Reform of CFC Public Discussion of Moderator Action Rules

[ywhtptgtfo]

This derail from a few pages ago rather proves my point, I think. I raise concerns about people forming 'cliques' in the context of a PDMA thread to ban together to attack or defend someone's actions in such a way as to make a PDMA thread completely untenable from a practical standpoint. It will all break down into trolling.

Instead of focusing on the merits of my argument vis a vis people gunking up PDMA threads with useless circlejerking, we instead get post after post of people banning together to prove their not in a secret cabal.

So you raised your concern that people are forming 'cliques' that commit 'useless circlejerking' and the past few pages proved this point. Can you explain why this makes sense?

I understand my opinion on the matter is not held in high esteem here. I understand a majority think I'm wrong[...]

The reason why your opinion is not held in high esteem is not simply because you are wrong. People reacted the way they did because you were aggressively trying to discredit them in order to make your point. Then when these people retaliated, you played victim, made a scene, and further attacked them. Just look at that tsunami of melodrama you unleashed.

You can't expect to have things both ways.

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

Now, can we get back on track? Last I remember, we were actually making progress.

 

[ywhtptgtfo]

Assuming the poster of a deleted single post or the starter of of a deleted thread were not sent a PM about the action (or they have private messages disabled or they ignore them), they are only bared from asking by public post on CFC. They may use PM or other private channel to inquire.

Private channels are most certainly useful. I will try it right now, Lefty.

 

[ywhtptgtfo]

[...]
That's silly. Nobody here is part of a secret cabal.

Haha.

Hahahahah right guys?

There is a mythical creature we don't want to feed. Let's try to avoid the bait.

Last I remember, we were discussing why we needed a royal protocol for the CFC volunteers. Does it make sense for volunteers to be treated as cyber-royalties when they were recruited to service rather than to rule. Can we draw parallels with American cops who on one hand run amok with violence and, on another hand, complain about transparency/accountability.

Food for thought.

 

[Double A]

Assuming the poster of a deleted single post or the starter of of a deleted thread were not sent a PM about the action (or they have private messages disabled or they ignore them), they are only bared from asking by public post on CFC. They may use PM or other private channel to inquire.

How many PMs would someone have to send off before they got their answer, though? Probably like 3-5, unless they PM'd the right mod or didn't want more of an answer than the blurb the guy who deleted the thread left attached to the soft delete.

I personally find PMs to be a lot more of a hassle than posting in a thread, and not only because I have to delete them every once in a while. It just seems like so much more clicking.

circlejerk

I'm pretty sure I'm not sassing you because I want to agree with everyone else, but because I disagree with you. Also pretty sure that most other people are in the same boat. oh look we're in a conspiracy boat nevermind

 

[Sonereal]

Ain't no boat like a conspiracy boat because the conspiracy boat just don't sink.

Spoiler :

The irony is that on a raw intellectual level, most of them were probably smarter than most of the moderators. In fact, I know many of their test scores, so I know they are. But power, even sad imaginary internet power, isn't easily surrendered, nor will the immense pride of certain mods ever bend. That's the reality of this situation.

How did I miss this concentrated piece of euphoria?

 

[pigswill]

hobbsyoyo: I've been re-reading the thread before posting. It appears you introduced the subject of cliques which started that particular de-rail and has overshadowed your original point about the benefits of a thread which allowed public viewing of the discussion between an infractee and staff without public participation in the thread.

I actually think that your proposal is a pretty good idea as it allows members to get some insight into the decision making process without irrelevant or tangential issues being raised.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

This derail from a few pages ago rather proves my point, I think. I raise concerns about people forming 'cliques' in the context of a PDMA thread to ban together to attack or defend someone's actions in such a way as to make a PDMA thread completely untenable from a practical standpoint. It will all break down into trolling. I've stated that I am just offering my opinion on the subject and am willing to admit that I may completely wrong. See below:

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.

Explain how my above-quoted post is proof that I am part of either a clique or 'circlejerk.'

I stand by every word of that post, btw. Just because several dozen people (up to 55 now) happen to agree on this issue, that doesn't make us a clique. We have various reasons for wanting PDMA reform, and the reasons may not have anything to do with each other.

There are many people on the list of the "yes" side who I don't even know. I've never seen their names before and have no idea where they post, since it's not in the areas of the site where I post. Many others are people I have noticed a few times but haven't interacted with. Yet others are people I've interacted with maybe a couple of times but that's all. There actually aren't that many on the list who would fall into the category of people with whom I interact regularly every day here. And of those, even fewer are people who I consider friends - half a dozen at the very most.

