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

[ywhtptgtfo]

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.

Maybe we should consider the possibility of removing moderating duties from moderators. After all, it's just too much work moderating people and moderators like you are apparently burned out already by such terrible burdens. Let's just shorten that job description for the sake of doing less work.

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


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.

Rules here exist largely as broadly applicable justifications for which moderators can use to action on other parties on occasions of their choosing.

Take "spam" for example. Valkr's complaints about "volunteer" in this thread can technically be labelled as such. But somehow the moderators would consider this to be an occasion of their choosing in terms of enforcing this "spam" rule. After all, it's completely up to their discretion to judge what's relevant, productive, and contribution.

So yeah, there's a lot of room for cheery-picking when it comes to CFC rules. We can easily see that when we compare them with the rules defined in ACG.

Note: Just as I said Valkrs posts can technically be infracted, the same is also true for many of our posts. I

 

[ywhtptgtfo]

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

When I serve people in my job, I deal with 3rd parties with a range of attitudes. Even when treated impudently, I try to get the job done and strive to improve the quality of the communications. I am sure this type of work ethic is very common among us.

In your case, your job is that of a moderator with the responsibility of mediating disputes and resolving conflicts. If one bails at the first sign of not being served with a friendly attitude, then I don't think he is very suited to be in this job. Obviously, we also share the responsibility of facilitating a civil exchange, but do remember that the moderator should burden the greater part of this responsibility because he is given the job as the moderator. Otherwise, what's the point of having moderators?

But since you are visibly disturbed by my sarcastic tone, I will try to scale it down in the future. I am still doubtful we are going to get anywhere but at least I will be doing my part.

 

[Lefty Scaevola]

RE: a few preceding posts:
It should be obvious that this thread is being rather lightly moderated.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

"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.

This is ridiculous. YOU are the one who brought up the word "volunteers" and in a very disrespectful way.

I agree that bad attitude from moderators isn't acceptable, and I'm not saying it never happens. As for why it happens, the reasons are varied and for most you'd have to ask the individual moderator why he/she took the tone with you that he/she did. In other cases, I can fully sympathize with the frustration felt by a moderator who has to deal with some of the things that have gone on around the forum during the past while. I saw some of those NES posts, and I don't envy the staff who had to deal with them.

Remember: I've been on all sides of this issue. Before I was on staff I'd get frustrated when requests for clarification would result in a parroting of the link to the rules - which were out of date and sometimes not even relevant to the infraction, and frustrated when the rules seemed ridiculously strict in the first place. Because of that frustration, after I became a moderator, I made every effort not to treat people like that. There's nobody on this forum now or before who can say that when they asked for an explanation from me, that they didn't get one, and in my own words. And after I was no longer on staff, I still feel that this parroting of the rules link in response to a question is disrespectful. It's like an adult telling a child, "Because I said so." I still feel that some rules are ridiculously strict.

I'm not your enemy, so kindly stop treating me as though I am. I'm someone who can see both sides of the issue, with sympathies and criticisms for both.

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.

I used the word "condescending" because it was an apt description of the tone of your post.

I asked you a pertinent question awhile back, which you have never answered. Would you be better-disposed toward the staff of this forum if they were paid, instead of volunteering? After all, you are the one who brought up "bad attitude from volunteers."

Take "spam" for example. Valkr's complaints about "volunteer" in this thread can technically be labelled as such. But somehow the moderators would consider this to be an occasion of their choosing in terms of enforcing this "spam" rule. After all, it's completely up to their discretion to judge what's relevant, productive, and contribution.

...

Note: Just as I said Valkrs posts can technically be infracted, the same is also true for many of our posts. I

My username is correctly spelled in the sidebar of my posts. I would appreciate your taking the trouble to spell it properly. If typing out "Valka" is too much trouble, copy/paste works just fine.

 

[JollyRoger]

RE: a few preceding posts:
It should be obvious that this thread is being rather lightly moderated.

Which is appreciated. The general point of my most recent post was a bit of jousting to show that a moderator with the desire to enter the arena could technically knock some of us off our high horses, though my dyingslowly recovering horse is currently low enough to the ground that a blunt instrument to the head may be the preferred course of action.

 

[Lefty Scaevola]

You know other fora where you can post in all your glory, and you do so.

 

[Takhisis]

Can we have ywhtptgtfo and Valka's by now ridiculous discussion excised from this thread? I amn't even sure what they're arguing about by now.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

It's been taken to PM.

 

[Truronian]

Maybe we should consider the possibility of removing moderating duties from moderators. After all, it's just too much work moderating people and moderators like you are apparently burned out already by such terrible burdens. Let's just shorten that job description for the sake of doing less work.

When I serve people in my job, I deal with 3rd parties with a range of attitudes. Even when treated impudently, I try to get the job done and strive to improve the quality of the communications. I am sure this type of work ethic is very common among us.

In your case, your job is that of a moderator with the responsibility of mediating disputes and resolving conflicts. If one bails at the first sign of not being served with a friendly attitude, then I don't think he is very suited to be in this job. Obviously, we also share the responsibility of facilitating a civil exchange, but do remember that the moderator should burden the greater part of this responsibility because he is given the job as the moderator. Otherwise, what's the point of having moderators?

