Red Diamond Threads

[MobBoss]

Sure, the people doing it don't find it aggravating at all.

And I humbly submit that there are plenty not doing it at all that dont get bent out of shape about it either. As BJ mentioned, there are some that do indeed have some thicker skin and are fully able to just continue the debate without over-reacting to every perceived attack - intentional or not.

In fact, I would be willing to bet if the mods tracked who reported what along these lines, I bet they might find that its the same few posters making these reports on these posts that are so ambiguous.

If logic indicates that mods would save time by eliminating those nefarious troublemakers who continually toe the line, but dont cross, they would equally save a lot of time by eliminating the thin skinned among us who continually report posts that are quite marginal in their transgression.

 

[Cutlass]

And I humbly submit that there are plenty not doing it at all that dont get bent out of shape about it either. As BJ mentioned, there are some that do indeed have some thicker skin and are fully able to just continue the debate without over-reacting to every perceived attack - intentional or not.

In fact, I would be willing to bet if the mods tracked who reported what along these lines, I bet they might find that its the same few posters making these reports on these posts that are so ambiguous.

If logic indicates that mods would save time by eliminating those nefarious troublemakers who continually toe the line, but dont cross, they would equally save a lot of time by eliminating the thin skinned among us who continually report posts that are quite marginal in their transgression.

So punish the victim and not the victimizer.

 

[Gogf]

BirdJaguar,

Every time OT moderation comes up, the general consensus of the rank and file seems to be:

1.) These new restrictions suck.
2.) The mods should stop beating around the bush and just permban the few obviously awful posters who ruin everyone else's fun and are now the cause of this new draconian measure.

When there was a discussion group about updating the OT rules, it was obviously that the general thrust of the conversation was how to engineer the new rules to specifically target certain "problem posters." And that is exactly the sentiment that Cutlass is expressing in this post.

Of course, this kind of attitude belies a misunderstanding of the actual problems of OT. While everyone seems convinced that it is obvious who the bad seeds are, anyone who pauses to think for a moment will realize that this is obviously not the case, and a series moderator-backed proscriptions would be one of the worst "solutions" possible.

The serious problems plaguing OT at the moment are, to wit:

1.) A general environment of disrespect.
2.) A generational fracture into "teenagers" and "post-teenagers" and "middle-aged." This would not be a problem, except that the second group chafes under the rules which govern the first well (the third being something of a wild card).
3.) A profusion of inane conversation which is not worth reading.

The third problem is a feature of the internet and forums writ large which cannot be solved except with some sort of very rigorous barrier to membership. Unfortunately, it seems that one of the aims of RD threads is to eliminate (3), which simply cannot be accomplished. The best way to improve the quality of discussion is to focus on the first two problems to create an environment where good discussion can flourish and to lead by example. Instead, the new approach (and this is in fact a new approach... RD threads signal a significant shift in focus from the first problem to the third) seems to be to infract "bad discussion." Simply put, I do not think the forum at large trusts the judgment of the moderating team wrt to the quality of a post or a discussion—with all due respect, I certainly do not.

I think in general a problem arises in the forum when too much focus is placed on eradicating problem (1) without giving any thought to problem (2). If the goal is to encourage good discussion, then surely an aim of the forum should be to prevent the collapse of the discussion sections into nothing but a multitude of uninformed and emotionally unstable teenagers. But as everyone who has ever been to college knows, the standards being put forth for discussion here simply do not correspond to how people in their 20s and 30s interact. "Respect" is a tricky concept, but mildly barbed posts or serious "call outs" when people go far beyond the bounds are a normal part of discourse. This is normal social interaction, and when people can post without concern for it this is what leads to the enormous degeneration in quality which RD threads seem intended to target.

Let me be clear: I am not advocating for the allowance of "flaming." What I do think, however, is that the extent to which people's feelings are being coddled is far too extreme. "Did you even read my post?" is not excessively mean, and, honestly, forbidding this kind of interaction is going to make just about anyone go nuts when somebody responds in an inane and stupid manner. Yes, we should all be paragons of patience, but man is fallen and we are not. To pretend that this forum can or should be some exemplar of the Socratic dialogue is foolish in the extreme.