Yep, that's some clique/secret cabal.

And consider the presence of the two moderators listed on the yes side. Are you accusing them of being part of some clique/cabal/circlejerk? One of them is an OT mod. The other is involved with the NES/IOT situation. I haven't asked, but it would be a reasonable assumption that they might have different takes on the situation that still add up to a good reason to support this reform idea.

Instead of focusing on the merits of my argument vis a vis people gunking up PDMA threads with useless circlejerking, we instead get post after post of people banning together to prove their not in a secret cabal.

Perhaps you mean "banding together"? Not that we're doing that, either. Just as each of us has our own reason for wanting reform, we each have our own reason for not wanting to be accused of something that simply is not true.

The above quotes contributed 0 to the overall discussion and didn't actually disprove my point in any way.

Well, you are entitled to your opinion. I don't think it's correct, since I stand by my post and think it's a pretty good one. But insulting people isn't productive.

 

[Sonereal]

To be honest, a thread where it is nothing but mods posting X kicked for a week because would be cool if for no other reason than it consolidates a body of ruling into a single thread.

Really, most infractions are pretty open and cases. Like maybe 5% are contentious at best.

 

[sophie]

Yeah I found the accusations of a massive conspiratorial clique quite humorous. The only "cliques" in this thread that have shown up, as far as I'm aware, are Thlayli and I, who hang out together on #nes, and the moderators.

 

[Sonereal]

Are pairs cliques?

 

[gay_Aleks]

Only with appropriate robes.

 

[Civ'ed]

Only with appropriate robes.

Presumably also a secret handshake.

 

[ywhtptgtfo]

hobbsyoyo: I've been re-reading the thread before posting. It appears you introduced the subject of cliques which started that particular de-rail and has overshadowed your original point about the benefits of a thread which allowed public viewing of the discussion between an infractee and staff without public participation in the thread.

I actually think that your proposal is a pretty good idea as it allows members to get some insight into the decision making process without irrelevant or tangential issues being raised.

Since we are apparently so afraid of cliques hijacking threads, why not simply ban all public discussions together to avoid this. Let's just throw that baby out with the bath water. It makes a lot of sense guys.

Are pairs cliques?

People with multiple personalities can conceivably be one man army of cliques that terrorize CFC.

 

[JohannaK]

I am growing extremey frustrated with this site. This has been the first forum I've joined. I've been here for a few years already, I've made friends and I've had fun. I'd hate to leave that behind, but every time I feel more and more compelled to do so by the actions of the staff: their meddling, their bias, their arbitrariness. There's specially one whom I dread and I am not alone in doing so, but naming will do no good.

I just want to say, I can see myself leaving this place for good. Never happened up to now. It's not a problem with the site, but with some people who run it. Administration cannot be with the rules. It must be with the people whom these rules intend to protect in the first place.

If someone who cannot be described with softer words than "moronic bigot" runs rampant parroting arguments he can't support or truly understand and is called out on it repeatedly, is it the people who call him out that must go? Is it really so?7

I know this does not believe in this thread, but there's none other which are better suited. I feel personally offended by staff actions that I believe attmpt against common sense and civility and which make me feel helpless. I feel anger at what a bigot says, perhaps not conscious of how offensive he's being, and I feel shocked and outraged at his being protected by staff against people who are being polite and civil enough to someone who is exhaustingly unable to argue, discuss, concede or rectify.

 

[Lefty Scaevola]

If someone ... runs rampant parroting arguments he can't support or truly understand and is called out on it repeatedly, is it the people who call him out that must go? Is it really so?

Yes, that is the way it is here. Low site censorship on the content of argument, high site censorship of the mode and civility of argument. Being religious or secular or different or wrong or stupid or in the minority is not against the rules here; flaming, including couched euphemistically in "calling out" is against the rules. That is the way it is going to stay for the foreseeable future.
The particular situation that is unfortunately, and understandably, distasteful to you is being closely monitored for line crossing by any parties.
I got my marching orders on the subject over a decade ago, when I had the task of quashing a (political) flamers rebellion in OT (triggered by an analogous outlier in opinion), where everybody was being called a commie, fascist, terrorist, whatever. Solution: closed OT for several days during clean up; gave 3 dozen flamers 3 days to commit to stop or be indefinitely banned. For such egregeous heavy handedness, I was made the first, and for several years, the only supermoderator, in charge of recruiting and training moderators for the Colosseum section. So yeah, I know what the standard expected of moderators is here.

 

[Keinpferd]

You ridiculous little man!

