Reform of CFC Public Discussion of Moderator Action Rules

[gay_Aleks]

This turned into a lawsuit? You people sure don't mess around.

 

[ywhtptgtfo]

Yes, that is the way it is here. Low site censorship on the content of argument, high site censorship of the mode and civility of argument...

Don't try to misrepresent this issue with civility. Low level incivility occurs all the time in CFC consistent with any normal communication medium. The problem we have here, though, is that staff members would cherry pick the instances to censor as they please.

This then leads back to the all-time biggest problem we have here, which is the complete censorship of public discussion of moderator behaviour. And as we can see staff members like you are known resort to drastic measures to maintain that flimsy illusion of infallibility. Apparently, there are moderators who agree this is becoming a big problem.

For such egregeous heavy handedness, I was made the first, and for several years, the only supermoderator, in charge of recruiting and training moderators for the Colosseum section. So yeah, I know what the standard expected of moderators is here.

I am happy that you found such pride in being a web forum admin. However, these voluntary positions are not professional and are not proper credentials to flash. If you walk into a bar and talk tell someone you are an admin in a game forum, I am sure you'd find it difficult to impress anyone with it. It doesn't mean the constructive part of your efforts shouldn't be respected, but please don't overextend yourself.

With that said, you are a major part of the problem. Since you trained so many other volunteers, I wouldn't be surprised if you played an important role making this attitude problem so widespread among others.

 

[ywhtptgtfo]

From following this thread its clear that there are a number of people who are willing to speak their mind. It is regrettable that some people occasionally lapse into offensive language when expressing their thoughts which is then used to justify the draconian interventions of one or more moderators.

"Troll" is not a very offensive descriptor and draconian interventions are not meaningful to those who care nothing about sanctions.

 

[Lefty Scaevola]

I am happy that you found such pride in being a web forum admin.

Wrong again.

.... decades ago my ego had already expanded in real life to fill every corner of the 11 dimensions of the universe (damn thing is too small for me, I may have to switch to Bosonic string and get 15 more dimensions). Nothing that happens on CFC or elsewhere in cyberspace could add to it.

The above post about the OT flamers rebellion was to illustrate some of the long history of the flaming rules and site ownership approval of severe methods I once used to enforce it. Being a forum moderator or admin is not worth so much as a footnote on my resume (and, indeed, appears nowhere on mine).

 

[pigswill]

@Lefty. If the forum policy is high tolerance for content and low tolerance for offensive and/or inflammatory expression then I don't see how this would contradict public discussion of moderator actions. Offensive or inflammatory language would presumably face the same sanctions in such a thread as it would in any other thread in the forum.

 

[Lefty Scaevola]

The PDMA rule come directly from ownership, who after handling it here it Site Feedback personally for a while, decided it was useless noise. It was not a matter it being a threat to ORDER, it was it proving itself a worthless waste of time over and over again, with an very high noise and whining to signal ratio. He got sick of it and said no more.

My thoughts back at that time were more along the line of "Let them rave on that men may know them mad" and let them blow off some steam, but that did not carry. Some years after that when he was mostly retired from site feedback and I was experimenting with a bit more freedom on the rule, I experienced the same epiphany he did. It is not very often I learn something on a non technical subject from someone half my age, but I did on this one. It was a triumph of experience over theory.

 

[Keinpferd]

A "grievance" thread must definitely attract tormented souls who need to voice their pain from sources other than their real or imagined ill-treatment here on this forum. But that's true for all grievance facilities that companies, institutions or churches provide. There will always be a share of complainers, who use such a channel not for the intended purpose. How does that lead to the conclusion though, that these complain channels should all be shut down or not even allowed to exist?

Naturally, a physician has to deal with a share of hypochonders or bored housewifes who have nothing and only need a body examination. Plenty of whining and high noise. Should the physician kick them all out, because they waste his time? Would a priest whisper to his vis-à-vis, "get out of here, you have nothing to confess", or, "come on, not again"? In a familiy, a religious order or a street gang, there are many instances of wasting time, annoyance and contingency. A community will gain the warmth and cohesion of a family or an order or a street gang, if it's willing to take that extra load of aggravation. If it doesn't, it will remain business. Mostly theory, but with a whiff of experience.

 

[gay_Aleks]

This thread would be 100% better if it had soft walls.

 

[ywhtptgtfo]

Wrong again.

The above post about the OT flamers rebellion was to illustrate some of the long history of the flaming rules and site ownership approval of severe methods I once used to enforce it. Being a forum moderator or admin is not worth so much as a footnote on my resume (and, indeed, appears nowhere on mine).

Your tone suggested otherwise though. It struck me as odd that you'd go into such details on your qualifications in the moderating team in response to a complaint about a mishandling of a situation. Needless to say, you being the "first super moderator for several years" does nothing to argue that a situation has been properly handled.

However, if you truly are humble about your role as a volunteer in CFC as you appear to be openly suggesting, then I am glad for you. It is important for us to know our positions in the cyberspace and not to let some e-authority to delude us into assuming superiority over others.

After all, web users of CFC come from a wide variety of backgrounds. While there definitely are kids, students, and unemployeds who can be easily bullied, there are also scientists, engineers, and doctors who are not used to being talked down to

My thoughts back at that time were more along the line of "Let them rave on that men may know them mad" and let them blow off some steam, but that did not carry. Some years after that when he was mostly retired from site feedback and I was experimenting with a bit more freedom on the rule, I experienced the same epiphany he did. It is not very often I learn something on a non technical subject from someone half my age, but I did on this one. It was a triumph of experience over theory.

Maybe that "let the rave on" mindset is the problem.

