Reform of CFC Public Discussion of Moderator Action Rules

[JollyRoger]

So 47 voting yes is a clique, but 5 voting against represents broad public opinion?

 

[hobbsyoyo]

That's my experience with issuing infractions too. There certainly are a few problem users, but generally they prefer a try-and-see approach to probing our rule enforcement anyway. Subjectively, I would say that this sort of immature mod-testing behavior is declining over time as well; OT seems noticeably more mature to me than it did 4 or 5 years ago.

I suspect that has as much to do that with OT being noticeably smaller than it was a year ago - much less four or five - as it does with anything else.

And there was some systemic issues that did drive away a lot of users but that's not pertinent necessarily to this conversation.

 

[Loppan Torkel]

Thank you for your apology. Will you also apologize to the others who support PDMA reform?

I think you're going to have to share that apology. It was quite generous to begin with.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

I think you're going to have to share that apology. It was quite generous to begin with.

I will not be "sharing" that apology. I was entitled to the one extended to me, but it won't stretch to cover the equally baseless accusations thrown at everyone else. That's on you.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

So 47 voting yes is a clique, but 5 voting against represents broad public opinion?

No not at all. I'm perfectly willing to accept I'm 100% wrong on everything I said here. Just trying to offer an opinion.

 

[Birdjaguar]

We don't get anywhere by repeating ourselves ad infinitum. How about we shake things up a little and do a public demo to see how well this works? I got something I want to publicly bring against the Super Volunteer known as "ori".

Since civility is such a concern for the moderators, I will guarantee civil conduct on my part. Given the high standards that moderators hold themselves to, my recipient should have no trouble defending himself.

I think this is a reasonable request. Do you?

I would support such an effort, but I am not the decider in such things.

 

[Bootstoots]

It's probably also necessary to point out that, if the staff did decide to allow a PDMA thread, bringing up minor 1-point infractions from 7 months ago would still not normally be allowed. Discussions within the thread would also have to be ended if they go on for a long time without making any progress. There will obviously be situations where moderators and a poster simply disagree.

 

[Loppan Torkel]

I would support such an effort, but I am not the decider in such things.

Who is the decider of things?

 

[Lefty Scaevola]

This would be group effort since it touches on most staff, when a minimum level of senior staff support accrues for a particular experiment it will go forward.

 

[ywhtptgtfo]

It's probably also necessary to point out that, if the staff did decide to allow a PDMA thread, bringing up minor 1-point infractions from 7 months ago would still not normally be allowed. Discussions within the thread would also have to be ended if they go on for a long time without making any progress. There will obviously be situations where moderators and a poster simply disagree.

Don't worry, I am not at all interested about that 1-point infraction. Rather, I intend to submit a public complaint against a volunteer and advise the dismissal of his voluntary service. For those good apples who are interested in being good moderators, I believe this will be a service to them.

No not at all. I'm perfectly willing to accept I'm 100% wrong on everything I said here. Just trying to offer an opinion.

Most of us talking heads here do not hang with each other. Please accept that you are wrong. Thanks.

 

[pigswill]

47 people is not necessarily a clique and it's a majority of the people who are interested enough in the topic to vote. I don't know the current membership of CFC but I suspect 47 people is not a majority of the whole community (and its still a vote supporting public appeal not general discussion).

 

[Valka D'Ur]

47 people is not necessarily a clique and it's a majority of the people who are interested enough in the topic to vote. I don't know the current membership of CFC but I suspect 47 people is not a majority of the whole community (and its still a vote supporting public appeal not general discussion).

There are many members who only stay in the Civ forums and take no interest in the rest of the forum. That's their right, and it's how things were for me at first. And there are members who have either never played Civ or haven't played for a long time, but who still love the site and have migrated to other areas such as the non-Civ games and the Colosseum section. Site Feedback is where we should all be able to meet and exchange ideas, suggestions, recommendations, and yes, criticisms of the site.

I would guess that the vast majority of the members of this forum take no interest at all in what happens in Site Feedback unless they encounter a technical problem or need to ask a question. They come, post, get their answer, and leave. They don't stay for the other discussions.