To conclude I think the best approach to take would be to:

1. Stop asking people what they want in vague terms, because it's clear what they want: they want people they don't like to be banned. If you want feedback on the moderation, ask specific questions: is X policy too harsh? Are too many infractions being given out? Are too many points given per infraction?
2. Focus on leadership by example. I see far too many moderators cease providing worthwhile content once they assume the office, and soon a search of their posts yields little but a litany of threats, infractions, and thread closings. You must be the change you wish to see in the CFC.
3. Infract inane posts which literally have no content. This should be interpreted as conservatively as possible and consist of posts which obviously and clearly SAY NOTHING and consist of things like a bunch of smilies.
4. Step in to mediate and calm things down when threads get out of control. This means, first and foremost, acting as human shields and interjecting lots of so-incredibly-reasonable content into the thread so that people have an opportunity to post about the topic without freaking out. It also means telling people to cool it. It does not mean issuing infractions for the slightest of possible slights. If someone obviously goes far beyond the pale then they ought be dealt with, but again, this should be interpreted as conservatively as possible—calling someone names is different from snidely suggesting that they read more Plato (hint: the latter is perfectly fine).
5. If someone says "this contributes nothing" or "this is trolling" or the like, then this kind of thing should NOT be infracted. This kind of self-policing is how any community functions, and to remove it creates a quality problem which the moderating staff cannot possibly solve. Of course, in a better world, a moderator saying this and not issuing an infraction would have great effect because moderators are seen to often contribute to the quality of the forum and are thus respected by the membership, rather than attempting to use a blunt instrument which solves nothing.

Which brings me to my final point: the infraction system is broken to the point of being useless. I do not think for a moment that anyone actually "learns" anything from being infracted. Rather, I think the only effect is that the recipient becomes embittered towards the staff. It is true that, writ large, there is a deterrent effect, but the quality problem evinced by the implementation of RD threads seems to serve as evidence that this deterrent effect alone is not enough to solve the problem. Rather, to fix the problems OT faces the moderators must allow for the community to function naturally without suppressing its natural self-regulatory urges and attempting to act as the sole controlling body over the community. That is an unworkable system which should be abandoned in favor of the judicious use of earned authority rather than arbitrary power.

Finally, I will leave with an anecdote from Lucy_Duke: that the value of someone being "called out," that is, shown to be speaking completely out of place, is that it mollifies everyone else and prevents the kind of internal angst which, long term, leads to serious corrosion of both community interaction and the quality of discourse.

 

[Birdjaguar]

Not everyone finds that kind of thing aggravating, and I dont see how removing people in order to please a select few is making OT a better place. In fact, I think doing so would just make it another online version of Orwell's Animal Farm.

Is that something everyone wants? OT to be a place where 'all posters are equal, just some posters are more equal than others'?

Hmm. Fwiw, I tend to believe if you take all the spice out of a dish, you end up with a pretty tasteless dish.

Sure, the people doing it don't find it aggravating at all.

And I humbly submit that there are plenty not doing it at all that dont get bent out of shape about it either. As BJ mentioned, there are some that do indeed have some thicker skin and are fully able to just continue the debate without over-reacting to every perceived attack - intentional or not.

In fact, I would be willing to bet if the mods tracked who reported what along these lines, I bet they might find that its the same few posters making these reports on these posts that are so ambiguous.

If logic indicates that mods would save time by eliminating those nefarious troublemakers who continually toe the line, but dont cross, they would equally save a lot of time by eliminating the thin skinned among us who continually report posts that are quite marginal in their transgression.

Moderator Action: This is what I would label as "tiresome bickering". Please let's move on. I have raised several other questions that i think have merit as part of this discussion.

 

[Gogf]

Secondly, although this is a line trotted out perhaps a little too much, it remains true; OT has to fit into with the rest of the site, and not the other way around. We can have OT specific policies, and customise our moderation to deal with this specific subforum, but it has to fit within the same moderating paradigm as the rest of the site.

That line is indeed "trotted out" quite a bit, and while I (and I am sure others) feel it is a valid point and respect the spirit of Thunderfall's idea that this should be a "family-friendly" website, the inescapable fact is that the moderation of OT has become MUCH more strict and paternalistic over the eight years I have been here. It is hard to believe that the ever-increasing degree to which posting is restricted is in line with TF's intentions when OT was far more lightly moderated when he, Lefty, and AoA ruled. Perhaps I am wrong and TF remains actively engaged in setting moderation policy, but this does not appear to be the case, and the fact remains that the site is certainly diverging from how it was at its inception.

