Reform of CFC Public Discussion of Moderator Action Rules

[Knight-Dragon]

They are just mods with administrative powers, who now run the site. Because TF is pretty much gone.

Don't have the moral authority of TF himself as site owner.

(Assuming TF is still the site owner...?)

 

[ywhtptgtfo]

Better than the old way

I find life to be much better in general if I get to be a dick to other people and don't need to worry about repercussions.

BTW, not every group of people with a common interest is a clique. Sometimes they're just a group of people with a common interest.

And common interests are a bad thing because apparently whenever forumites share common interests, they will be out to give a hard time to these saintly volunteers. They'd always do it for no better reason than to be jerks.

 

[Kyriakos]

They are just mods with administrative powers, who now run the site. Because TF is pretty much gone.

Don't have the moral authority of TF himself as site owner.

(Assuming TF is still the site owner...?)

TF the emperor protects.

 

[Thlayli]

There's ultimately no way to find out if a PDMA infraction thread will work or not without actually trying it.

These "fear of the mob" arguments fail to reflect the fact that there are a lot of community members who want a PDMA thread to succeed, and can actually help members themselves to understand what went wrong if they are simply allowed to TALK about it.

This isn't rocket surgery, folks.

I really wish the mods could see that this strict attitude is making people leave CFC. It really kills me.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

It's really not a 'fear of the mob' mentality that I'm pointing out.

I'm just saying I don't think PDMA discussions will actually be that helpful because the only people who will really be motivated to participate are people who have already picked sides. In fact, the very fact that uninvolved people could participate in a PDMA discussion sets them up to take sides almost by default.


And in the end, the likelihood that any one person or group of people are going to actually sway the opinion of the mods is miniscule. I've personally appealed infractions before and while sometimes my arguments were just stupid, there were a few times where I felt I made an excellent case in my defense. And it didn't matter, the infractions stood and from what I can gather, they almost always do.

But if we let PDMA threads open up, people will take sides, make impassioned arguments, the mods will stick to their guns and now you have a ton of people butthurt about it rather than just the one person who's appeal failed.


And there has been enough instances of people banding together either informally or with actual planning and coordination to defend or attack one poster in OT in recent memory to show that this is how it's going to play out. People do tend to join up and feed off each other and form cliques, no matter how you care to define that. I'm not saying it's a bad thing at all. But it will be hard to have a PDMA thread where everyone can post where circlejerking won't become a major issue.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

It's really not a 'fear of the mob' mentality that I'm pointing out.

I'm just saying I don't think PDMA discussions will actually be that helpful because the only people who will really be motivated to participate are people who have already picked sides. In fact, the very fact that uninvolved people could participate in a PDMA discussion sets them up to take sides almost by default.

It's unreasonable to just assume that if one person posts about a moderator (in)action, that 50 other people are going to jump in and it would become a free-for-all.

And in the end, the likelihood that any one person or group of people are going to actually sway the opinion of the mods is miniscule. I've personally appealed infractions before and while sometimes my arguments were just stupid, there were a few times where I felt I made an excellent case in my defense. And it didn't matter, the infractions stood and from what I can gather, they almost always do.

One reason why I support having a PDMA forum is because sometimes a bystander does have information or insight into the situation that could either help change the moderator's mind or at least modify the punishment taken. Mods don't always know the entirety of the circumstances that led to the situation being infracted, particularly if it's a problem that took place over several days in several different threads. There are times when a witness can help.

But if we let PDMA threads open up, people will take sides, make impassioned arguments, the mods will stick to their guns and now you have a ton of people butthurt about it rather than just the one person who's appeal failed.

People already take sides. If this ends up being tried, I would expect that one of the conditions would be that any posts would have to stick to the issue and whoever posts would either be directly involved or a witness with relevant information or insight to offer. Of course it should also be allowed that people who really did not understand the rationale for the (in)action should be able to ask why and get an answer that's more than "because" or that annoying link to the rules where it may not be obvious exactly which rule was broken or that it really was that bad.

