Reform of CFC Public Discussion of Moderator Action Rules

[Thlayli]

For some fascinating reason, my first PDMA thread was locked. The mods never saw the need to lock any other thread here in Site Feedback, but for some reason mine deserved special attention. I won't flatter myself in saying that I felt a little Mandela-esque since I'm as white as a snowflake, but the uh, historical metaphor is pretty plain to see. This discussion is so dangerous that it needs to be shut down after a certain period of time.

Spoiler :

This is misleading. I pointed out in my initial post that I was hoping to earn the right for civil discussion about moderator actions, for polite, reasoned dissent, which is freedom of speech in its truest intended sense. Your response with that xkcd comic implies that, in this circumstance, there's no difference between someone who disagrees with moderation and an online troll or someone spewing hate on an internet forum.

This kind of misdirection is what causes cynicism among many extremely intelligent members about the way the moderators view their position and the membership they are obliged to serve.

Let me be clear: My agitation, and the agitation of those who support me, for PDMA to be rescinded, will not go away. The desire to have an equitable discussion will not go away. The desire to have a fair forum where moderators and members are on an equal playing field will not go away. Of course, you could decide to escalate. You could ban discussion of PDMA reform, which is not itself PDMA, which would be the next logical step in the chain of censorship. But would you really be happy with yourself having done so? Would you be respecting the spirit of CFC rules as well as the letter?

Those moderators who resist this change will ultimately spend more time debating why NOT to give us these rights than they would simply responding to concerns, which is their job. Why do you need to fight so hard to protect the right to silence others who are doing nothing else wrong?

You may interpret these demands as a threat, or as a nuisance, but in the words of our President, "We will extend a hand if you are willing to unclench your fist." There are many moderators who are willing to at least give it a try, and I'm very grateful for their support.

Hopefully their numbers increase going forward.

 

[The_J]

For some fascinating reason, my first PDMA thread was locked. The mods never saw the need to lock any other thread here in Site Feedback, but for some reason mine deserved special attention. I won't flatter myself in saying that I felt a little Mandela-esque since I'm as white as a snowflake, but the uh, historical metaphor is pretty plain to see. This discussion is so dangerous that it needs to be shut down after a certain period of time.

Yo, Mandela, take a look at this random example from page 8:

Spoiler :

This thread is as "dangerous" as the closed thread about custom avatars from page 6.

This is misleading. I pointed out in my initial post that I was hoping to earn the right for civil discussion about moderator actions, for polite, reasoned dissent, which is freedom of speech in its truest intended sense. Your response with that xkcd comic implies that, in this circumstance, there's no difference between someone who disagrees with moderation and an online troll or someone spewing hate on an internet forum.
[...]

Let me be clear: My agitation, and the agitation of those who support me, for PDMA to be rescinded, will not go away.

That's all nice and fine, but the essence is the panel #3/#4 from the comic. It boils down that you might have your opinion, but also that nobody is forced to listen to it.
You can agitate as much as you want, but nobody is forced to listen to you. People ARE listening though, else you'd not have any responses in this thread.

Those moderators who resist this change will ultimately spend more time debating why NOT to give us these rights than they would simply responding to concerns, which is their job.

You really think that this and the last thread you made needed more time and attention than all the PMs the mods have to send?

Why do you need to fight so hard to protect the right to silence others who are doing nothing else wrong?

People who haven't done anything wrong rarely complain about PDMA ^^.

 

[JohannaK]

People who haven't done anything wrong rarely complain about PDMA ^^.

That's funny. I never did anything wrong until I got infractions for PDMA.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

Thunderfall found it to useless and disruptive. Mainly whining, seconded by baseless accusations of bias, thirded by flaming and abuse, forthed by useless posturing, with only a smattering of useful discourse. Waste of time.

Some accusations of bias are not baseless. I recall being told by some veteran members who have been here a lot longer than I have of a moderator from many years ago (long before I was even online, never mind a member here) who abused his authority and infracted people if they happened to disagree with his opinions on certain topics. That person hasn't been a moderator for many years, and from what I can surmise, left the forum long ago.

People who haven't done anything wrong rarely complain about PDMA ^^.

What about the people who hit multiquote and forgot to delete some mod-tagged text that may not even have had any bearing on the comment they made, and got slapped with a PDMA infraction? Personally, I felt annoyed at having to ding people for that and I entirely understand why they were annoyed that it happened. But you know the saying: "Rules are rules."