Moreover, can we pause for a moment to reflect on how 13-year-olds (the young group legally allowed to register here) actually interact? Is this site supposed to be appropriate for our youngest demographic (teenagers) or for their younger siblings?

 

[Birdjaguar]

BirdJaguar,

Every time OT moderation comes up, the general consensus of the rank and file seems to be:

1.) These new restrictions suck.
2.) The mods should stop beating around the bush and just permban the few obviously awful posters who ruin everyone else's fun and are now the cause of this new draconian measure.

When there was a discussion group about updating the OT rules, it was obviously that the general thrust of the conversation was how to engineer the new rules to specifically target certain "problem posters." And that is exactly the sentiment that Cutlass is expressing in this post.

Of course, this kind of attitude belies a misunderstanding of the actual problems of OT. While everyone seems convinced that it is obvious who the bad seeds are, anyone who pauses to think for a moment will realize that this is obviously not the case, and a series moderator-backed proscriptions would be one of the worst "solutions" possible.

The serious problems plaguing OT at the moment are, to wit:

1.) A general environment of disrespect.
2.) A generational fracture into "teenagers" and "post-teenagers" and "middle-aged." This would not be a problem, except that the second group chafes under the rules which govern the first well (the third being something of a wild card).
3.) A profusion of inane conversation which is not worth reading.

The third problem is a feature of the internet and forums writ large which cannot be solved except with some sort of very rigorous barrier to membership. Unfortunately, it seems that one of the aims of RD threads is to eliminate (3), which simply cannot be accomplished. The best way to improve the quality of discussion is to focus on the first two problems to create an environment where good discussion can flourish and to lead by example. Instead, the new approach (and this is in fact a new approach... RD threads signal a significant shift in focus from the first problem to the third) seems to be to infract "bad discussion." Simply put, I do not think the forum at large trusts the judgment of the moderating team wrt to the quality of a post or a discussion—with all due respect, I certainly do not.

I think in general a problem arises in the forum when too much focus is placed on eradicating problem (1) without giving any thought to problem (2). If the goal is to encourage good discussion, then surely an aim of the forum should be to prevent the collapse of the discussion sections into nothing but a multitude of uninformed and emotionally unstable teenagers. But as everyone who has ever been to college knows, the standards being put forth for discussion here simply do not correspond to how people in their 20s and 30s interact. "Respect" is a tricky concept, but mildly barbed posts or serious "call outs" when people go far beyond the bounds are a normal part of discourse. This is normal social interaction, and when people can post without concern for it this is what leads to the enormous degeneration in quality which RD threads seem intended to target.

Let me be clear: I am not advocating for the allowance of "flaming." What I do think, however, is that the extent to which people's feelings are being coddled is far too extreme. "Did you even read my post?" is not excessively mean, and, honestly, forbidding this kind of interaction is going to make just about anyone go nuts when somebody responds in an inane and stupid manner. Yes, we should all be paragons of patience, but man is fallen and we are not. To pretend that this forum can or should be some exemplar of the Socratic dialogue is foolish in the extreme.

I like you post. As I see it, personally, the major source of the nagging, ongoing OT problems is your point 2. 3 is, as you say, the nature of the internet and not going away. And 1 I think is a result of not dealing with 2. Just so you know, posting well in OT and moderating OT at the same time is very difficult. I think for those mods who try to do both, they do one and then stop for a bit while they do the other. I think it is an unrealistic expectation for them to do both.

Point 2 is the one raised by Mark Defiant: the forum has grown up in ten years and how should we address those changes in regards to how we moderate the forum. I've watched many of you go from HS to college and on to work or grad school and i know that many of you are not the same people you were 5 or 8 years ago. this is not a simple fix though. How do we let the forums grow up?

To conclude I think the best approach to take would be to:

1. Stop asking people what they want in vague terms, because it's clear what they want: they want people they don't like to be banned. If you want feedback on the moderation, ask specific questions: is X policy too harsh? Are too many infractions being given out? Are too many points given per infraction?

2. Focus on leadership by example. I see far too many moderators cease providing worthwhile content once they assume the office, and soon a search of their posts yields little but a litany of threats, infractions, and thread closings. You must be the change you wish to see in the CFC.

