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

[Thlayli]

Spoiler From the Previous Page, My Final Words on the Issue :

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?

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.

I'm not really sure what you're talking about. At any rate, that's not what I proposed; the PDMA appeals thread would be public but confined to Site Feedback to minimize the sort of clutter you're worried about. It would be general-purpose. And nobody visits Site Feedback unless they explicitly want to give, you know, site feedback, so the possibility of that scenario you just outlined is nil. Thus it is demonstrated.

You're still posting here, are you not?

Consider this the last one. Since you seem to like getting the last word in, now's your chance.

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, and you are referring to them, just in an oblique way).

The forum rules explicitly encourage attacking positions you disagree with, not people. I have disagreed with positions and actions taken, not people. I am not simply failing to violate the letter of the law, I am honoring its spirit, and the spirit of debate. You will note on close reading that I alternate criticism of the moderators with olive branches and positive encouragement. I am not willing to give them a free pass for bad behavior, but I am not going to irrationally shout at them either.

And while we're on the subject, I would like to consider the point on the tenor of this thread.

Status quo supporters have sought to latch onto isolated moments of heated language as stating why a PDMA thread would never work, but as an in-depth examination of this thread will reveal, despite the hot tempers involved, we have seen an admirable level of civility on behalf of the majority of our members. That is what I want to focus on. This thread functions, ergo, a PDMA appeal thread will function. And for the one thousandth time, moderators could still delete or edit posts line-item if they violate OTHER forum rules.

For those of you who remain, I wish you the best in continuing the push for PDMA reform. All I can say is, don't let this idea die. It's important to the health of this community.

 

[Rashiminos]

I'm not really sure what you're talking about. At any rate, that's not what I proposed; the PDMA appeals thread would be public but confined to Site Feedback to minimize the sort of clutter you're worried about. It would be general-purpose. And nobody visits Site Feedback unless they explicitly want to give, you know, site feedback, so the possibility of that scenario you just outlined is nil. Thus it is demonstrated.

I was not specifically referring to the idea of a PDMA thread. PDMA generally occurs in-thread, or in a new thread when circumstances further discourage doing it in-thread. Suggesting a need for one thread to contain all PDMA does imply you have some awareness of the necessity of restrictions.

Consider this the last one. Since you seem to like getting the last word in, now's your chance.

It's not that I want to have the last word. It is that you are contradicting the statement of having terminated your membership, effectively or otherwise. You're trying to read my motive instead of disputing the actuality of your posting.

The forum rules explicitly encourage attacking positions you disagree with, not people. I have disagreed with positions and actions taken, not people. I am not simply failing to violate the letter of the law, I am honoring its spirit, and the spirit of debate.

Calling someone immature is usually ad hominem, not an attack on a position, so I fail to see the honor. Now..

You will note on close reading that I alternate criticism of the moderators with olive branches and positive encouragement. I am not willing to give them a free pass for bad behavior, but I am not going to irrationally shout at them either.

Let's back up a couple posts, specifically this quote:

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

Bolding: Irrational shout, check.
Olive Branch: No.
Legitimate Criticism: No.
Slap-in-the-face: IMO, yes.

So to reiterate:

You will note on close reading that I alternate criticism of the moderators with olive branches and positive encouragement. I am not willing to give them a free pass for bad behavior, but I am not going to irrationally shout at them either.

The first two may be, but you've also seen fit to mix in what looks to be deceit (or at least a troublesome unawareness of one's posting) right in front of my face.

 

[Lefty Scaevola]

Anyway, a report on activity at the staff end of this:
No consensus has been reached in staff discussion about modifying PDMA rules and related matters of transparency. Discussion continues, but the senior staff members who had been driving the discussion are currently busy with setting up for the Civ BE roll out.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

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.

This could either be efficient, or it could be utter chaos.