 

[Valka D'Ur]

Yes, that is the way it is here. Low site censorship on the content of argument, high site censorship of the mode and civility of argument. Being religious or secular or different or wrong or stupid or in the minority is not against the rules here; flaming, including couched euphemistically in "calling out" is against the rules. That is the way it is going to stay for the foreseeable future.
The particular situation that is unfortunately, and understandably, distasteful to you is being closely monitored for line crossing by any parties.
I got my marching orders on the subject over a decade ago, when I had the task of quashing a (political) flamers rebellion in OT (triggered by an analogous outlier in opinion), where everybody was being called a commie, fascist, terrorist, whatever. Solution: closed OT for several days during clean up; gave 3 dozen flamers 3 days to commit to stop or be indefinitely banned. For such egregeous heavy handedness, I was made the first, and for several years, the only supermoderator, in charge of recruiting and training moderators for the Colosseum section. So yeah, I know what the standard expected of moderators is here.

Lefty, please use proper paragraphs for ease of reading. It's in everyone's best interest, including yours, to make your posts more comprehensible. You know that some people never read "walls of text."

Secondly... just because that incident required drastic measures, it doesn't mean your default reaction to all incidents should be STOMP.

And "calling out" =/= flaming. It does sometimes, but not always.

 

[Lefty Scaevola]

Secondly... just because that incident required drastic measures, it doesn't mean your default reaction to all incidents should be STOMP.

Well yeah, a 'carpet bombing' technique only comes after other measures have failed to stop a disorder after a period of time. We have not had another one since then, although we came close once.

We also have a lot more tools and graduated steps to work with now than we had then (when all we had was editing posts, manual warnings, bans, and the then recently created Moderator Action: tags). The basic standard then was warn, warn, then ban. With dozens of the RIGHTEOUS insisting on their God given right to flame whoever was their opponent du jour regardless of rules and warnings, it took something beyond the basic. They thought they smelled blood in the water because the other OT moderator had recently left. They were wrong.

In any case, the purpose of the post above was to illustrate the long standing and unaltered nature of the flaming rule as well as its direct approval, and the approval of methods needed for enforcing it, by ownership.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[Keinpferd]

@Browd: Browd, outing yourself as lawyer was courageous, since you put at least your online persona at risk, in the sense of, "see, he can't even win that little case". But you apparently can afford that risk and helped greatly (in post #2) to clarify the factual legal status quo – in opposition to Thlayli's assumed "Western legal canon". However, I disagree when you object to him (#80), he crafted his arguments badly. All lawyers do so and tell everybody, they craft their arguments badly, their clients included, because they pay them for covering that particular weakness of being inapt to form well crafted arguments, especially legally valid well crafted arguments. As a physician tells you, besides eat less fat and do more sports, that your sick and prescribes you the full abundance of drugs and treatments, or a guru tells you, that you're spiritually underdeveloped, and so on… Not all arguments of Thlayli are badly crafted but some knife sharp and lay the truth bare pretty naked. Just the very first of his argments, "[PDMA] amounts to a policy of censorship that does not accord with other elements of the CFC rules, which encourage open, free, and fair discussion of just about any topic", just that, the contradiction of the PDMA policy with the declared general intent and spirit of this forum, woul be killer argument enough for me to on the next admins' and moderator's meating vote benediction of a grievance thread.

An ex-girlfriend labeled videogame players, "brain-parking idiots", which always intimidated me, because the crowd of some game forums seems to fully justify that label. This thread proves, that there are many players, who are clearly not brain-parking idiots. Proof is, that they don't want to be treated as such and speak their mind. I always thought, that the good people had long left CFC, and here I'm learning, remnants were driven into small niches, partly by that exact PDMA policy, partly by the unatoned power abuses of moderators. If the cool and the good leave and the boring asses stay, a forum will be empty. People who seek technical solutions and premade strategy tips are just a bunch of people in a customer service hotline, they're about nothing, they don't form a real forum.

Also, the devoted work in this thread to specify the form and the limitations of a PDMA thread makes it a practical thing, the board meeting can work with. They should recognize, that the PDMA thread and the people advocating it are a force for good and not agents of chaos.

 

[pigswill]

Interesting perspective about a forum that's essentially about a series of computer games rather than political theory. I suspect that if the 'cool and the good leave' and 'the boring asses stay' the forum will remain quite full.

From following this thread its clear that there are a number of people who are willing to speak their mind. It is regrettable that some people occasionally lapse into offensive language when expressing their thoughts which is then used to justify the draconian interventions of one or more moderators.