Reform of 'PDMA' Guidelines and Establishment of Public Appeal Thread/Forum

[Truronian]

As a former moderator who burnt out massively, I really don't think the OP's suggestions are good ideas. There is already discussion about reports and infractions behind the scenes, and said discussion take time to participate in. Asking mods to then discuss and justify their actions publicly will simply result in them calling it quits.

The mods here a decent bunch. They, like everyone, will make mistakes from time to time, but there are appeal systems in place that deal with said mistakes. That's a lot more than other forums have.

 

[Takhisis]

And there are other forums with better systems in place, which is what we've been posting about for 200 posts already.

 

[Lefty Scaevola]

At the (relatively small selection of) games fora that I inhabit, I have noted a strong correlation between the size of the membership and the rigorousness/harshness of moderation policy. At the largest, NexusMods, the system is very simple, 1 major violation (which includes serious flaming, serious trolling, their version of PDMA, or even mentioning that you have ever pirated anything) or 3 minor ones results in permaban. They have average around 4-6 bans on a weekdays and 6-8 on a weekend day.

http://forums.nexusmods.com/index.php?/forum/188-forum-rules-and-warnings/

 

[Takhisis]

…Aaaand we weren't referring to those, Lefty. Have any of the mods actually bothered to read our posts and arguments and follow our links? It appears that what happened in the Foreign language threads thread is being repeated.

 

[Lefty Scaevola]

My post is about the relative size of the fora (of which I am familiar) correlating with the moderation policies.

 

[ywhtptgtfo]

It's not the word itself, it's the perceived meaning behind it, which to me is negative. You still haven't answered my question: Would you more readily accept an infraction from a moderator if that moderator was paid instead of being a volunteer?

In attempt to put an end to your unhealthy security issues, I will tell you that negative attitudes from volunteers serving a web forum can stink a little more because a common expectation is that volunteers are positive individuals who are passionate about doing a good job in what they are volunteering for.

In a similar sense, I am far less receptive of bad attitudes from medical doctors than from say... an electrical engineer because (practical consequences aside) the former is often associated with positive motifs such as love, care, and nurture.

There's no need to be snarky. The issue of PDMA is one that has concerned me for years. And for what it's worth, I always did find some aspects of it to be ridiculously strict.

Then I am glad that we are on the same page at least for this. In fact, we can learn a bit about moderators just by looking at how strict they enforce this stupid little rule and how much of an apologist they are for it.

You brought Canadian politicians into it. Would it reassure you to know that I have never supported any of the ones you named? My point is that politicians can be removed by being voted out of office. That's not how the forum is run. Regular members don't get any votes on that.

I've already explained why I referenced them so I don't want to repeat what I say.

 

[ywhtptgtfo]

I can only think of one mod (no longer mod anyway) who in my view was rather problematic to start with, but despite myself having been infracted a great many times i do not regard the overall mod-team to be systemically negative*. Some sense of mod-'unity' does exist, but i would not attribute that to any undercurrent of actual conscious/agreed-upon manner.

*I am on your side, made mod guys, don't infract again

I only really had a problem with one mod. And of course, the issue in question was not even borderline ridiculous. Rather, it felt like some flat out sanctioned trolling from some dirty bureaucrat.

Since 3-4 other mods and admins appeared to unanimously support him, I felt there's probably a much more general issue with the ability of these volunteers. And of course, part of the problem involved some very crazy obsession with PDMA that these guys and girls have which is why this thread is relevant to me.

 

[Truronian]

OK, I've now read this thread fully. While there are a few posters presenting their ideas in a well-mannered tone, many are not. What reason would the moderators have for expecting a hypothetical PDMA forum to be any more civil?

And there are other forums with better systems in place, which is what we've been posting about for 200 posts already.

I was just chiming in my opinion. I've now caught up on the thread: are you referring to the heavily moderated appeals thread (ala. TWC) idea? I'm not familiar with that forum, do you know how the moderator numbers, membership numbers and overall tone of the forums compares with CFC?

 

[Valka D'Ur]

I feel like Harper would eventually go nuts with politically biased moderating and not last either, at least in OT. His reign of terror could plausibly last longer than Ford's, but end less spectacularly.

I don't know anything about Redford, but I'll take your word about her. FWIW, four of the last seven governors of Illinois (not counting the current one) ended up in prison on corruption charges after their term ended/was ended for them, so I can commiserate.

At least they ended up in prison. Here they'd end up in the Senate (ours is appointed by the Prime Minister), some cushy diplomatic post, or on the board of directors of a company. It takes something like being an environmentalist to be locked up (former NDP Member of Parliament Svend Robinson once served 14 days in jail for protesting the logging of old-growth forest in Clayoquot Sound in British Columbia).

In attempt to put an end to your unhealthy security issues, I will tell you that negative attitudes from volunteers serving a web forum can stink a little more because a common expectation is that volunteers are positive individuals who are passionate about doing a good job in what they are volunteering for.

