hard to go wrong with lots of entertaining AARs- then put up an announcement, or start a thread. You have demonstrated considerable eloquence in this very post I'm replying to, and I can tell you're a real thinker; You Can Do It.

-See what I just did? It's not that hard to do with some basic communication skills and a Dream you want to share.

A citizen could do it. You definitely can. I see you already have the tools you need, provided you have a good relationship with your charges.


As to something staff-wide, that would be up to Thunderfall (or ainwood, depending) - using pretty much the same technique, adjusted for the intended audience and the leader's own style.

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.

Well yes; of course you're right about tampering with a winning formula. I submit that you ought do a pilot program in NES, site policy for mod conduct/style and the admins permitting.

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.

Yes. What works, works. I couldn't possibly decide the precise details of how to do it for anyone else without knowing all they know. Some citizens need a firmer hand than others. Some don't mind when you do X, and others do. Kinder and gentler -and FAIR- isn't exactly the same treatment for everyone at all times, but what is appropriate and maximizes happiness in each case and for everyone in the long run. After all, maximum happiness for the maximum people is the name of the game.

...

On reflection, I've made a mistake in my approach in this thread; I've gotten so used to being King Poop of Dung Mountain that I thought the Captain Kirk-style speeches that work so well there would work here. (Actually, I'm only High Vizier Poop; the owner claims I'm an equal partner, but I didn't set up the forum and I don't pay the server bills.) Silly of me; the speeches get a huge boost from my Admin status, much as I'd like them to succeed on their own merits, and they're never about telling the members they suck and need to do better. Here, I'm just another member with stories about moderating somewhere else, and that is only a credential that I'm not talking completely out of my butt, and something about 1/3 of everyone can claim, moderatorship not being all that hard to get somewhere. (I signed up at AC2 and an hour later, without any discussion or warning, I was suddenly Administrator.)

However ideas are powerful, and I have some I want to persuade people here of. I'll try to dial the pomposity way down, henceforth.

Please stop laughing so hard, The_J.

 

[Birdjaguar]

Thanks; tonight and tomorrow morning I have NESing orders to write and it will take at least until Saturday night to get back here to your post. In between I have heads to bust in IOT.

BTW, I am US Mountain time

 

[Camikaze]

My post in this case was addressed to Camikaze. I would like him to answer, please.

What The_J said is correct. There's also the "why don't you get a life!" he said, as he complained about a moderator on the internet.

Thank you for explaining.

However, his question:
is relevant to this discussion as a whole. Leaving off the role-playing between you and bathsheba666, it's a valid question, because there have been instances where infractions have been issued for harmless posts as I mentioned above. The_J wants to know specifics, but of course we all know that if I provided specifics, I'd be committing PDMA.

(Which brings home rather nicely how difficult this is to discuss, when one side of the discussion isn't allowed to fully explain itself.)

To quote Atticus when we went through this exact same discussion last year:

That's ridiculous! Of course it's not PDMA. It's PDME, public discussion of moderator existence. Notice also that similarly PDME of nonexistent moderators is forbidden.

The_J is just calling BS on your claim. One of the small disadvantages of the PDMA rule for moderators is that users can hide behind it in discussions such as these. You're levelling an accusation that there have been wildly unfair PDMA infractions, but then are saying that you wouldn't possibly be able to substantiate such a claim, due to the site rules, but expect us to respond regardless. If you think there have been such infractions, please report your post (or this one) and include the relevant quotes or links. That way you will not be committing PDMA, and we will know what you're talking about.

 

[The_J]

Wow, thank you for conceding that such potentially life-altering discussions might be of SOME importance! (given that people are asking for advice and suggestions and recommendations on what things are like in some other part of the country or even the world, to help them make these decisions)

You don't want me to make up my opinion or judge about anything without having any real information, do you?
I haven't looked into that matter myself, I can't say "you're absolute right" or "you're absolute wrong".

I'll concede that there are many where this is true. I've been to some that were pretty shallow and boring. But CFC isn't among those.

But the discussions here are still not of any real importance (no matter in offtopic or ontopic sections).

Of course you don't. Because it's ludicrous to imagine there could be more people who feel as we do, but who don't speak up for whatever reasons they may have.

That still doesn't help to say if something is a problem or not.
With that argument every situation can be made into a problem.

You missed one aspect of my reply: It's one thing for you to decide something is unimportant for yourself, but it's sheer arrogance to decide that because it's not important to you, it's not important TO ANYONE AT ALL.

It's always possible to consult another mod about the issue, and let him/her mediate about that. I've normally also for probably most cases said that when someone insisted that something is a problem.

