Reform of CFC Public Discussion of Moderator Action Rules

[Thlayli]

Mostly I'm annoyed at how you've crafted your arguments. Use of inapposite analogies, appeals to non-existent legal authority, and similar fallacious arguments I find irksome.

As for "free" making the site somehow the property of users, I will note that YouTube (as one of many examples) is a "free" service with a community of users (frankly, it wouldn't exist but for contributions of content from the community), but in no way, shape or form does any member of that community have any of the rights you are asking for here. I'm happy to pile on with more examples, but I think the fallacy in that line of argument is clear.

In any event, happily enough, I'm not a decider on the site's PDMA policy. But I will say that asking to use the site's machinery to demand public explanations for moderator actions (or inactions -- in my view even more problematic, for reasons I posted about earlier) is unlike any other commercial enterprise's customer complaint resolution process. In the "real world," customers feeling aggrieved about some action (or inaction) by a company whose products they buy or whose services they consume can complain privately to whatever customer service, help line or ombudsman facilities that company makes available (here, it's the existing appeals process, depending on context). They are also (as you are) free to complain publicly and loudly, whether through social media or other outlets outside the company. What they cannot do is insist that the company's website be a forum to engage in a public debate about poor service.

I would say that what I have done is appeal to moral authority rather than legal authority. I don't think I'm filing any lawsuits any time soon, especially not with CFC so well-staffed with lawyers.

And in the end, this isn't a commercial enterprise like YouTube. It's a community forum built around the idea of community activities. My understanding (though you haven't clarified) is that the ad revenue is exclusively for supporting the site, and as such there's no attempt to make a profit here. Rather, the site exists for our benefit, for the benefit of the members, does it not?

If the site exists for the benefit of the members, and not for the benefit of Thunderfall or for you, the principles we're working from are substantially changed, aren't they? Do you work for Thunderfall? Perhaps in some sense. But do you work for us? Yes, you do. You're supposed to serve us, the CFC community. The reason you enforce these rules isn't because it brings Thunderfall a greater check each month, but because a forum overrun with chaos and spam isn't good for the community.

This is a good website. It's one of the best communities on the internet, which is why I have argued so tenaciously to make it better. And redefining everything in a legalistic sense sucks the life out of a community of people who are just doing what humans do: Trying to enjoy their lives.

The question is one of ideals, and of first principles, I believe. Our world's own democratic and liberalist theorists needed to begin somewhere, particularly in an environment of total autocracy where their own views were out of the mainstream. Whether or not something has legal justification, in the end, is entirely independent of whether or not it is right. New legal paradigms are created by wars, revolutions, and protest movements, that cause positions to change and entrenched authorities to relent.

Dred Scott was the law of the land with full legal justification, but that didn't make it right. Same for "separate but equal," and plenty of other outmoded and inhumane ways of seeing the world and individuals' rights in this world. But these legal concepts were abandoned when people began to choose to see the world in a new, better way. What matters, here and now, is that you and me, and all the community members, and all the moderators, have an exceptional opportunity to make this website a better place. We can make changes together that benefit all of us!

And again, this is not a company, is it? I'd like to see the registration documents if it is.

 

[Browd]

Dred Scott? Really?

At the risk of repeating myself, I find these sorts of hyperbolic arguments, "full of sound and fury, signifying nothing," neither credible nor convincing.

 

[ChiefDesigner]

Dred Scott? Really?

At the risk of repeating myself, I find these sorts of hyperbolic arguments, "full of sound and fury, signifying nothing," neither credible nor convincing.

But you wouldn't, would you? You have a personal stake in the arguments going a certain way.

 

[The_J]

At the risk of repeating myself, I find these sorts of hyperbolic arguments, "full of sound and fury, signifying nothing," neither credible nor convincing.

Extreme hyperbole can be classified as trolling.
(not that there's a 100% legal consensus on the term "trolling"; just saying that before anyone here tries to hump that argument)
It also doesn't contribute to a civilized discussion, because it tends to antagonize both parties.
Which gives a poor image for a person who actually advocates open discussions about certain topics.

Just saying.

 

[Thlayli]

I suppose it's fair to focus on that one element if you don't want to answer my concerns about the financials and legal status of CFC. I just thought that as a lawyer you might be able to help, since you were making a legal argument. Determining if CFC is a for-profit or a not-for-profit entity very much clarifies the scope of the discussion.

I hope you don't feel like you or anyone else is being trolled. The situation in CFC certainly isn't equivalent to that of human slavery, but the forum could easily be a freer, fairer place if we all decide to work together towards that goal. We do truly want to feel like our moderators are our friends.

I know it's difficult to be criticized, Browd, and this causes you to want to protect your own position and the way you have always done things. I sympathize with your position. My position simply comes from seeing well-educated friends of mine who have always followed forum rules and contributed peacefully to CFC for years throw up their hands in frustration and leave CFC because of the opacity of the leadership and their extreme resistance to criticism and change. That's incredibly hard to take sitting down.

 

[Browd]

Well, as a lawyer, I don't have a client here (I don't represent CFC and certainly don't represent you), so I'm not here "as a lawyer ... to help."

 

[Thlayli]

Well, I guess I'll just let that level of rudeness speak for itself, then. :/

 

[Browd]

Sorry, not intended to be rude.

 

[Thlayli]

It's okay. I would definitely appreciate hearing more about whether CFC is structured as a for-profit corporation or a non-profit, from you or any other mod, when you get a chance.