Comes with being a mod I'm afraid

3. Infract inane posts which literally have no content. This should be interpreted as conservatively as possible and consist of posts which obviously and clearly SAY NOTHING and consist of things like a bunch of smilies.

Your are suggesting much relaxed standards. such a change may not fit into everyone's thinking.

4. Step in to mediate and calm things down when threads get out of control. This means, first and foremost, acting as human shields and interjecting lots of so-incredibly-reasonable content into the thread so that people have an opportunity to post about the topic without freaking out. It also means telling people to cool it. It does not mean issuing infractions for the slightest of possible slights. If someone obviously goes far beyond the pale then they ought be dealt with, but again, this should be interpreted as conservatively as possible—calling someone names is different from snidely suggesting that they read more Plato (hint: the latter is perfectly fine).

I like this and prefer this kind of intervention, but it can be more difficult and time consuming.

5. If someone says "this contributes nothing" or "this is trolling" or the like, then this kind of thing should NOT be infracted. This kind of self-policing is how any community functions, and to remove it creates a quality problem which the moderating staff cannot possibly solve. Of course, in a better world, a moderator saying this and not issuing an infraction would have great effect because moderators are seen to often contribute to the quality of the forum and are thus respected by the membership, rather than attempting to use a blunt instrument which solves nothing.

A bit of a repeat of 3.

Which brings me to my final point: the infraction system is broken to the point of being useless. I do not think for a moment that anyone actually "learns" anything from being infracted. Rather, I think the only effect is that the recipient becomes embittered towards the staff. It is true that, writ large, there is a deterrent effect, but the quality problem evinced by the implementation of RD threads seems to serve as evidence that this deterrent effect alone is not enough to solve the problem. Rather, to fix the problems OT faces the moderators must allow for the community to function naturally without suppressing its natural self-regulatory urges and attempting to act as the sole controlling body over the community. That is an unworkable system which should be abandoned in favor of the judicious use of earned authority rather than arbitrary power.

Finally, I will leave with an anecdote from Lucy_Duke: that the value of someone being "called out," that is, shown to be speaking completely out of place, is that it mollifies everyone else and prevents the kind of internal angst which, long term, leads to serious corrosion of both community interaction and the quality of discourse.

the infraction system actually does work for most posters, it is the "top"10% (if that) for which it does not work. We are looking at how to make it work (be more effective) for those. You will find that the staff does have varying opinions on this too and we work hard at coming to a consensus on most matters.

Thanks for your post.

 

[Defiant47]

I think the Red Diamond initiative is a grand idea that should stick around. The fact that it doesn't solve one of the big problems of OT does not discredit its utility (nor the effort from the moderators to better our community).

It can be used to encourage a more serious approach by asking for stricter moderation. This can work very nicely in many cases.

In fact, I already saw it working when I wanted to snap a (harmless) witty one-liner, but decided not to because it was a Red Diamond thread. This means that the OP can have a serious discussion when necessary, and people restrict themselves to a more serious tone (serious to mean not inane). A very succinct way of getting this done.

People actually having a bit thicker skin is a rather novel idea, and probably one of the best ones I've heard around here in quite awhile. Bravo.

It's not that simple.

A) Not everyone has thick skin.

It's all well and good for the people in this thread to be able to man up to such childish behaviour and not get caught up in it - which I believe everyone in this thread already does. But that's not the entire OT population.

We will still have people who *don't* have such "thick skin" get trollbaited by these posters, and the discussion will degrade. Significantly.

B) Getting poked in the shoulder repeatedly can get very annoying, even if you have thick skin.

For those of us who have excellent self-control and don't fall into the traps, it can still be irritating to see such behaviour run around loose and fancy-free. It's like that annoying kid who always shows up despite nobody liking him... and he's doing it on purpose, to give an analogy.

***

Unfortunately, as we determined earlier, we can't do anything about these posters. You can't just start infracting this type of behaviour, because although you can be sure of it sometimes, you can't be sure of it always - and you'll either have huge inconsistencies in assessing when this behaviour is happening, or huge inconsistencies due to the fact that sometimes it's infracted and sometimes it's not.

It would set a precedent that is unenforceable.