And there has been enough instances of people banding together either informally or with actual planning and coordination to defend or attack one poster in OT in recent memory to show that this is how it's going to play out. People do tend to join up and feed off each other and form cliques, no matter how you care to define that. I'm not saying it's a bad thing at all. But it will be hard to have a PDMA thread where everyone can post where circlejerking won't become a major issue.

As I remember, the very worst of this happened years ago - before you joined, so you wouldn't remember the obvious instances of targeted trolling or who the targets were. Most of the worst offenders aren't here anymore, either because they used up all their last chances and were banned, or because they chose to leave voluntarily. Some of the individuals who were a bit notorious for this sort of behavior have mellowed considerably over the years.

 

[JollyRoger]

I would think that PDMA thread would identify potential talent to moderate based on level-headed participation rather than the current method of relative boyscoutishness.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

Valka et al -

I'm only basing this on my gut feeling and my insight as to how OT operates. You all are free to disagree with me up and down. I'm not trying to change any of your minds or debate you, just lay out the way I see things.

And believe it or not, I have been here and active long enough to have seen and participated in a lot crap up to and including targeted trolling. So I do have some insight into how PDMA threads may play out. I could be wrong, but then again, it's only my opinion on the matter.

@JR -
actually that's a valid point

 

[ywhtptgtfo]

I'm just saying I don't think PDMA discussions will actually be that helpful because the only people who will really be motivated to participate are people who have already picked sides. In fact, the very fact that uninvolved people could participate in a PDMA discussion sets them up to take sides almost by default.

As with any discussion, any party is entitled to choose their sides, switch sides, or do whatever within the parameters of a civil discussion. If we are to fear bias from commentators, then we might as well ban discussions altogether. I mean you arrive with this thread with an in-built bias against PDMA and I have a bias in support of PDMA for a different reason. Should we close this thread because of that?

And in the end, the likelihood that any one person or group of people are going to actually sway the opinion of the mods is miniscule. I've personally appealed infractions before and while sometimes my arguments were just stupid, there were a few times where I felt I made an excellent case in my defense. And it didn't matter, the infractions stood and from what I can gather, they almost always do.

What you suggest is that the moderators can still roflstomp us with power abuses should they choose and that we should simply cut our losses.

The first point I agree with but the second point I don't. Like cop camera, the threat of scrutiny is still likely to cause volunteers more hesitation on the matter of being dicks.

And there has been enough instances of people banding together either informally or with actual planning and coordination to defend or attack one poster in OT in recent memory to show that this is how it's going to play out. People do tend to join up and feed off each other and form cliques, no matter how you care to define that. I'm not saying it's a bad thing at all. But it will be hard to have a PDMA thread where everyone can post where circlejerking won't become a major issue.

Not that I am in any circlejerking cliques or supportive of any. If some moderators already have a circlejerking clique or two, then it's only fair for others to have their own as well. If they are reasonable people that merit respect, I am pretty sure a majority of forumites will rally around them should they be unfairly targeted. Or are we to assume that everyone here is a evil peasant that will rebel at the slightest opportunity?

 

[hobbsyoyo]

I'm not against cliques or circlejerking or group consensus - I partake in all of the above. I just think that infractions tend to polarize people and for a group like OT, PDMA threads will only fan the flames, not help, in a lot of instances.

I could be wrong, as I've said, this is only my gut feeling.

As for the mods -

I don't think they've done a terrible job. Altogether, they're an ok bunch and when there have been some really bad dynamics going on in OT, they eventually fixed them. They even let us have freewheeling (and borderline PDMA) public discussions about the problem.

That's not what I'd call tyranny at all.

Do they cross lines and make bad calls? All the time. But given the amount of crap I put them through (in addition to everyone else), they make this place tolerable.

If PDMA threads were a thing and they led to increased burnout of the mods, that would be a bad thing for everyone. And just having to deal with PDMA threads from an administrative point of view is a nightmare - even if they worked as intended.

In the end, even if they worked perfectly, we'd get marginal benefit from it. I mean, how often do you really feel singled out by a dickhead mod?