From what we can see so far, you and your peers quite unwilling to address issues dealing with the shortcoming of the moderating team. It can be difficult for anger to die down if the problem does not go away. :/
.

 

[Sonereal]

From what we can see so far, you and your peers quite unwilling to address issues dealing with the shortcoming of the moderating team. It can be difficult for anger to die down if the problem does not go away. :/

They have no incentive to anymore because they don't actually compete with any other board for Civilization fans. If they actually had other boards to contend with, the moderation probably wouldn't get high off itself every other week when this topic comes up. Hence why they can get away with the awful "you're allowed to be bigoted, just don't use the word bigot" policy.

"I'm always right, yes I know, because the owner told me so."

 

[pigswill]

I'm not sure Apolyton would agree with you re lack of competition.

I thought the proposal was for a PDMA thread rather than 'everything I hate about this site' thread. Is there a difference?

Does a PDMA thread permit any positive feedback about moderator actions?

 

[Lefty Scaevola]

Apolyton was earlier and for many years larger than CFC. Many of us suspect that the difference between their moderation of flaming and trolling and ours was a significant factor in CFC eventually surpassing them in forum activity.

 

[Sonereal]

I'm not sure Apolyton would agree with you re lack of competition.

Apolyton can disagree all they want. Doesn't make it less true.

Apolyton Civilization Site StatisticsApolyton Civilization Site Statistics
Threads 167,117 Posts 5,626,812 Members 129,125 Active Members 1,502

Threads: 500,938, Posts: 13,433,864, Members: 267,781
Welcome to our newest member, Kaida

Apolyton was earlier and for many years larger than CFC. Many of us suspect that the difference between their moderation of flaming and trolling and ours was a significant factor in CFC eventually surpassing them in forum activity.

I'm pretty sure the fact CFC doesn't look like it stayed in 2002 for thirteen years is the reason why CFC pulled ahead.

 

[Keinpferd]

The reasons of the rise and fall of Myspace, Facebook, why one surpasses the other and becomes the monopolist, are to a great extend buried in the partly irrational laws of motion of social media. CFC shouldn't pat its own back too much for being so much bigger than Apolyton or WePlayCiv, the latter of which just picked a stupid name. I don't eat in a restaurant with a stupid name.

Let me give an example, how PDMA successfully works in another forum, Total War Center, of about the same size as CFC, going by page views considerably bigger. I picked an example, in which a forum member publicly contests a moderator action, with the outcome, that the appeal is granted. In this example, both the unjustly infracted forum member and the "loosing" moderator can walk out with their heads held high. I think, the atmosphere of the entire place is lifted by such moments of "justice", and I'm not worried, that the moderator will stand down because of this single lost match.

 

[Sonereal]

I believe that the problem with Civfanatic's policies on PDMA stem from the fact that the position of moderator, the user who holds that position, and the moderation actions of that user, are all deeply entwined to the point where if you publicly discuss an infraction on this forum, the moderation believes you're going after the entire structure.

An infraction is a sentence, and moderators are judges. In the real world, the court system doesn't collapse inwards onto itself because the appeals court exists and court proceedings are usually open. Being able to publicly handle critique is a sign of a strong moderation policy. Having to shunt everything into the dark and in backroom PMs is public admission that the moderation is insecure of their rulings and public perceptions of the team.

 

[Loppan Torkel]

Maybe they just want to keep the administration down. Is an infraction or the moderation here really that important? Why just not accept that you may have overstepped some line and be done with it?

..or this is about the fight for freedom, democracy and striking against tyranny.. I forgot, sorry..

 

[gay_Aleks]

It's clearly about the ethics in moderation on a niche gaming forum.
But it potentially could be about IHOP.

 

[Sonereal]

Maybe they just want to keep the administration down. Is an infraction or the moderation here really that important? Why just not accept that you may have overstepped some line and be done with it?

..or this is about the fight for freedom, democracy and striking against tyranny.. I forgot, sorry..

# of times I wrote the word freedom in that post: 0
# of times I wrote the word democracy in that post: 0
# of times I wrote the phrase "striking against tyranny: 0

Is it important that reasoning isn't public? I would say that transparency is good for administration everywhere.

Can you tell me why transparency isn't a good thing? If you have a good reason, I'd be happy to hear it.

 

[SamSniped]

Just my two cents: rarely is transparency a bad thing, especially in situations like this. I doubt that allowing players to debate the actions of a moderator and bring up forum issues in public would destroy anyone's life. This is a website for gaming. What's the worst that could happen? The only valid argument I can see is people ganging up on moderators (see the NES/IOT drama that's happened in the past), but even then, if both sides are willing to be civilized about it, then it can be dealt with. If either side resorts to ad hominem or general flaming/trolling by ganging up on a moderator, then those people should be infracted and ignored until they can bring something substantial and mature to the table, right?

 

[Valka D'Ur]

The reasons of the rise and fall of Myspace, Facebook, why one surpasses the other and becomes the monopolist, are to a great extend buried in the partly irrational laws of motion of social media. CFC shouldn't pat its own back too much for being so much bigger than Apolyton or WePlayCiv, the latter of which just picked a stupid name. I don't eat in a restaurant with a stupid name.

Let me give an example, how PDMA successfully works in another forum, Total War Center, of about the same size as CFC, going by page views considerably bigger. I picked an example, in which a forum member publicly contests a moderator action, with the outcome, that the appeal is granted. In this example, both the unjustly infracted forum member and the "loosing" moderator can walk out with their heads held high. I think, the atmosphere of the entire place is lifted by such moments of "justice", and I'm not worried, that the moderator will stand down because of this single lost match.

The example you linked to is not viewable to non-members.