But some do. Some people are very interested in how this site works, the technical issues, the social dynamics, how the site is organized, and how staff is chosen. Those people want to help make this a better place to hang out, and it is really, profoundly annoying to be criticized and dismissed as a "clique" just for wanting to see improvements in some area or other or to try something new.

These 48 people (another person voted in support since the above post) are not a "clique." We are 48 people who see a need for this change to happen, and I daresay there are probably a lot more than just we who agree on this. We just happen to be the most vocal and willing to speak out publicly.

 

[JollyRoger]

47 people is not necessarily a clique and it's a majority of the people who are interested enough in the topic to vote. I don't know the current membership of CFC but I suspect 47 people is not a majority of the whole community (and its still a vote supporting public appeal not general discussion).

Yeah, I understand that. The way the mods have sometimes calculated voting in the past - whatever number votes against the way they want things is a minority of the community (counting people not voting as supporting the moderators).

 

[ywhtptgtfo]

Yeah, I understand that. The way the mods have sometimes calculated voting in the past - whatever number votes against the way they want things is a minority of the community (counting people not voting as supporting the moderators).

And that's a fallacy as it will be out of ordinary for polls to attract a majority of people to participate. Either way, participants of any side would've been minorities.

Anyway, I think enough have been said about "cliques". If some former/current moderators want to paint this as a clique attacking them, then it will be on them to show that all these people voting yes are part of one big group. Personally, I feel going this direction will hurt them because it would just further expose how dangerously irrational some of these volunteers and former volunteers are.

 

[Sonereal]

I'm extremely worried about the direction elements of this board are heading. Today, 48 out of the 60 people who voted in this poll are members of a shadowy cabal that has organized to overthrow the administration under the guise of transparency and democracy. Now, if this number was a realistic portrayal of the board at large, we're supposed to believe that 80% of the board is part of the cabal. That makes no sense whatsoever. I believe that every member of the cabal have voted and that only 48 people on this entire board support this measure, and the other four billion do not.

The five people who voted against represent the silent majority of forum users in my opinion.

 

[choxorn]

Ooooh, I've never been a part of a shadowy cabal before! Do we get nice parking spaces, and secret tunnels, and cool robes, and songs about how we keep the metric system down and rig every Oscar night?

 

[gay_Aleks]

Ooooh, I've never been a part of a shadowy cabal before! Do we get nice parking spaces, and secret tunnels, and cool robes, and songs about how we keep the metric system down and rig every Oscar night?

Curses! That reminds me my parking ticket just expired, and do you have an idea how hard it is to run in these robes? I personally would have went with plain rompers. Helps blending in.

 

[pigswill]

I'm certainly not saying that there is a clique or cabal or movement. I am saying that c 60 people out of the CFC membership feel strongly enough about this issue to vote. The low turnout suggests that there isn't a widespread clamour for change on the rules regarding discussion of moderator actions.

Anyone has the right to protest as vociferously as they wish (within the bounds of civility) but without public support (i.e. membership of CFC) the demands for change won't get very far.

 

[gay_Aleks]

I'm certainly not saying that there is a clique or cabal or movement. I am saying that c 60 people out of the CFC membership feel strongly enough about this issue to vote. The low turnout suggests that there isn't a widespread clamour for change on the rules regarding discussion of moderator actions.

Anyone has the right to protest as vociferously as they wish (within the bounds of civility) but without public support (i.e. membership of CFC) the demands for change won't get very far.

The thing is, that only a limited number of posters in OT and NES want or care about the PDMA. Civ4 S&T don't care about it, neither does the modding community.

 

[Sonereal]

Ooooh, I've never been a part of a shadowy cabal before! Do we get nice parking spaces, and secret tunnels, and cool robes, and songs about how we keep the metric system down and rig every Oscar night?

All the fringe benefits are covered in the "How to Shill for the Stonecutters" Handbook on pages 13 to 17.

I'm certainly not saying that there is a clique or cabal or movement. I am saying that c 60 people out of the CFC membership feel strongly enough about this issue to vote. The low turnout suggests that there isn't a widespread clamour for change on the rules regarding discussion of moderator actions.

I agree. Low voter turnout in the real world usually suggests that there isn't a widespread clamour to change the president too.