Excuse me? How about not making this personal, 'k?

And don't be condescending. I know perfectly well that reasonable people expect a positive attitude and passion for the job from volunteers. But I also know perfectly well that some people feel volunteers are a step lower on the scale of respect, simply because they're not paid.

 

[Lefty Scaevola]

(Total War) do you know how the moderator numbers, membership numbers and overall tone of the forums compares with CFC?

The forum is around 30% larger than CFC in number of threads and number of registered members.

 

[Truronian]

The forum is around 30% larger than CFC in number of threads and number of registered members.

Wow, didn't realise that franchise was so enduringly popular.

 

[Lefty Scaevola]

It a big one. I am not familiar with the newer titles, but the particular strength of the the old ones I knew were a fairly simple turn based strategy games with a real time resolution (optional to switch off) of tactical battles. One (or more?) of the early titles were derived from popular board games; more directly directly designed from the board game play than Civilization was from its board game. Overall the TWC forum is a fair comparison to CFC in many aspects.

 

[Kyriakos]

The TW games were always about the RT battle with hundreds of units, and not about the map (where you just had to use basic strategy in placing armies and co-ordinate attack/defense)

Besides, the TW series has at least as many titles as the Civ/Col one.

 

[Rashiminos]

Again, you are the only one here who's obsessed with the word volunteer.

You're the one who started the particular line of discussion by using the word "volunteer" (offensively I add) and you could have been more general. Valka is well in the right of highlighting an offense...

I need to adopt a posting style that puts the mods to sleep before they get around to determining infractability.

I'm not sure my funny bone could handle 1500% jollier posts.

 

[Kyriakos]

^Being prone to being offended on the web... is all too human, but also a very problematic trait if you want to be posting in a web forum.

 

[Rashiminos]

^Being prone to being offended on the web... is all too human, but also a very problematic trait if you want to be posting in a web forum.

There is a territory for not overreacting to innocuous comments, but I don't think that's what we have here. The question for me involves whether it can remain in a realm of discussion.

 

[Thlayli]

One must wonder why the mods are so eager to have off-topic conversations in this thread. Don't moderators typically admonish forum members for going off-topic in other threads? I know I have been so admonished.

I have effectively terminated my CFC membership due to the supreme high-handedness, arrogance and unapologetic actions of some members of the moderation staff, as well as for other reasons such as the departure of my entire subforum. Dozens of others have recently done so. To say that this policy is not a problem is ignorance. To say that there is accountability under the current rules is untrue, as accountability is by nature public.

Stopping flaming, trolling, personal insults, racist language, these are rules that should be followed. But defending the ban on PDMA for PDMA's sake is corruption, pure and simple. It doesn't protect mods (because, as previously mentioned, insulting language directed at mods can be deleted under other sections of the rules) and it doesn't protect members.

It hurts EVERYONE.

The proper course of action is a public poll to take the pulse of the community on this issue. The moderators have nothing to fear from this community; deleting every whisper of criticism addressed towards their actions, however, looks like fear. The parallel to the Chinese "great firewall" in which proscribed topics are automatically deleted by government censors is obvious, but I don't think CFC mods truly wish to be associated with the paranoia and authoritarianism of the Communist Party of China, despite the clear existence of such a parallel.

I believe that CFC mods want to change and improve this forum, but they are struggling with institutional inertia and the fear of the unknown. That is understandable, but the unknown is nothing to fear when the future, as pointed out, could and should be better. We have a RIGHT to a more accountable grievance process that is both civil and public. We have a DUTY to this forum to supply it. We have an OBLIGATION to reform.

Please recognize that it is right. Perhaps it will bring back some of those who have left.

Asking mods to then discuss and justify their actions publicly will simply result in them calling it quits.

If the cloak of secrecy is a necessary and required immunity for an individual to feel comfortable as a moderator, that individual should not be a moderator.

Upper-level site staff have identified in this thread and elsewhere that the strictness of PDMA is a longstanding problem, and despite that nothing has been done because no acceptable solution has been found. A proposal (an appeal thread) is on the table for a solution that has worked for other forums larger than ours. If an appeal thread is tested and all hell does not break loose, what is the possible downside to having it?

It adds a bit of extra work for moderators, except not really, because that upset individual would just be taking their problems to PMs anyway. What it really does is potentially embarrass moderators who actually have done something wrong. And in the immortal words of Hamlet, "aye, there's the rub." The fear of potential public embarrassment for a wayward moderator is, I believe, what is causing the moderation staff to close ranks and resist this blatantly inoffensive policy change.

Moderators make mistakes. We all know (but are banned from discussing) serious instances of mistakes moderators have made in the past. The thing to recognize, I think, is that that's okay. Moderators have made and will continue to make mistakes.

But the PDMA ban creates a culture of impunity. It seems to say, "Well, maybe moderators make mistakes, but you will NEVER EVER get any sort of catharsis or public restitution for that." Catharsis for a wronged community member is important, and it is being ignored here.