 

[Luckymoose]

It's okay. I would definitely appreciate hearing more about whether CFC is structured as a for-profit corporation or a non-profit, from you or any other mod, when you get a chance.

They aren't employees, simply volunteers, and have no actual knowledge of the business behind CFC. They are just members like us who were given power to judge others and don't want it infringed upon by the likes of the peasantry. Absolute power corrupts absolutely.

 

[Birdjaguar]

They aren't employees, simply volunteers, and have no actual knowledge of the business behind CFC. They are just members like us who were given power to judge others and feel responsible to make good decisions on behalf of the site. don't want it infringed upon by the likes of the peasantry. Absolute power corrupts absolutely.

I think that the staff recognizes that they are just peasants with fancy hats. Some may enjoy their fancy hats more than others, but no one has any illusions that they are better than you because they are a moderator.

Yes, power can corrupt, but not all the time. Since ainwood has been the chief admin while TF has been busy holding down a job and raising a family, he has had all the power here. He has never abused it nor has he been corrupted by it.

 

[ChiefDesigner]

If that's the case, Bird, what were the grounds for the major infractions handed out in http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=542970&page=17?

No grounds for appeal, no transparency, and, frankly, disrespectful "moderation" handed down by an admin with a well-known grudge against those particular users.

You want to know why nobody trusts you any more? Start there.

 

[Birdjaguar]

If that's the case, Bird, what were the grounds for the major infractions handed out in http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=542970&page=17?

No grounds for appeal, no transparency, and, frankly, disrespectful "moderation" handed down by an admin with a well-known grudge against those particular users.

You want to know why nobody trusts you any more? Start there.

You are mixing several issues: how moderators see themselves versus non mods; dealing with infractions, trust, assumed grudges . They are all very different topics. I can like you and think you my equal, but still ban you for breaking the rules.

Regarding the link. It looks like Plotinus stepped in on post 295 and asked everyone to get back on track and try to behave. He was pretty polite and even offered an alternative thread for the more controversial topic. A page or two later, when the behavior continued, other mods stepped in to follow up on the failure of folks to follow Plotinus' request. The grounds were that a senior admin asked in a nice way for folks to change what they were doing and it was ignored. As a mod who doesn't like to infract, I would have to support moderators/admins responding when posters fail to heed an admn request. Whether the punishment fit the crime is a separate question from justifying the moderator taking action.

 

[Lefty Scaevola]

Most of staff really disliked the results of my experiment with a looser hand (I am less conflict adverse than most) in these Site Feedback threads and decided it was time to end it. Plotinus rolled out the message. Several refused to heed it.

 

[Thlayli]

So what you mean to say is, PDMA is a rule which moderators relax as they see fit, until such time as that relaxation annoys other moderators, at which time the rule is suddenly applied again?

We were able to have a fairly calm and civil discussion for weeks, and now I'm getting infractions piled on like I'm Martin Luther nailing theses to the door. (Which is ironic, since I'm Catholic.) It certainly creates a perception that the enforcement of the rules is very much tied to whether or not moderators are fed up with you as a person, or not.

Overall, the whole lot of you have lost a lot of credibility by suddenly pivoting to infractions. Are your efforts to enforce order worth treating other people this way? It really must not make you feel very good to have to infract me multiple times just because I told the truth in a way that criticized you.

Is the truth really that dangerous on CFC?

 

[Lefty Scaevola]

I am saying that I was experimenting with looser enforcement in freer posting in Site Feedback, the experiment failed upon the accelerating bad behavior of several posters, and the experiment was terminated, with Plotinus issuing the warning.

 

[Thlayli]

One of the principles of modern human experimentation is that individuals have a right to know when they're being experimented on.

Not that this is a true experiment or anything like that, but if you're going to give people a chance to prove themselves, you shouldn't set up such an experiment in a controversial topic where you can easily harvest data that supports your viewpoint.

 

[Ailedhoo]

I think there should be experiment but I can understand the feelings of fatigue from the dramatic occurrence. There is a consensus for a PDMA thread though so giving up should be avoided; I would say allow a week to pass then conduct another experiment when things have calmed down a bit. Till then I will suggest we invite representatives of the other sub-forums so we can ensure this is a full forum project to the benefit of all.

 

[Thlayli]

I've been told that some form of PDMA reform is coming, so for the sake of the moderators sanity, and to show that I'm not a vigilante set on overthrowing their rule (as I'm sure some of them think,) I'd be happy to stop pressing the point until such time as we get some clarification.

 

[Buster's Uncle]

It is fun that the moderation staff is so happy to ignore the very thing that makes their position meaningful: members. This forum is nothing without the people coming here, posting, discussing games and having fun, etc. If the staff doesn't care enough about their only resource to cater to it and make a better website, the website won't be around forever. You aren't above us in any fashion. You are from the members, to serve the members, not to make money off or exploit the members. Unhappy members makes for an unhappy forum, which in turn makes for more work for the staff.

^THIS^. While the staff is thrilled to run up and down any track but the heart of the matter - ^THIS^

I've already voted with my feet. I've proven at my own forum that well-treated people treat the management better - and the Alpha Centauri community has traditionally not been exactly a model of maturity and peace. We're growing and getting better all the time, and I ain't got time for a CFC where I can't expect civility from the management, let alone respect. I'd like to help grow CFC's Alpha Centauri subforum -there's life in the ol' game yet, as AC2 proves- but I'm not a masochist, and you people are missing out on some great patches, mods, and scenarios.