Reform of CFC Public Discussion of Moderator Action Rules

[Camikaze]

Australia does indeed rank modestly according to Global RTI Rating (presumably in large part due to the institutional inertia associated with conclusive certificates), just ahead of Canada, another country that uses the principle, and just behind the US. Of course, the model is not Australia's but the UK's, which sits ahead of all three, trailing e.g. South Africa, which also has cabinet confidentiality. Perhaps none of these are a model of best practice, but it might be helpful to explain why rather than simply dismissing an established principle.

(As an aside, I'm finding it difficult to parse the phrase 'Australian court to be a good model to work on', but I assume you mean the Australian executive, which is what FOI/RTI relates to)

 

[Thlayli]

One of the ah, main differences between the Australian cabinet and you folks is that that selfsame cabinet is subject to the review of the public for its actions at regular intervals.

Or it's, you know, tossed out.

In this sense, as I've already pointed out, you're far more like the Chinese Communist Party, in which deliberations are carried in complete secrecy, a unified front is posed to the outside world despite common knowledge of secret internal factional infighting, and there is no accountability to the outside public, since officials are chosen either for life, or until retirement, which is either voluntary or forced when an individual runs afoul of the wrong people, or protests against their abuses grow so great that they are sacked from within.

Individuals are also chosen and promoted based on their access to individual patronage networks and their ability to work their way up through the bureaucracy through pleasing upper officials to whom they are beholden, not through individual merit and public support. The model also applies to overall structure; a Premier with absolute power (Thunderfall) sits at the head of his tight inner circle (the admins), underneath which there are a vast array of semi-autonomous provincial governors (the forum moderators) who are typically left to manage or mismanage their fiefs as they see fit.

I'm sure you'd love to be Australia, but yeah bro, you're China.

Place term limits on your authority and subject yourself to the regular review of the CFC membership for your actions, or accept that the correct model for your leadership is a dictatorship.

 

[Lefty Scaevola]

The form of government here, based property right, is more analogous to Monarchy, with a cabinet of ministers, and delegates of sovereign functions.
The King has not been around much lately, having discovered real life. That will happen to most of you as you accrue more work and family responsibility. Then when you are old, financially secure, and the kids have moved on, you can return more to cyber life.

 

[Thlayli]

The only true distinction from monarchy and dictatorship is rule by divine right and rule by monopoly of access to force. Since CFC doesn't have a state religion per se, well...

But this is a fine distinction. And a highly off topic one.

 

[North King]

It's interesting that you're comfortable even with the Monarchy analogy.

It's less interesting when you patronize people by assuming they don't have jobs or "real" concerns.

 

[choxorn]

The only true distinction from monarchy and dictatorship is rule by divine right and rule by monopoly of access to force. Since CFC doesn't have a state religion per se, well...

But this is a fine distinction. And a highly off topic one.

Isn't our state religion the Holy Church of Civilization?

 

[Birdjaguar]

Well, I don't think either of those models fit us. While there is a hierarchy of titles and in some cases, access, we are more like a loose confederacy of collaborators that join in discussions as best we can, time permitting. Many small decisions get made without any approval beyond the judgment of one or two. Admins, supermods and mods all chip in for larger or more complicated discussions and contribute to a very informal decision making process. Power, when it is wielded at all, has a very light touch. Our discussions in staff are not unlike those we have with posters, except there is rarely rancor or ill will towards other mods expressed. We are civil more than we are in agreement about stuff. It is not a perfect place and we can be slow in reaching decisions. We are like you, just a smaller selected group. We try to be caref ul that selection process, but sometimes we ask the wrong person or when asked someone says yes who shouldn't.

Now, if I were King, all would be right with the site and all six of the remaining CFC posters would be well behaved and having fun!

 

[Camikaze]

@Thlayli - my point certainly isn't that this is actually a democracy. It clearly isn't, and I don't particularly object to a comparison to a one-party state (I definitely think monarchy is much more apt, as a one-party state might imply there could be a legitimate competitor to Thunderfall's proprietary rights - in either case the grundnorm is certainly not popular sovereignty). My point is that democracy doesn't involve the openness in internal staff deliberations that you're looking for - staff confidentiality is simply an administrative 'best practice', whether or not you can subsequently vote on decisions made or those making the decisions. Dressing that up as sinister is dubious.