 

[ywhtptgtfo]

In the end, even if they worked perfectly, we'd get marginal benefit from it. I mean, how often do you really feel singled out by a dickhead mod?

It will be less common. Accountability and transparency are great deterrents to bad behaviour. Besides, many people like the concept of poetic justice.

Anyhow, I am happy with Armchair General. Decent crowd and no worry about being trolled by some moderators. If this PDMA thing does not work out (which is almost a given), then consider that as an alternative to CFC.

 

[Knight-Dragon]

Yeah, if you feel that the moderation here is that horrible, best to leave and find some other place that would fit your posting style better.

 

[Loppan Torkel]

Those lobbying for a change seem to belong to a certain clique. Not very representative for the whole site..


hobbs seems to get it fairly well. I wouldn't mind seeing a pdma thread, it would probably be quite entertaining, but then the current mods would tire after a while and we'd see new ones pop up from various places. ..but that might have been the purpose all along. Seems like it. It's like a forum game.

 

[Bootstoots]

Honestly, I suspect a PDMA thread would mostly be anticlimactically boring. As I posted a few pages ago, most of the infractions and other action moderators take is quite uncontroversial. There are often judgment calls on borderline issues (e.g. whether a slightly trollish post should be an infraction, or a warning, or modtext, or no action at all), but that's as controversial as it gets for most day-to-day actions. More contentious decisions are quite rare. A PDMA thread might see very occasional flare-ups then which may have to be shut down if they became repetitive and unproductive, but normally there wouldn't be much going on.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

@Knight-Dragon: Sometimes people vote with their feet when they find a forum impossible to tolerate for various reasons, ranging from not liking the moderation style to the forum being ungodly boring, and they don't think the site is worth bothering with anymore. I've left a few forums like those.

There are other times when people do find the forum worth the effort of trying to improve it. This is one of those times. This isn't change for the sake of change, or because people want a license to attack other people and swear at them, call the moderators names, or post mindless drivel and spam. It's for the sake of gaining a better understanding between staff and members and how the moderation process works.

Those of us lobbying for this change wouldn't be spending our time and effort if we didn't think CFC was worth it.

Those lobbying for a change seem to belong to a certain clique. Not very representative for the whole site..


hobbs seems to get it fairly well. I wouldn't mind seeing a pdma thread, it would probably be quite entertaining, but then the current mods would tire after a while and we'd see new ones pop up from various places. ..but that might have been the purpose all along. Seems like it. It's like a forum game.

A collection of people, some of whom don't know each other and don't frequent the same parts of the forum, all happen to think - for a variety of reasons - that a change in the PDMA rules would benefit the community by making parts of the moderation more transparent and hopefully clearing up some uncertainty... and you conclude that ALL of us are in some "certain clique"?



How do you arrive at that conclusion?

I'm really curious to know what this "clique" is that I'm supposedly part of, given that the PDMA reform supporters are from widely differing parts of the board, we have a variety of interests and activity levels, and some of us either don't interact on a daily basis, or possibly have never interacted anywhere but here in Site Feedback.

I suppose some people may be merely curious about this, but others are quite serious. This is not a "game."

Honestly, I suspect a PDMA thread would mostly be anticlimactically boring. As I posted a few pages ago, most of the infractions and other action moderators take is quite uncontroversial. There are often judgment calls on borderline issues (e.g. whether a slightly trollish post should be an infraction, or a warning, or modtext, or no action at all), but that's as controversial as it gets for most day-to-day actions. More contentious decisions are quite rare. A PDMA thread might see very occasional flare-ups then which may have to be shut down if they became repetitive and unproductive, but normally there wouldn't be much going on.

The borderline issues are the ones where the members would benefit knowing what it is that tips the post over the line into being unacceptable, or why the post was given a pass.

It's been suggested in the past that the reason for wanting to know this is so the members know how far they can take trolling without getting slapped for it... but I find that a rather condescending view of the members. We're not a pack of 5-year-olds the staff volunteered to babysit. Most of the times when I was asked to explain an infraction, it was clear to me that the person wanted to know so he or she could avoid getting into trouble in future - not so the person would know just how far to take intended future misbehavior.