As they stand, the PDMA rules are too vague. Technically speaking, I could mention that "(Moderator X) said last week that he/she likes pancakes" and get slapped for PDMA. If there's a verb in the sentence, it's an action taken by a moderator. Of course we expect that the moderators would use common sense, but sometimes the staff rulebook needs to have stuff spelled out as well.

 

[Thlayli]

Yo, Mandela, take a look at this random example from page 8:

Spoiler :

This thread is as "dangerous" as the closed thread about custom avatars from page 6.

You had to go back several years to find another locked thread? Kinda proves my point, if you ask me. But I agree with you, it isn't dangerous, even though it was selected out of dozens of other threads to be closed, who can say why. (I probably should have used air quotes rather than italics in my last post to indicate sarcasm. )

That's all nice and fine, but the essence is the panel #3/#4 from the comic. It boils down that you might have your opinion, but also that nobody is forced to listen to it. You can agitate as much as you want, but nobody is forced to listen to you. People ARE listening though, else you'd not have any responses in this thread.

Which is disingenuous, because not forcing people to listen to your opinion and editing your opinion out of existence because it had the gall to challenge the people with power are two different things, comrade.

You really think that this and the last thread you made needed more time and attention than all the PMs the mods have to send?

Making my arguments for me again, I suppose. I do appreciate you admitting that a PDMA discussion thread would be easy to maintain. Maybe you should join your fellow mods (or ex-mods, I suppose) in agreeing that this reform is, if not necessary, mostly harmless. You've already said as much.

People who haven't done anything wrong rarely complain about PDMA ^^.

I could have tons of fun with this comment, but since you've already gotten called out by your fellow ex-mod I'll avoid that and simply ask: Have all of the people in this thread who have registered their desire for a change in PDMA rules done something 'wrong'?

---

Again, I don't mean to be confrontational, simply to rebut the same tired arguments periodically trotted out to oppose what is fundamentally an insignificant surrender of a small amount of authority that the moderators probably don't even need, for the sake of a large quantity of people who don't even dislike the mods, but just want to be able to dialogue with them in the forum about decisions they've made. It's really not scary or threatening at all! Everyone pretty much agrees on that.

This is in no way a threat to the mods' authority or the need to have mods.

As Valka has wisely pointed out, the entire policy is absurd if actually interpreted as written. There's literally NOTHING that stops a mod from saying "Alright, fine, we'll give it a try" and seeing if an appeal thread collapses into anarchy or not. Most likely it'll simply float around, unused, except in times of crisis when it's necessary, in which case the opportunity to have a contained, open discussion that still adheres to CFC rules will benefit many and keep them here in this forum.

 

[The_J]

Making my arguments for me again, I suppose. I do appreciate you admitting that a PDMA discussion thread would be easy to maintain. Maybe you should join your fellow mods (or ex-mods, I suppose) in agreeing that this reform is, if not necessary, mostly harmless. You've already said as much.

I meant as it is right now.
You can be sure, if there were "appeal" threads, then for every PM which is sent right, you'd get at least 3 posts. Which doesn't make anything easier.

I could have tons of fun with this comment, but since you've already gotten called out by your fellow ex-mod I'll avoid that and simply ask: Have all of the people in this thread who have registered their desire for a change in PDMA rules done something 'wrong'?

a) I said "rarely", not "never".
b) I don't know everyone's infraction record.

Again, I don't mean to be confrontational, simply to rebut the same tired arguments periodically trotted out to oppose

ah, but the arguments for are not the same tired arguments which periodically get trotted out, I see.

 

[Bootstoots]

I'm personally in favor of relaxing the rules on PDMA somewhat and allowing appeals to be publicly visible. I'd be fine with some public feedback on my own decisions, at least.

But PDMA was de-facto allowed in several threads in NES and SF last fall, and the results were terrible - the discussion wasn't civil at all and no real progress was made. Getting a staff consensus to relax the rules requires some evidence that this would result in a positive outcome, and if anything the evidence we have probably points in the other direction.

 

[Luckymoose]

I'm personally in favor of relaxing the rules on PDMA somewhat and allowing appeals to be publicly visible. I'd be fine with some public feedback on my own decisions, at least.

