Reform of CFC Public Discussion of Moderator Action Rules

[Keinpferd]

The possibility of having to publicly defend ones actions has not been a part of CFC culture since I've been here. It would be a huge change with some benefits. Moderators might be more thoughtful about their actions and those who appealed might rant less and think more if they have to go public with their complaint.

Absolutely. CFC culture is a good keyword.

By now, I wonder, whether the Civ forums in Russia or Hungary might turn out to have more cultured policies regarding PDMA than our forum here, which is American owned and most visited by Americans. All Americans I know take pride in a trademark value like Freedom of Speech. (Maybe some college humor likes to target it, as all dead serious meant things make good targets). No one sees in Freedom of Speech political folklore. And the absence of a PDMA thread is clearly so much adverse to the spirit of Freedom of Speech. How come the American ownership and American staff members appear so indifferent to that heartfelt matter?

 

[sophie]

A moderator can choose to suddenly get tough on a poster and put them over the limit very quickly if they so choose, whether by infracting in posts which otherwise would have gotten mere warnings or deletions without points, or by upping the number of points awarded for a single post. I've seen posters pick up 5 or 6 points in a matter of hours when they did nothing to deserve it. There's also non-expiring points. If a moderator has a grudge against a poster and wants to punish them unfairly or push them out there are plenty of ways for them to do so.

 

[Lefty Scaevola]

Or, you might just be confusing that decreasing tolerance applied toward repeat infractees here. The longer record record a poster piles up the less benefit of the doubt and slack he gets, particularly on intent. Deliberately inhabiting the edge of the envelope here is a poor long term strategy. Also, the more likely his recent posts will be look over by moderators, without having yet been reported. One of the basic techniques is check new posts by known repeaters. for trouble.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

Absolutely. CFC culture is a good keyword.

Most long-established forums have their own culture. I know I've experienced what can only be described as "culture shock" on other sites when suddenly confronted with a situation that would never have been allowed to happen here.

But I suspect that a long-time member of that site might feel the same way if they were to read this thread. That site has a Moderator Actions subforum.

A moderator can choose to suddenly get tough on a poster and put them over the limit very quickly if they so choose, whether by infracting in posts which otherwise would have gotten mere warnings or deletions without points, or by upping the number of points awarded for a single post. I've seen posters pick up 5 or 6 points in a matter of hours when they did nothing to deserve it. There's also non-expiring points. If a moderator has a grudge against a poster and wants to punish them unfairly or push them out there are plenty of ways for them to do so.

Or, you might just be confusing that decreasing tolerance applied toward repeat infractees here. The longer record record a poster piles up the less benefit of the doubt and slack he gets, particularly on intent. Deliberately inhabiting the edge of the envelope here is a poor long term strategy. Also, the more likely his recent posts will be look over by moderators, without having yet been reported. One of the basic techniques is check new posts by known repeaters. for trouble.

Or Owen has a point, that a moderator can suddenly go into "raging parent confronted with the third mess the kid has made in the last two hours" mode and decides to "teach that kid a lesson." Moderators are not perfect, and they can overreact at times. That's why staff should never come here with their mod hats on immediately after something stressful happens in their offline life or on some other non-CFC site. If they have a personal dislike of a particular poster, it would be better to turn over the matter of infracting that poster to someone who isn't emotionally involved. Giving 3 points where 1 or 2 would suffice just because you don't like the infractee or posting snarky mod-tagged text because you're in a bad mood from something else is neither ethical nor just.*

*"you" in the generic sense

That's not to say that some posters don't practically invite their infractions, sometimes basically daring the moderator to come after them. But I don't think that either of you is 100% right or wrong on this.

 

[JollyRoger]

Or, you might just be confusing that decreasing tolerance applied toward repeat infractees here. The longer record record a poster piles up the less benefit of the doubt and slack he gets, particularly on intent. Deliberately inhabiting the edge of the envelope here is a poor long term strategy. Also, the more likely his recent posts will be look over by moderators, without having yet been reported. One of the basic techniques is check new posts by known repeaters. for trouble.

It sort of leads to a dilemma in reform. Let's say you place a poster on permapoints based on a series of infractions earned during the pre-Tavern era. The poster survives permapoints based on a severe decline in rate of infractions. The so-called "improvement" does not help the poster get off of permapoints because mod-logic is that permapoints are working when the real truth is that moderation is now a Tavern level and if you evaluated infraction history under that standard, the poster may not look like the bad apple that over-moderation created.

 

[Keinpferd]

But I suspect that a long-time member of that site might feel the same way if they were to read this thread. That site has a Moderator Actions subforum.

You make us curious, what that site is.

Most long-established forums have their own culture. I know I've experienced what can only be described as "culture shock" on other sites[…]

That sounds emotionally a bit in defense of CFC. Not hard to understand, since you've been involved here for a long time, obviously. I read between the lines: When you come to a well-established place, be sensitive to peculiarities of that place, the strange habits of the natives and the way of doing things of the regulars. But bad habits and bad practices don't get any better with time, regardless how long-established they be. And the absence of a PDMA thread in this place is a bad practice, that's way too long-established…

[…]when suddenly confronted with a situation that would never have been allowed to happen here.