Yes, your problems *might* be solved in private, though members have reported issues with that process as well. But only by bringing them out into the open and potentially wringing a public apology from a moderator who has truly done something wrong will your anger not quietly seethe in your chest, unresolved, poisoning your interactions with this community and your overall posting attitude. I have seen this happen to too many people I care about to let it go on any longer.

THIS is what happened to the NESing forum. This is what drove more than 50 individuals offsite. And this is why why need PDMA reform. For the love of God, can you please show some maturity on this?

 

[Rashiminos]

One must wonder why the mods are so eager to have off-topic conversations in this thread. Don't moderators typically admonish forum members for going off-topic in other threads? I know I have been so admonished.

There is some latitude to explore tangents, which varies between subforums.

I have effectively terminated my CFC membership due to the supreme high-handedness, arrogance and hypocrisy of the moderation staff, as well as for other reasons.

I was debating whether to address this post, but your edit in this post reasonably assures me that you have not effectively terminated...

Dozens of others have recently done so. To say that this policy is not a problem is ignorance. To say that there is accountability is untrue, as accountability is by nature public.

It need not be for a forum (you can discuss elsewhere), and the departure of posters is not by itself a negative.

Flaming, trolling, insults, unkind language, these are rules that should be followed. But defending the ban on PDMA for PDMA's sake is corruption, pure and simple. It doesn't protect mods (because, as previously mentioned, insulting language directed at mods can be deleted under other sections of the rules) and it doesn't protect members.

It hurts EVERYONE.

PDMA would also tend toward the problems mentioned in the first sentence of this quote. One need look no further than this very thread.

The proper course of action is a public poll to take the pulse of the community on this issue. The moderators have nothing to fear from this community; deleting every whisper of criticism addressed towards their actions, however, looks like fear.

I can't speak from direct experience, but the words "tedium" and "frustration" would seem more apt.

I believe that CFC mods want to change and improve this forum, but they are struggling with institutional inertia and the fear of the unknown. That is understandable, but the unknown is nothing to fear when the future, as pointed out, could and should be better. We have a RIGHT to a more accountable grievance process that is both civil and public. We have a DUTY to this forum to supply it. We have an OBLIGATION to reform.

The struggle is with the experience that a poster that is being problematic will continue being problematic in the PDMA, despite it being generally obvious what the problem is (except for the poster in question). There has to be some limitation on what PDMA can occur, and having no PDMA does satisfy the constraints under which the moderation team works (not having unlimited time or willpower).

Upper level moderators have identified in this thread and elsewhere that the strictness of PDMA is a longstanding problem, and despite that nothing has been done because no acceptable solution has been found. A proposal (an appeal thread) is on the table for a solution that has worked for other forums larger than ours. If an appeal thread is tested and all hell does not break loose, what is the possible downside to having it?

I'd be interested in seeing responses to this question.

For the love of God, can you please show some maturity on this?

Or in this very post, with accusations of immaturity.

 

[Thlayli]

Your "PDMA thread would be time-consuming and problematic" argument fails on the grounds that hypothetical problematic posters would be equally problematic and repetitive in the PM appeals process that already exists. You'd have to eliminate PM appeals to truly reduce moderator workload. You could further elaborate on the counterargument by saying that having multiple mods responding in a PDMA thread rather than segregating PM appeals to an individual mod could actually save time by allowing for multitasking and synergy.

I was debating whether to address this post, but your edit in this post reasonably assures me that you have not effectively terminated...

Oh, I have. This is my first (now second) CFC post in weeks, and I have no reason to post here anymore. Consider this a parting shot, unless some sort of reform causes my community to migrate back.

Or in this very post, with accusations of immaturity.

By not attacking specific individuals, I remain within the ambit of CFC rules.

 

[Rashiminos]

Your "PDMA thread would be time-consuming and problematic" argument fails on the grounds that hypothetical problematic posters would be equally problematic and repetitive in the PM appeals process that already exists. You'd have to eliminate PM appeals to truly reduce moderator workload. You could further elaborate on the counterargument by saying that having multiple mods responding in a PDMA thread rather than segregating PM appeals to an individual mod could actually save time by allowing for multitasking and synergy.

It's not equivalent. A public thread (assume a spam thread in the problem case) appears in a forum where the incident thread occurred. Now everyone visiting that forum has to deal with it in some way (and not just mods). More members of the forum are negatively affected by it. QED.

Oh, I have. This is my first CFC post in weeks, and I have no reason to post here anymore. Consider this a parting shot, unless some sort of reform causes my community to migrate back.

You're still posting here, are you not?

By not attacking specific individuals, I remain within the ambit of CFC rules.

By not denying that it is an attack, you've shown it contravenes the spirit of said rules (more particularly, such individuals exist on this forum according to you, and you are referring to them, just in an oblique way).