 

[JollyRoger]

Just so you know, posting well in OT and moderating OT at the same time is very difficult. I think for those mods who try to do both, they do one and then stop for a bit while they do the other. I think it is an unrealistic expectation for them to do both.

the infraction system actually does work for most posters, it is the "top"10% (if that) for which it does not work. We are looking at how to make it work (be more effective) for those.

Just make the "top" 10% moderators, thus reducing their volume of posting.

 

[Defiant47]

Just make the "top" 10% moderators, thus reducing their volume of posting.

That is a wonderfully poor idea

 

[choxorn]

I've noticed that, although earlier in the thread, there were complaints about the moderators not paying attention to what we were saying, and some actual instances in the thread of moderators not appearing to pay close attention to some people's arguments. Those are both pretty much gone, and several of the moderators are clearly taking our posts into consideration. I'd like to take this opportunity to applaud them for that, especially BirdJaguar. You really seem much more like people who want to try to see what people are saying about the Red Diamond and add to the conversation yourself, rather than distant overlords that just appeared to announce some decision they made and sometimes come close to sounding like robots.

If regular posters and moderators could always interact like they have for the past few pages of this thread, we might be able to actually get things done sometimes.

 

[Camikaze]

That line is indeed "trotted out" quite a bit, and while I (and I am sure others) feel it is a valid point and respect the spirit of Thunderfall's idea that this should be a "family-friendly" website, the inescapable fact is that the moderation of OT has become MUCH more strict and paternalistic over the eight years I have been here. It is hard to believe that the ever-increasing degree to which posting is restricted is in line with TF's intentions when OT was far more lightly moderated when he, Lefty, and AoA ruled. Perhaps I am wrong and TF remains actively engaged in setting moderation policy, but this does not appear to be the case, and the fact remains that the site is certainly diverging from how it was at its inception.

I've only been a member for two and a half years, so I can't really comment all that much on the standards of the past, other than to say that yes, if you go and look at a thread from eight years ago, there's going to be things that probably wouldn't be allowable today. I don't think there's really been change in the last couple of years, and the change in the last couple of months has been more about enforcement than standard. Moderators who were around many years ago have commented that it is more a 'return to how things were', so I think the major change has come somewhere in the period between eight and two and a half years ago. I didn't mention TF in my post because the site's large enough now that, although he is still the ultimate arbiter, he does not personally ratify or sign off on every initiative. There are four admins and then a whole structure of super mods, senior mods, regular mods and junior mods below that, so passing this off as necessarily "TF's wishes" may be misrepresentative when he hasn't spoken on the specific issue. Policy doesn't work that way anymore, so 'how the site is run' is not necessarily substitutable for 'what Thunderfall has decreed'. But either way, that's not really the point. The point is more that OT cannot act independently of the rest of CFC and its moderation. Yes, there has been some sort of shift somewhere along the line, but I'm fairly sure that this has been in line with a shift in moderation forum-wide. And I think it's a natural and necessary progression. Smaller communities do not require the same level of moderation as larger groups. If everyone is fairly familiar with each other, then a jab or two every so often doesn't cause any great harm. But given that the community has grown, and has become more diverse, as you mentioned, such jabs do create wider problems. And although we could tell people to just get a thicker skin, we'd rather target the person making the jab. I think this has been and will continue to be a bit of a guiding principle. So whilst the RD initiative is designed to take away or diminish the problem that causes people to lash out, lashing out still isn't going to be seen as appropriate or acceptable.

Moreover, can we pause for a moment to reflect on how 13-year-olds (the young group legally allowed to register here) actually interact? Is this site supposed to be appropriate for our youngest demographic (teenagers) or for their younger siblings?

In terms of 'inappropriate content', I guess there's a rather conservative paternalistic approach to that. This isn't a site for discussions about sex, for instance, even if you do think that in this day and age that's a perfectly appropriate topic for 13 year olds to be discussing.

But I think you're referring more to the standard of discourse. I don't think we want to be setting that standard to fit normal 13 year old interaction. We don't tell people not to troll each other because it isn't appropriate for 13 year olds, but because it isn't polite or civil behaviour from adults.

 

[Knight-Dragon]

rather than distant overlords that just appeared to announce some decision they made and sometimes come close to sounding like robots.

If regular posters and moderators could always interact like they have for the past few pages of this thread, we might be able to actually get things done sometimes.