But PDMA was de-facto allowed in several threads in NES and SF last fall, and the results were terrible - the discussion wasn't civil at all and no real progress was made. Getting a staff consensus to relax the rules requires some evidence that this would result in a positive outcome, and if anything the evidence we have probably points in the other direction.

It was horrible because the mods chose to take hostile actions on the community prior to releasing PDMA. Mass post deletion, thread closure and deletion, bans, infractions, etc. One guy got infracted for having an ineligible avatar of text that some mod assumed was PDMA. Now, if the staff can admit they are over zealous at times then something can be done. We're all members here. You're not better than us. No one pays you to enforce weird rules. Hell, one more busted launch like Beyond Earth and CFC is dead in the water anyway.

 

[Loppan Torkel]

That would just even further discourage users, making worse the problem Owen stated above, wouldn't it?

It would make it more interesting, people wouldn't abuse the appeal thread, but could make their case heard and the mods wouldn't be overworked. It could be a double-or-nothing-infraction-thread and a supermod could call it after a brief hearing. Very nice.

 

[EQandcivfanatic]

I've got a question to ask of those wanting open discussion of PDMA. Are you also in favor of moderators openly discussing your actions and their views of you as posters?

 

[Luckymoose]

I've got a question to ask of those wanting open discussion of PDMA. Are you also in favor of moderators openly discussing your actions and their views of you as posters?

Yes, because it would highlight the bias inherent in the system.

 

[thomas.berubeg]

I've got a question to ask of those wanting open discussion of PDMA. Are you also in favor of moderators openly discussing your actions and their views of you as posters?

Yes, absolutly.

 

[BSmith1068]

Yes, because it would highlight the bias inherent in the system.

"help! help! I'm being repressed!"




EDIT 1: [obviously this is not meant to be taken any further than the joke it is...]
EDIT 2: [sad that I even have to make that point]

 

[EQandcivfanatic]

Good, I just wanted to make sure that we're all on the same page here. I firmly believe in a full, transparent, and free flow of information and opinions, as long as the flow can go both ways.

 

[Zack]

I've got a question to ask of those wanting open discussion of PDMA. Are you also in favor of moderators openly discussing your actions and their views of you as posters?

Don't they already do this anyways?

 

[BSmith1068]

Not publicly.

 

[Thlayli]

I've got a question to ask of those wanting open discussion of PDMA. Are you also in favor of moderators openly discussing your actions and their views of you as posters?

Of course. 99.9% of posters openly discuss each other's actions and views of each other as posters, and whether or not you have a fancy color in front of your name, you're still a poster.

We talk about each other openly all the time. It's what people do.

 

[Browd]

Not in public (except in the form of brief in-thread mod text). One of the necessary implications of a public appeals thread is that moderators will be publicly explaining, perhaps on occasion in unflattering terms, why a particular post/poster deserved an infraction.

 

[Thlayli]

One of the necessary implications of a public appeals thread is that moderators will be publicly explaining, perhaps on occasion in unflattering terms, why a particular post/poster deserved an infraction.

Good! That's definitely something that should happen. If people want to have their concerns brought out in public they should be prepared for the consequences. I think it's just a natural part of maturity, being able to have a public discussion with someone without losing your cool. CFC already asks that of its members, and for the most part they deliver.

We should be fostering mature discussions rather than shutting them down. And I doubt any of our mods would be more offensive than to just tell the truth and explain why what a poster did was wrong. You people aren't that hurtful.

 

[Zack]

Not publicly.

Not in public (except in the form of brief in-thread mod text). One of the necessary implications of a public appeals thread is that moderators will be publicly explaining, perhaps on occasion in unflattering terms, why a particular post/poster deserved an infraction.

I've seen it happen enclosed in Moderator Action: tags when infractions are handed out.

Examples:

Spoiler :

This infraction is for a number of spammy posts you've made in this thread, which aren't directed towards the thread topic, or provide quite minimal value by RD standards.

"Don't be a jerk" fits this nicely

This and more so the posts above are unacceptable behavior

poor quality and bad taste in a single package

I think those are all good examples of "moderators openly discussing your actions" and "publicly explaining, perhaps on occasion in unflattering terms, why a particular post/poster deserved an infraction". So I don't really understand what point EQandcivfanatic's question was supposed to make, because moderators already do that.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889