Ask a roomful of moderators what constitutes "hate speech" (for example). You'd get widely differing answers, depending on if you asked an American, Canadian, British, or other moderator. It doesn't mean the same thing culturally or legally in the various countries, so immediate consensus isn't going to happen. Same with ethnic slurs. Some are obvious. Some aren't. How long do you (generic you) think a specific public discussion of a specific moderator action should take, if it were allowed?

 

[Truronian]

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 rather suspect that a PDMA thread would create more work for mods, simply because a subset of posters are more likely to appeal if there appeal is public. Afterall, there are posters that will happily complain about moderator actions in a thread, but won't PM moderator staff about the perceived injustice. While I don't particularly object to the idea of a trial for it, I'm not sure said trial will come about fr two main reasons:

- Capacity to monitor such a forum will be seen as an issue.
- Reviewing the success of such a system will not be a public discussion. it it doesn't work for the moderator team, will people be accepting when it goes away again?

 

[Loppan Torkel]

THIS is what happened to the NESing forum. This is what drove more than 50 individuals offsite.

I suspect the amount of PM appeals has been reduced considerably if this is true.

 

[Luckymoose]

Afterall, there are posters that will happily complain about moderator actions in a thread, but won't PM moderator staff about the perceived injustice.

As stated earlier by Lefty, appealing "too often" means you are ignored. If the moderators simply don't like you, which would explain why you'd need to appeal more often, they will ignore you anyway. Why bother PMing them if they already told you they don't care? Better to show their biased application of the rules in public, honestly, so other users who have experienced the same thing can express their concerns. The current system divides people up and prevents them from comparing situations to find a trend in behavior that might have a moderator replaced for abuses of power. It isn't fair to the community. They do not profit from or own this website. They are here to work with the community and for the community, not to lord over it from a position of untouchable authority.

 

[Lefty Scaevola]

As stated earlier by Lefty, appealing "too often" means you are ignored. .

Not exactly, appealing frivolously too often to the supermoderators my may result in in summary dismissal at that level and they may be infracted for abuse of the appeals system I do not know of anyone who has reached or even come close to that threshold. There have not been a lot of formal appeals.
It only applies the the later step of appeal to the supermoderators, not to discussing the infraction with the issuing moderator.

 

[Rashiminos]

As stated earlier by Lefty, appealing "too often" means you are ignored. If the moderators simply don't like you, which would explain why you'd need to appeal more often, they will ignore you anyway. Why bother PMing them if they already told you they don't care?

Why bother continuing these discussions when you've convinced yourself the mods are corrupt?

Better to show their biased application of the rules in public, honestly, so other users who have experienced the same thing can express their concerns.

Most of the time it's not too hard to see what rules (even the ones you {selectively} don't agree with) are being applied and why, either by reading the mod comment or by examining the context of a post.

The current system divides people up and prevents them from comparing situations to find a trend in behavior

The NES community readily accepts this xenophobia in their demands for a NESer mod, implicitly asking for such a bias.

 

[brennan]

appealing "too often"

Ever considered not getting infracted in the first place?

 

[Luckymoose]

Eh, if you're going to assume there is no problem despite there being a lot of outcry and former mod/current mod recognition of problems, there is no hope for the situation. It isn't as simple as not being infracted when the rules specifically target people who question them. Sucking up to the current broken rules and moderation system doesn't give you brownie points, so I don't know why you'd bother. The truth is there are people on this forum who slip right under the moderation staff without so much as getting touched, or the mods outright ignore the rules and let them go about what they're doing as was the case in several NES threads in spite of a lot of reporting. It took an appeal to Birdjaguar to get rules applied, and you're telling me the other moderators weren't letting it go on because they loved people attacking each other and defending their position? The rules specifically say certain things, when you call out others on it and are ignored or infracted for it, then are infracted or put on a permanent list because you discussed moderator action, there is something fishy with the system. BSmith stepped down from his role in the NES subforum because he took it too personal and too far. Moderators are human, so don't just assume they always make the best decisions with their power.

 

[BSmith1068]

To be clear here, I didn't step down. I have temporarily recused myself from moderating in the NES forum to gain some distance from the things that happened and my personal involvement with said things.