That's because mods usually find themselves coming to CFC only to do moderating (after a while), with little time or energy left to do regular posting. Or to simply interact with posters. Because everything we post is held to a higher standard and might be construed as representing the site, in the end we ended up not saying anything much anymore so as not to get caught up in these.

Hopefully with this many (new) mods in OT, with more hands on board to divide up the workload, this will be less of an issue in future...

 

[Knight-Dragon]

I don't think there's really been change in the last couple of years, and the change in the last couple of months has been more about enforcement than standard. Moderators who were around many years ago have commented that it is more a 'return to how things were', so I think the major change has come somewhere in the period between eight and two and a half years ago.

The only major change IMO has been fr the AoA/Lefty moderating duo, to a more team-based approach (Lefty, col, eyrei and me - and DoM, ainwood, Turner a bit later on) in the middle of 2003. After that, it's more a matter of the degree of enforcement (depending on who's willing to do it), and juggling with mod burnout and replacements fr then on.

The basic premise for a family-friendly, civil OT has never changed.

 

[Knight-Dragon]

2.) The mods should stop beating around the bush and just permban the few obviously awful posters who ruin everyone else's fun and are now the cause of this new draconian measure.

That is actually my blood price for coming in to help organize the OT team for a while. However it's rejected...

But we've another measure to deal with that particular problem. Soon I think...

2. Focus on leadership by example. I see far too many moderators cease providing worthwhile content once they assume the office, and soon a search of their posts yields little but a litany of threats, infractions, and thread closings. You must be the change you wish to see in the CFC.

Once you start moderating (esp OT!), you'll find that you have little time, or energy left to do normal posting. Particularly when you must ensure that your posts must now be above par, since you're now a mod. It takes a lot of effort... most of us will rather concentrate on moderating, rather than try to do both at once...

Which is why we're getting so many more new OT mods this time round, so that the workload is shared by more and this will be less of an issue. We'll see how this plays out...

4. Step in to mediate and calm things down when threads get out of control. This means, first and foremost, acting as human shields and interjecting lots of so-incredibly-reasonable content into the thread so that people have an opportunity to post about the topic without freaking out. It also means telling people to cool it. It does not mean issuing infractions for the slightest of possible slights. If someone obviously goes far beyond the pale then they ought be dealt with, but again, this should be interpreted as conservatively as possible—calling someone names is different from snidely suggesting that they read more Plato (hint: the latter is perfectly fine).

Unworkable IMO. The typical mod has RL work and family to deal with. Can't ask them to hang around OT all day to do this.

We have more people now, so we may have a better chance to spot a thread in the midst of going ballistic and lock it down to cool it (and maybe clean it up). But that's about it.

Which brings me to my final point: the infraction system is broken to the point of being useless. I do not think for a moment that anyone actually "learns" anything from being infracted. Rather, I think the only effect is that the recipient becomes embittered towards the staff.

I think the infraction system is an improvement. It allows for a clearer recording system, and bans are more systematic.

Back in my day, I do warnings, and then random bans (1 week for typical, 10 days to 2 weeks or more for more persistent ones), depending on how irritable I find a problem post is and how many warnings I can search or simply recall. I seriously doubt people will like that kind of random system now.

 

[Mise]

The "leading by example" that Gogf mentioned is an excellent point.

But you don't need to be the ones posting the good posts in order to lead by example. There are a lot of good posters who have sadly decided to become mods and stop posting. But they are still capable of recognising good quality posts when they see them.

A "like" button would be an excellent way for the users to signal to other users that this is a post worth paying attention to. Similarly, a fully fledged up/down-voting system would go even further, and allow users to signal to other users that this post should be avoided, because it's troll/flamebait.

But since the mods are plainly and unreasonably against "like" buttons, why not have moderators themselves highlight good posts in these threads? Too often, mods focus on the bad posts, and spend their time futilely discouraging bad posting. That hasn't worked in the past -- why not try actively encouraging good posting instead? When a mod sees a good post, maybe he can stick a green Moderator Action: tag at the start or end, to signal that this is a good post? It's nowhere near as good as a fully fledged like/dislike system, but it at least a tiny step in the right direction.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[RedRalph]

I've started several RD threads recently, and I have to say the quality of discussion in them has been noticably better than usual. at the same time I told an anecdote about a man with a penis as long and thin as piano-wire in a non-RD thread and it was fine.