 

[North King]

Pretty much every backdoor thing is either sketchy or national security related. 1) You're running an Internet forum; come on, and 2) Mods are more akin to the Judicial branch anyway. Which, notably, has basically completely transparent trials.

 

[Thlayli]

I think that if we actually use the model of a business, which this in a legal sense, is, there is space for more openness. Boards of directors frequently post their minutes, and the results of their meetings and what is on the agenda, and the percentage breakdowns of their votes, are published for the stakeholders in that corporation (and the general public) to be aware of.

I'm aware that CFC is a privately held rather than a publicly held corporation, but given the fact that matters here are of interest to the public, there should be more accountability than what exists now, which is currently none.

I'm not saying completely change the way you do things, I'm saying a basic modicum of regular communication on matters of importance with the broader forum would be a bold and positive step forward. Why not consider letting the community at large (or at least Forum Games) nominate a liaison to be a moderator and then having them act as an intermediary, for example? It wouldn't be a huge concession and would at least let forum members feel like they know what's going on.

 

[Birdjaguar]

The escalation has been interesting. IIRC...

First you want a say in picking a NESing moderator.
Then you want to choose that moderator.
Then you want a PDMA thread to chastise discuss what all moderators have done.
Now you want access to the staff forum threads.
Why not add the content forum?
And how about the Admin forum? I'm sure they have secrets everyone should know about.

It sounds like you want to have your own website.

As I see it, additional access to moderators and their discussions will only add to the difficulty of running the site. Greater transparency of actual discussion content information will only lead to more discussions about the site and its moderation and moderators. We do not need another 200 people weighing in on items under discussion everyday. Nothing would get done. Site feedback would soon be another OT focused on staff actions.

Don't be seduced by the "privacy" and "secrecy" of the staff forums. If you pull back the curtain, you might find that the great and wonderful wizard you imagine is not what you expect. It is tough enough to be a moderator here and we need a place of our own to keep us sane.

 

[Thlayli]

The focus should definitely be on a responsible PDMA appeal thread, but it's certainly positive to discuss other issues along the way.

And we do have our own website, and amazingly, it works fine with total transparency among the leadership. I prefer CFC to the Frontier for numerous reasons of course, but the freedom there has its benefits as well. I've consistently held back from making threats about the Frontier, such as leaving for there again and bringing people with us, because I'm not interested in that kind of childish dialogue, and furthermore I'd never carry out a threat like that unless I was repeatedly infracted or banned on CFC. I want to make things work here if possible.

Unsurprisingly, you're taking my demands out of context and escalating them overmuch. While in an ideal world, the community could pick their own moderators, I'd be satisfied with them at least having a say; for example, voting on a short list of 5 candidates to be interviewed by the mods who would then make a selection. And I did not ask for access to (and have very little desire to see) the Staff and Admin forums. I'd merely like to be better informed on the progress of debates and discussions among the staff, rather than this vague "Well a lot of people like PDMA reform, but some don't, and we won't tell you who they are" business we've been getting.

If the staff won't make their opposition to PDMA reform known here, and they won't update us on happenings in the staff forums, it's very difficult to have a dialogue on the issue.

And you do realize it is all part of an ecosystem. If people help choose their mods, and they like their mods, then they're much less likely to cause infractions under that mod's watch. Any PDMA discussion system will be used less if people know and like a mod who they helped pick, because they feel more comfortable dealing with them privately.

 

[Luckymoose]

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.

 

[Browd]

Boards of directors frequently post their minutes, and the results of their meetings and what is on the agenda, and the percentage breakdowns of their votes, are published for the stakeholders in that corporation (and the general public) to be aware of.

Where do you get this stuff? I've practiced corporate law for nearly 30 years, and I assure you that no public or private corporation publishes minutes of their Board of Directors' deliberations, the agenda for their meetings or the breakdown of their votes. Feel free to keep advocating whatever you seem bent on advocating, but you shouldn't be making up "facts" to mislead those reading this thread.