 

[JollyRoger]

Ever considered not getting infracted in the first place?

I'm not sure I could dull up my posting to that level.

 

[Lefty Scaevola]

Many of us have developed a confidence that you can, counselor.

 

[brennan]

Eh, if you're going to assume there is no problem despite there being a lot of outcry and former mod/current mod recognition of problems, there is no hope for the situation. It isn't as simple as not being infracted when the rules specifically target people who question them. Sucking up to the current broken rules and moderation system doesn't give you brownie points

There isn't a lot of outcry. There's a handful of people out of thousands who appear to have a chip on their shoulder and cannot seem to manage to abide by a set of very simple rules.

You cannot complain about being infracted unfairly when you admit that you know perfectly well you are breaking the rules. That isn't unfair, you just want special treatment.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

There isn't a lot of outcry. There's a handful of people out of thousands who appear to have a chip on their shoulder and cannot seem to manage to abide by a set of very simple rules.

You cannot complain about being infracted unfairly when you admit that you know perfectly well you are breaking the rules. That isn't unfair, you just want special treatment.

There isn't a lot that you know of. People complain to each other, they complain in Site Feedback, they complain in the thread where the infraction happened, they complain to the moderators... just because they don't complain to you, that's not a valid reason to assume that complaining doesn't happen.

And sometimes the rules are unreasonable, or at least not applied in a reasonable way.

 

[JollyRoger]

There isn't a lot of outcry. There's a handful of people out of thousands who appear to have a chip on their shoulder and cannot seem to manage to abide by a set of very simple rules.

You cannot complain about being infracted unfairly when you admit that you know perfectly well you are breaking the rules. That isn't unfair, you just want special treatment.

Given the 5 uses of the word "you" in the 2nd paragraph, the post could be potentially infracted for trolling:

Discussing the person, and not the topic.

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

If the rules are so simple to abide by, I would wonder why one would make a post that arguably breaks the rules.

 

[ywhtptgtfo]

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?

"Well-mannered" appears to be highly subjective in CFC given how touchy some individuals (including members of the moderating team) can be. As we already observed, one or more members were instantly offended and obsessed when moderators were as "volunteers" in one particular instance.

At the same time, the moderators had largely been unproductive and occasionally uncivil in their responses. Unless you'd somehow expect us to be subservient to CFC staff members, I don't see why our patience cannot be worn out. In my case, I've politely tried the diplomatic channel in PM. When civility doesn't work, then it's difficult to resist using some civil incivility.

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.

You asked me not to make this personal but you just called me condescending. So there, you've done it.

Since I've made my point very clearly, I am not going to repeat myself.

I also would like to remind you that CFC has a very special definition of spam, which you are infringing upon by forcing this tangential discussion.

Spam is posting something that does not make a significant contribution to the discussion at hand. The forums are discussion forums, and it is therefore expected that posters will post in a way that contributes to discussion. It is also expected that new threads will promote discussion. Moderators may periodically allow some lighter or more frivolous threads, but this will be at their discretion. Posting isolated links without meaningful poster input as to the value of such a link does not contribute to the discussion as will be considered spam. There is a lower tolerance for spam in threads where there is a good discussion taking place.

Moderators have zero tolerance for threads that are really spammy (eg. post a number, post a letter of the alphabet) or which are started merely as a vehicle to troll, flame or chat.

 

[Takhisis]

:myheadasplode:

 

[Truronian]

"Well-mannered" appears to be highly subjective in CFC given how touchy some individuals (including members of the moderating team) can be. As we already observed, one or more members were instantly offended and obsessed when moderators were as "volunteers" in one particular instance.

At the same time, the moderators had largely been unproductive and occasionally uncivil in their responses. Unless you'd somehow expect us to be subservient to CFC staff members, I don't see why our patience cannot be worn out. In my case, I've politely tried the diplomatic channel in PM. When civility doesn't work, then it's difficult to resist using some civil incivility.

So long as you realise that posting in such a manner is likely to ensure your posts aren't taken seriously.