I think this distinction of serious and non-serious threads works.

 

[choxorn]

That's because mods usually find themselves coming to CFC only to do moderating (after a while), with little time or energy left to do regular posting. Or to simply interact with posters. Because everything we post is held to a higher standard and might be construed as representing the site, in the end we ended up not saying anything much anymore so as not to get caught up in these.

Hopefully with this many (new) mods in OT, with more hands on board to divide up the workload, this will be less of an issue in future...

I suppose that's true, and I hope dividing the workload more among you will let you post outside of moderator mode sometimes, and it's not like I've never seen moderators posting like this.

 

[Plotinus]

But since the mods are plainly and unreasonably against "like" buttons...

Without wishing to get into all the other stuff right now, let me remind you: we can't do "like" buttons without using hacks, which Thunderfall doesn't want. If we could, I would be perfectly happy to try out "like" buttons, even though I don't like them. But we can't. That's the reason we haven't tried them, not some irrational prejudice.

 

[Mise]

This "no vBulletin addons" thing is just a crutch... LOADS of websites have addons and it's not a problem. They say we can't have them because when they upgrade it's a pain, but how often does the forum software get upgraded? Like once a year or something?

I'd be happy to help out with the upgrades, and I'm sure there are plenty of techy users who would be more than willing to help, too.

And all this "TF wants it this way", "TF doesn't let us do that" is an equally annoying crutch. When was the last time TF even logged on?! If you went to him and said, "it would really help the moderators and users out if we could install this addon", I can't imagine him saying no.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

Once you start moderating (esp OT!), you'll find that you have little time, or energy left to do normal posting. Particularly when you must ensure that your posts must now be above par, since you're now a mod. It takes a lot of effort... most of us will rather concentrate on moderating, rather than try to do both at once...

Which is why we're getting so many more new OT mods this time round, so that the workload is shared by more and this will be less of an issue. We'll see how this plays out...

Cow pies (excuse me, "nonsense"). El Machinae manages to post and moderate. I managed to post and moderate. Other staff post and moderate (I'm thinking of the Civ 3 forums). The only extra effort it takes is being careful not to moderate a discussion you're more than superficially involved with.

Unworkable IMO. The typical mod has RL work and family to deal with. Can't ask them to hang around OT all day to do this.

But isn't this the reason why the extra moderators were added, with the proviso that they represent a greater span of time zones? One moderator's work day is another moderator's non-work day.

The "leading by example" that Gogf mentioned is an excellent point.

But you don't need to be the ones posting the good posts in order to lead by example. There are a lot of good posters who have sadly decided to become mods and stop posting. But they are still capable of recognising good quality posts when they see them.

But since the mods are plainly and unreasonably against "like" buttons, why not have moderators themselves highlight good posts in these threads? Too often, mods focus on the bad posts, and spend their time futilely discouraging bad posting. That hasn't worked in the past -- why not try actively encouraging good posting instead? When a mod sees a good post, maybe he can stick a green Moderator Action: tag at the start or end, to signal that this is a good post? It's nowhere near as good as a fully fledged like/dislike system, but it at least a tiny step in the right direction.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

Moderator Action:
This is something I thought of and wanted to do, but remember: Site Feedback is full of examples of Things We Must Not Do, Lest It Be Seen As Elitism. This apparently includes anything that could be mistaken for praise or encouragement, if given publicly.

Without wishing to get into all the other stuff right now, let me remind you: we can't do "like" buttons without using hacks, which Thunderfall doesn't want. If we could, I would be perfectly happy to try out "like" buttons, even though I don't like them. But we can't. That's the reason we haven't tried them, not some irrational prejudice.

As has been said, this is not as complicated as you think. I'm wondering how much time the admin staff actually spends in the vBulletin support forum to research these things and find out how much of a problem such things really are for the present and future versions of the forum software (since I'm sure we're not using the latest one). I'm still wary of full-fledged rep systems, since I've seen how horribly those can be abused. But since there are people here who really want the chance to try this out (where have I heard the words "experiment" and "try it and see if it works" before? Oh, right - in this very thread), how about giving them that chance? It would be an act of good faith on your part to do a trial run of something the members are asking for, as well as something being imposed on them.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889