Those kind of examples tend to be specific to the post and not generally about the poster though. It's certainly not black/white though.
Reform of CFC Public Discussion of Moderator Action Rules
- Thread starter Thlayli
- Start date
Thlayli
Le Pétit Prince
I think the real issue with PDMA is that it kind of creates the idea that moderators are above the rules. Very often politics is about perceptions more than reality, and the fact that some moderators seem duty-bound to fight tooth and nail for a privilege that most of the members consulted in this thread seem to believe we can dispense with creates a perception that moderators consider themselves...different. Maybe better, even, than the rest of us.
It's an adversarial attitude, almost a class-based, us vs. them attitude. And that kind of emotional undertone surfaces whenever the moderators are challenged. I'd argue that PDMA, and protecting PDMA, reinforces this attitude, and dispensing with it will allow us to act like partners in this community, rather than rulers and ruled.
We all know that some moderators say ugly things about some members behind closed doors. That much is an open secret.
I think we need to move past the metaphor of two armed camps, however. Keeping PDMA unchanged keeps that metaphor intact.
It's an adversarial attitude, almost a class-based, us vs. them attitude. And that kind of emotional undertone surfaces whenever the moderators are challenged. I'd argue that PDMA, and protecting PDMA, reinforces this attitude, and dispensing with it will allow us to act like partners in this community, rather than rulers and ruled.
We all know that some moderators say ugly things about some members behind closed doors. That much is an open secret.
I think we need to move past the metaphor of two armed camps, however. Keeping PDMA unchanged keeps that metaphor intact.
I wasn't trying to make a point, I was legitimately making sure that everyone is aware that full PDMA is full both ways. Some people have indicated to me that they're more interested in just a one-way street.
All of which raises another set of process questions (some which may have been noted earlier in the thread): who do the proponents of this initiative believe should be able to invoke the contemplated public discussion and when?
- Just the person receiving the infraction? If so, is that after the existing, confidential process has run its course? -- First, try to work it out with the moderator issuing the infraction; if that doesn't work, escalate to the SuperMods -- as an aside, both processes have resulted in infractions being reversed or modified. Or can the person receiving the infraction bypass the existing process and proceed straight to public discussion?
- Any other user (call them User B) who notices that a red card was issued to User A and wants a public explanation? If so, is that only if User A has appealed and after the appeal is over? What if User A chooses not to appeal or is even OK with their infraction ("Yeah, I lost my cool. Won't do it again."). Must the consent of User A be obtained before his infractable post/behavior gets rehashed in public? If so, how would this work? Does User B unilaterally open a new thread in the designated forum, or must User B send a PM to someone (a SuperMod?) asking for a discussion thread to be created? In either case, is User A entitled to notice of that and, if so, who is responsible for notifying User A of that, and how? What if User A doesn't regularly check his/her PMs? Is affirmative consent from User A required, or does silence constitute consent (assuming consent is even required)? If User A objects to the discussion of his infraction, can User B still insist on the discussion (i.e., can a large enough number of User Bs asking for a discussion override User A's objection)?
- User B objecting to moderator failure to infract User C for behavior that User B thinks should be infracted (either standing alone or in comparison to the behavior that another, infracted user engaged in). Let's charitably assume that User B used the report function to raise their concerns about User C's post and there is no public moderator action regarding User C (after some number of days?). Can User B unilaterally open a thread asking for a public explanation of why no action was taken against User C? Does it matter whether the moderators chose to take action via PM, rather than public infraction? In either case, does User C get notice/have the right to object to that discussion? If so, same process questions as above.
Zack
99% hot gas
Hey, I would love to see all the stuff said in the staff forum.
I've wasted many an hour going back through time in staff.... 
Moderator Action: Since at least one of those is mine, I'll comment. As a mod who generally does not infract, but prefers to elicit better behavior though mod tags, I think hard about what I write. I try to point my finger at the words of the post and not the poster. When faced with an "infuriating" poster, it can be difficult to limit one's text to the words of the post and not comment on the poster. There are times I want to scream "You are an idiot!" and leave it at that.
I am not really in favor of public discussions of specific moderator actions except my own. I think that a general thread of PDMA chatter would be difficult to manage. See Browd's post below. I'd prefer a question and answer thread where posters can ask questions directed at specific moderators about the hows and whys of what they do or did. I think those are less likely to get out of control and are more likely to be thoughtful. For example: @Birdjaguar: you have responded to several reported posts [link, link, link] that are clearly trolling, but did not infract the culprit; the rules say....
With structure, I think we encourage civility and thoughtfulness.
Before I say another word, i want an attorney....
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889
Zack
99% hot gas
I'm certainly not condemning it, don't get me wrong. I very much appreciate a moderator explaining why they're giving an infraction.
No offense taken Zack. 
I agree with these ideas.