Is it the Cannibalfanatics forum?

 

[Valka D'Ur]

You make us curious, what that site is.

http://www.trekbbs.com/index.php

You have to be a logged-in member to read that subforum. I posted a screenshot of it awhile ago, probably in the other PDMA thread.

That sounds emotionally a bit in defense of CFC. Not hard to understand, since you've been involved here for a long time, obviously. I read between the lines: When you come to a well-established place, be sensitive to peculiarities of that place, the strange habits of the natives and the way of doing things of the regulars. But bad habits and bad practices don't get any better with time, regardless how long-established they be. And the absence of a PDMA thread in this place is a bad practice, that's way too long-established…

I've been here over 10 years now (actually last month was my 10-year mark). I've been at TrekBBS for less time, but still a respectable number of years. CFC is the site where I have consistently spent most of my forum time over the past decade, and I tend to measure all other forums in comparison to this one. There are some things other sites do better. There are some things they do a lot worse. Much worse. Picture a small restaurant or business where the owner/manager yells at people in front of the customers, using abusive language. That's how some forums are. That is not how I want CFC to be. It's definitely not how any forum I run operates.

Is it the Cannibalfanatics forum?

I have never heard of that.

 

[Sonereal]

sometimes basically daring the moderator to come after them.

Heh.

 

[Loppan Torkel]

Honestly, I suspect a PDMA thread would mostly be anticlimactically boring.

It does seem like it. At least the majority prevailed and should be satisfied.

 

[Keinpferd]

At this stage of the discussion, the only argument, the opposers of the cause have brought up, that's still standing, is – in my eyes – the "ganging up"-thing, that is, the fear, that in a PDMA thread peers of an infracted would jointly drown the moderator's voice by outnumbering and just screaming louder.

This raises the question, how moderators deal with that kind of situation elsewhere, both in normal threads around the forums and at other sites, as well. For this ganging up can happen everywhere, not only in a PDMA place. I would expect the countermeasures applied in or outside a PDMA thread to be the same. If a police squad is surrounded by insurgents, they call for reinforcements, and when freedom fighters are surrounded by suppressors, they would also try to call for reinforcements.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

At this stage of the discussion, the only argument, the opposers of the cause have brought up, that's still standing, is – in my eyes – the "ganging up"-thing, that is, the fear, that in a PDMA thread peers of an infracted would jointly drown the moderator's voice by outnumbering and just screaming louder.

This raises the question, how moderators deal with that kind of situation elsewhere, both in normal threads around the forums and at other sites, as well. For this ganging up can happen everywhere, not only in a PDMA place. I would expect the countermeasures applied in or outside a PDMA thread to be the same. If a police squad is surrounded by insurgents, they call for reinforcements, and when freedom fighters are surrounded by suppressors, they would also try to call for reinforcements.

Well, the drowning out only has to continue as long as the moderators allow it. Posts can be deleted, so it's best not to give them a reason to do so.

But your point is one that remains to be seen, as there is an infraction subforum now, that will operate on a trial basis (see the top of this section). I recommend that we give it a chance to work, and see how the trial period plays out.

 

[Keinpferd]

Well, the drowning out only has to continue as long as the moderators allow it. Posts can be deleted, so it's best not to give them a reason to do so.

But your point is one that remains to be seen, as there is an infraction subforum now, that will operate on a trial basis (see the top of this section). I recommend that we give it a chance to work, and see how the trial period plays out.

Thanks for pointing to the great news. I hope, the trial phase won't get sabotaged or hijacked by people, who hate to see that rule change experiment happening – which would be an easy thing to do and a perfect troller occasion.

 

[ywhtptgtfo]

At this stage of the discussion, the only argument, the opposers of the cause have brought up, that's still standing, is – in my eyes – the "ganging up"-thing, that is, the fear, that in a PDMA thread peers of an infracted would jointly drown the moderator's voice by outnumbering and just screaming louder.

This raises the question, how moderators deal with that kind of situation elsewhere, both in normal threads around the forums and at other sites, as well. For this ganging up can happen everywhere, not only in a PDMA place. I would expect the countermeasures applied in or outside a PDMA thread to be the same. If a police squad is surrounded by insurgents, they call for reinforcements, and when freedom fighters are surrounded by suppressors, they would also try to call for reinforcements.

The impression I get with the senior CFC moderation team lacks the will or requisite skills to do so. Which is why they prefer authoritarianism.

One can easily assess these deficiences by observing how their lack of diplomacy in handing out infractions, the rules they set up (i.e. definition of "spam" in their rules), and a great fear of being criticized publicly (according to some moderators).

It may help to replace some bad apples with some new blood. Another good idea would be to decouple content management roles with moderation roles among the CFC staff members, since some moderators privatley suggested that these staff members were not very good moderators.