 

[Buster's Uncle]

Captain Kirk-style speeches

"Mr. Spock, I submit to you that your forum, Agony Booth Fanatics, is illogical! BE the captain of ABF! Find a reason to spare the Halkans a banning, and make it stick!"

"Captain Kirk, I shall consider it!." Spock activated the transporter, thinking 'Enjoy your vacation, troublemaker.'

 

[Valka D'Ur]

What The_J said is correct. There's also the "why don't you get a life!" he said, as he complained about a moderator on the internet.

Well, at least this time I didn't have to wait 2 months before you answered me. Thanks for that bit of consideration, at least. But it's still arrogance. Both of you have now demonstrated the attitude that if it's not important to you, it's not important to anyone.

As for your "get a life" crack - I didn't like it when William Shatner said it, I never saw the "humor" in it, I thought it was mean-spirited and a slap in the face to the people who had helped put food on his table through the years (yes, I know there are rabid, drooling Star Trek fans; I was never one of them), and your post reads like it's also something The_J. said. That's not correct. That's what you're saying right now, and it's damned rude.

To quote Atticus when we went through this exact same discussion last year:


The_J is just calling BS on your claim. One of the small disadvantages of the PDMA rule for moderators is that users can hide behind it in discussions such as these. You're levelling an accusation that there have been wildly unfair PDMA infractions, but then are saying that you wouldn't possibly be able to substantiate such a claim, due to the site rules, but expect us to respond regardless. If you think there have been such infractions, please report your post (or this one) and include the relevant quotes or links. That way you will not be committing PDMA, and we will know what you're talking about.

Look, The_J asked for specifics. He didn't ask me to PM him anything. He didn't offer to PM me. The implication of his post is that he expected me to provide the information here. In public. Where he knew damn well that if I did, it would be immediately deleted and I would get a hefty PDMA infraction.

I highly resent being called a liar. I have always told the truth here as I know it, and if I have misunderstood or misremembered something, I haven't been too proud or arrogant to apologize - if presented with the proof that what I thought I knew turned out not to be.

I will gather the information, and PM someone on staff. It likely won't be you, since I don't want to wait another umpteen months for a reply.

You don't want me to make up my opinion or judge about anything without having any real information, do you?
I haven't looked into that matter myself, I can't say "you're absolute right" or "you're absolute wrong".

The "real" information is in the Tavern (there are many such discussions) and there are probably some in the Chamber (not sure, since I rarely read that forum these days). You now know where to look, so the only thing stopping you is an unwillingness to see if you might be wrongmistaken.

But the discussions here are still not of any real importance (no matter in offtopic or ontopic sections).

Oh. So if you (by your own preferences) don't care to bother with unimportant things (ie. discussions), and nothing here is of any importance regardless of where it is on the site, why are you still here?

You remind me of someone I once encountered offline who told me that it made sense to write a snailmail letter to someone because that person was real (no matter if the writer couldn't see the person, or had even met the person)... but it made no sense to email or post on discussion boards online with someone because that person was not real.

Since I don't believe for a second that I'm the only person on the planet typing words on a screen and sending them to other people to read and maybe reply, I am doing the courteous, ethical thing: I assume that all of you are real people (except the spambots; I know those aren't real), and I accord you the courtesy of realizing that the things you say are important in your lives - important enough to post/PM about - are indeed important. Just because I might not be able to directly relate to them for some reason, that doesn't give me the right to stick my nose in the air and say those concerns are unimportant, period. They are obviously important to the person who wrote about them, and the considerate thing to do is to acknowledge that.

That still doesn't help to say if something is a problem or not.
With that argument every situation can be made into a problem.

You had said that just because a minority of people perceive a problem exists, it's not a problem. I say that's nonsense, and that you appeared to be saying that the majority is ALWAYS right. There are many instances throughout history and in present day where it's clear to anyone not blinded by arrogance, apathy, or greed that the minority CAN be right (or demonstrably is right). And in any population, there will be people who privately agree with the vocal minority but who don't speak up publicly. So don't assume the minority that speaks up is all there are who feel that way.

It's always possible to consult another mod about the issue, and let him/her mediate about that. I've normally also for probably most cases said that when someone insisted that something is a problem.

So you (hypothetically) say something like, "This post was reported. I can't tell if it's something I can ignore or if I should do something about it. Personally I don't think it's important. What do you think?"

If that's the case, and you genuinely are unsure, that's fine. That's an excellent reason to consult another mod. But if you're having a knee-jerk reaction that "Poster X" said something you personally consider unimportant or even stupid and therefore do nothing about, that's not fine. Poster X may consider what he/she said to be quite important, and any issues that might arise from it such as trolling, flaming, infractions, etc. are not things you should shrug off because YOU PERSONALLY may consider unimportant and not worth the time to ask another moderator about.