 

[Thlayli]

Where do you get this stuff? I've practiced corporate law for nearly 30 years, and I assure you that no public or private corporation publishes minutes of their Board of Directors' deliberations, the agenda for their meetings or the breakdown of their votes. Feel free to keep advocating whatever you seem bent on advocating, but you shouldn't be making up "facts" to mislead those reading this thread.

Many states have laws allowing shareholders to receive access to such information, do they not? Since we're all "shareholders" in CFC, in a sense, the metaphor applies.

And what I "seem bent on advocating" is also supported by the majority of the forum. Come down from thine ivory tower and treat with the masses, Browd!

 

[ChiefDesigner]

Where do you get this stuff? I've practiced corporate law for nearly 30 years, and I assure you that no public or private corporation publishes minutes of their Board of Directors' deliberations, the agenda for their meetings or the breakdown of their votes. Feel free to keep advocating whatever you seem bent on advocating, but you shouldn't be making up "facts" to mislead those reading this thread.

What the everliving [censored]?

http://www.nonprofitlawblog.com/board-meeting-minutes/

That would be a law blog's guide to keeping board of directors meetings for a nonprofit.

Who's making up facts again?

 

[EQandcivfanatic]

What the everliving [censored]?

http://www.nonprofitlawblog.com/board-meeting-minutes/

That would be a law blog's guide to keeping board of directors meetings for a nonprofit.

Who's making up facts again?

He did say corporate law, which could be a number of things, while your reference is only for a nonprofit.

 

[Browd]

I'm sorry, but keeping accurate Board minutes and making those minutes publicly available (which was Thlayli's assertion) are two entirely separate things.

And, sorry, Thlayli, you (again) miss the mark with your strained analogy. State law prescribes limitations on shareholder access to corporate books and records, including Board minutes -- one of those limitations (there are several) is that the right is strictly limited to shareholders. None of us are "shareholders" in CFC, in a metaphorical sense or otherwise. We are customers of a service provided by CFC and its owner (and its volunteer staff). Of course, customers may complain about what they perceive to be poor customer service, which, near as I can tell, is all you are doing.

 

[Thlayli]

I'm sorry, but keeping accurate Board minutes and making those minutes publicly available (which was Thlayli's assertion) are two entirely separate things.

And, sorry, Thlayli, you (again) miss the mark with your strained analogy. State law prescribes limitations on shareholder access to corporate books and records, including Board minutes -- one of those limitations (there are several) is that the right is strictly limited to shareholders. None of us are "shareholders" in CFC, in a metaphorical sense or otherwise. We are customers of a service provided by CFC and its owner (and its volunteer staff). Of course, customers may complain about what they perceive to be poor customer service, which, near as I can tell, is all you are doing.

CFC's owner hasn't been seen for a year, and the volunteers have started to take matters into their own hands. In the absence of the owner actually making his views known on these issues, don't you think this is something of a singular situation? Both of our analogies (mine of a public corporation, and yours of a private corporation) are deeply flawed, because the Chairman/CEO isn't even attending the board meetings anymore.

We aren't really "customers" either, since this isn't a product and/or service that I paid for. It is a privately hosted web forum, but it is provided as a free service for the benefit of anyone. I agreed to the terms of service when I signed up, which included holding myself to a certain code of conduct. But it's a community organization, in the end. We're more like the Rotary Club than the Starbucks.

The fact of the matter remains that this is a community, and (as CD said) it's ostensibly a not for profit one, which bolsters his analogy. We're here because we like Civilization, we like playing fun games, and talking about them. We like having fun with our friends, and sharing our experiences. You'll have to tell me - Does Thunderfall make a profit on this site? The financials and actual legal framework in which this site exists aren't truly known to me, but perhaps you as a corporate lawyer could elucidate on this.

Also, while we're on the subject: Do you personally believe that PDMA reform will hurt our community? Or are you just annoyed with how I'm conducting my criticisms? I don't want to be totally adversarial on this; I just get up in arms when I feel like we're being treated like unruly children.

 

[Browd]

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.