 

[ywhtptgtfo]

Yeah, if you feel that the moderation here is that horrible, best to leave and find some other place that would fit your posting style better.

That's for sure. I seldomly experience issues on styles of commentary but I do sometimes get a little picky with the attitudes from volunteers. I tend to prefer positive volunteers who solve problems to negative volunteers who do things like blaming people and shoving things under the rug. It's a little too much to ask for, I'll admit, which is why demanding people like me moved onto greener pastures and (almost) never look back.

Those lobbying for a change seem to belong to a certain clique. Not very representative for the whole site..

I am interested to know if you understand what a clique is.

 

[Bootstoots]

The borderline issues are the ones where the members would benefit knowing what it is that tips the post over the line into being unacceptable, or why the post was given a pass.

It's been suggested in the past that the reason for wanting to know this is so the members know how far they can take trolling without getting slapped for it... but I find that a rather condescending view of the members. We're not a pack of 5-year-olds the staff volunteered to babysit. Most of the times when I was asked to explain an infraction, it was clear to me that the person wanted to know so he or she could avoid getting into trouble in future - not so the person would know just how far to take intended future misbehavior.

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.

As for the rest of the users, I think it's perfectly reasonable to ask and find out where we really draw the line as long as it's done with the intention of not violating the rules. I will say that I can't remember hearing that particular rationale for keeping rule enforcement opaque, but it does sound like something that might have been used in the past.

 

[Ailedhoo]

I guess a anticlimactic PDMA thread would be a fortune in disguise: it is said "blessed is the country with a boring history." If drama occurrences the thread will allow the fires to burn quickly and efficiently.

 

[Loppan Torkel]

A collection of people, some of whom don't know each other and don't frequent the same parts of the forum, all happen to think - for a variety of reasons - that a change in the PDMA rules would benefit the community by making parts of the moderation more transparent and hopefully clearing up some uncertainty... and you conclude that ALL of us are in some "certain clique"?



How do you arrive at that conclusion?

I'm really curious to know what this "clique" is that I'm supposedly part of, given that the PDMA reform supporters are from widely differing parts of the board, we have a variety of interests and activity levels, and some of us either don't interact on a daily basis, or possibly have never interacted anywhere but here in Site Feedback.

I suppose some people may be merely curious about this, but others are quite serious. This is not a "game."

I'd say it's a clique of highly creative, freedom-loving members who have a slight propensity of taking offence. A majority of those voting 'yes' seems to be involved in 'forum games' sub-forum. At least if you check the merger-thread. Pretty dramatic that thing. Maybe the pdma is more of a local issue? Maybe the issue lies within the community rather than the modding aspect?

I have no interest in keeping track of every individual member. If you're not a part of this 'clique' - my apologies.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

I'd say it's a clique of highly creative, freedom-loving members who have a slight propensity of taking offence. A majority of those voting 'yes' seems to be involved in 'forum games' sub-forum. At least if you check the merger-thread. Pretty dramatic that thing. Maybe the pdma is more of a local issue? Maybe the issue lies within the community rather than the modding aspect?

I have no interest in keeping track of every individual member. If you're not a part of this 'clique' - my apologies.

Thank you for your apology. Will you also apologize to the others who support PDMA reform? I don't remember reading in the forum rules that people are not allowed to agree with each other about specific forum issues. Just because one person may support a position, don't assume that everyone else who supports it does so for the same exact reason.

If you read the previous threads on PDMA (there was a large one last year, and other discussions previous to that), you will find that this is not something you can blame on a "clique", especially one that doesn't exist as you seem to think it does.

Actually, given the range of opinions expressed just among the NES/IOT people, I wouldn't denigrate them as a "clique" any more than I would dismiss everyone who plays a specific edition of Civ as a clique, or those who - for example - frequent various Colosseum subforums or have an interest in specific topics in OT.