Thlayli
Le Pétit Prince
I agree, that's a very thoughtful way to approach the problem. It would make sense to have certain limitations to the discussion, rather than "Let's bring up that grievance you had with a mod 5 years ago over and over again."
Thlayli
Le Pétit Prince
You know, while we're on the subject, who even runs things around here anymore? I mean, Thunderfall hasn't made a post for almost a year. So what exactly is going on with the site administration?
The admins do with the help of moderators and content staff.
Thlayli
Le Pétit Prince
Sure, but I mean, who keeps the lights on? Is Thunderfall just busy? Clearly someone is paying the bills, and if it's not him, he's delegated responsibility to someone. It seems strange to think that most forum members coming here every day know so little about how CFC keeps things going; how do we know one day the site won't just disappear into the ether?
I know this is slightly tangential, but we're talking about transparency, it would be good to have it here too.
I know this is slightly tangential, but we're talking about transparency, it would be good to have it here too.
Thunderfall still has involvement in the site, but the day-to-day running is delegated to admins. The admins effectively stand in the shoes of Thunderfall, and for all intents and purposes as far as the day-to-day running of the site is concerned, are Thunderfall. The admins delegate various aspects of running the site to the rest of staff, including moderators, content staff, GOTM staff & HOF staff. Moderators currently have the broadest focus, with the latter three groups being concerned with more specific areas unconnected with site moderation policy. The moderators have a hierarchy of sorts, from junior mod, to regular mod, through senior mod to super mod. For most day-to-day purposes, there is no functional difference between these groups (there are some small things, like junior mods having fewer banning options). However, in policy matters super mods do act as the admins most direct lieutenants, and have responsibility for everything. In practical terms, this means that although all moderators participate in policy discussions, it is the super mods who typically lead those discussions and formulate conclusions, which they then pass up to the admins for little more than sign-off. This is rather flexible, and if admins are more available, they will take more of a leading role, and the super mods will have less of a need to perform the functions admins would otherwise perform. As an example of change over time, hearing infraction appeals was traditionally an admin function, but with decreasing availability and increasing site size, this task became one for whichever admins & super mods are available.
Thlayli
Le Pétit Prince
Could you imagine releasing the minutes of your discussions, not a full transcript but a summary of what was discussed, who made which arguments and where the final votes ultimately fell? I think the average CFCer would break down laughing at the idea that our mods would ever do something so open and accountable. Which is, again, at the root of the problem.
I care about CFC and I am interested in its' proper governance, as are many others. But we don't really know who our leadership is, how many of them are active, what they believe and where true power lies.
PDMA doesn't just mean that we should have the right to discuss your actions, though ending censorship is certainly the highest priority. PDMA also means that the moderators should be more forthcoming on what discussions they actually have. Tell us the results of the PDMA vote. Tell us who the resistors are that we might negotiate with them directly and address their personal concerns.
In this case, secrecy is again used as an effective weapon preventing reform, because it allows those moderators who disagree with us to prevent reform with their voices in secret and then hide from us, who simply wish to dialogue with them.
I care about CFC and I am interested in its' proper governance, as are many others. But we don't really know who our leadership is, how many of them are active, what they believe and where true power lies.
PDMA doesn't just mean that we should have the right to discuss your actions, though ending censorship is certainly the highest priority. PDMA also means that the moderators should be more forthcoming on what discussions they actually have. Tell us the results of the PDMA vote. Tell us who the resistors are that we might negotiate with them directly and address their personal concerns.
In this case, secrecy is again used as an effective weapon preventing reform, because it allows those moderators who disagree with us to prevent reform with their voices in secret and then hide from us, who simply wish to dialogue with them.
Though I don't wish to imply that what we have here is completely analogous to some real-life government structure, it should be noted that cabinet solidarity and confidentiality is a feature of democracies and dictatorships alike, it being recognised as a vital tool for good governance. Staff operates as an executive more than a legislature, and it's important that staff discussions can take place without the worry of how comments or disagreements would be perceived by every member of the site. In a review of freedom of information legislation (under which cabinet documents are exempt), the Australian Law Reform Commission noted:
Likewise, the Australian High Court has stated:
The concept of 'collective responsibility' is quite different in our case, given the quasi-fiduciary nature of staff in relation to the site owner, rather than its members, but the same principles let you know that if you don't like policy, it's not something to be pinned on individual moderators, but on staff (and consequently the site) as a whole, and, if you really feel the need, you can vote with your feet accordingly. In concrete terms, this means that if you don't like the current PDMA policy, you should be holding all of the moderation and admin staff responsible for this, not trying to search for disagreements amongst the ranks of staff as if we were some sort of legislature containing an opposition party.
Luckymoose
The World is Mine
I don't think anyone here seriously considered Australian court to be a good model to work on, especially not any Australians I've ever spoken to.
SamSniped
DJ Goodboye
The general consensus is that no Australian would wish an Australian system upon anywhere that isn't Australia.
Similar threads