But since you are visibly disturbed by my sarcastic tone, I will try to scale it down in the future. I am still doubtful we are going to get anywhere but at least I will be doing my part.

Moderation is not a job, it's a hobby. As no-one is paid to do it, every aspect of the role is on a voluntary basis. Sufficiently inactive moderators get removed from the pool, but the process of appointing new ones is not easy. As such, it's best for the health of the forums if you can keep moderators from burning out and leaving.

This issue of civility is a different kettle of fish. The requests raised in this thread are most probably being discussed in the Staff forums. If want some of the moderators to fight your corner, then it would behoove you to not be churlish towards them.

 

[brennan]

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

Since the way people post, the rules regarding posting and the moderation of those rules is the topic, I think it's a little dubious to suggest that talking about the way people post is 'playing the poster not the topic'.

It doesn't seem, to me, to me an unreasonable contribution to suggest to someone who is basically saying 'stop infracting me just for committing infractable offences' that maybe they should consider just taking the rules seriously.

 

[illram]

In your case, your job is that of a moderator with the responsibility of mediating disputes and resolving conflicts.

While mods do sometimes intercede to try and resolve conflict between posters, they do that on behalf of the forum at large, not on behalf of the two posters. Our job is not really mediating disputes. Our job is maintaining a vibrant and civil forum where people of all ages can come and talk about Civilization. Everything else flows from that basic premise.

If two posters are going at it and ruining a thread for example, a mod could try and intercede via PM and get them to cool off, or a mod could warn them in the thread, or infract them, or take some other action to maintain civility and a clean discussion. The goal is not so much resolving the posters' dispute however; it is simply to end their public display of it. Actually resolving the underlying dispute would be outside our job description.

I like this idea of internet mediation though. Maybe internet mediation is a new gig I should take up for some bitcoin? Surely that would be more profitable than moderating!

It's true that mods do have a higher standard of civility, being civilization mods. You can't spell civilization mod without "civil!" *ba dum tish*

 

[JollyRoger]

Since the way people post, the rules regarding posting and the moderation of those rules is the topic, I think it's a little dubious to suggest that talking about the way people post is 'playing the poster not the topic'.

It doesn't seem, to me, to me an unreasonable contribution to suggest to someone who is basically saying 'stop infracting me just for committing infractable offences' that maybe they should consider just taking the rules seriously.

If that was a PM to a moderator to get out of an infraction and it got nowhere, it might demonstrate the benefit of PDMA. The post makes good points on why the 5-you post should not be infracted, but the 5-you post was still an arguable violation of the rules.

 

[Luckymoose]

If two posters are going at it and ruining a thread for example, a mod could try and intercede via PM and get them to cool off, or a mod could warn them in the thread, or infract them, or take some other action to maintain civility and a clean discussion. The goal is not so much resolving the posters' dispute however; it is simply to end their public display of it. Actually resolving the underlying dispute would be outside our job description.

Infraction is the default. One does not drop a bowling ball gently. The problem of "people of all ages" is that whenever I look at the birthdays listed most people are 20+ (today they are all 30+). Combine that with Off Topic and the general nature of adult conversation being filtered out through weird rules aimed at protecting a userbase that, as far as I've seen, doesn't actually exist on the scale the moderating staff thinks it does, and you have rules that allow extremist views but no namecalling. Like, Jihadi John can scream Death to Infidels on the playground all he wants, but he better not call Little Susie a name!

I don't understand child-friendly approach, when there is a thread dedicated to objectifying women in Off Topic that isn't at all child friendly.

 

[Takhisis]

*raises hand* There are several threads objectifying women and at least one objectifying men. On top of it you have the Facebook-like user photos threads.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

While mods do sometimes intercede to try and resolve conflict between posters, they do that on behalf of the forum at large, not on behalf of the two posters. Our job is not really mediating disputes. Our job is maintaining a vibrant and civil forum where people of all ages can come and talk about Civilization. Everything else flows from that basic premise.

If two posters are going at it and ruining a thread for example, a mod could try and intercede via PM and get them to cool off, or a mod could warn them in the thread, or infract them, or take some other action to maintain civility and a clean discussion. The goal is not so much resolving the posters' dispute however; it is simply to end their public display of it. Actually resolving the underlying dispute would be outside our job description.

Official job description. That doesn't mean it's never happened. Sometimes all it takes is to get the posters in question to understand exactly what it is that they do that sets the other's temper off. It's not necessarily the bare content of the post that's the problem; quite often it's the way the content is expressed. If it's something easily remedied and both parties agree to make an honest effort to improve - which means being considerate of the other - that's good. It helps them, and cuts down on the arguing that annoys others.

But mediation only works if all parties - including the mediator - go into it in honesty and good faith. No moderator with a biased preference toward one side has any business mediating a dispute.

I like this idea of internet mediation though. Maybe internet mediation is a new gig I should take up for some bitcoin? Surely that would be more profitable than moderating!

Pretty flip attitude toward a process that has worked wonders when done properly.

It's true that mods do have a higher standard of civility, being civilization mods. You can't spell civilization mod without "civil!" *ba dum tish*

Considering that there are quite a few people on this forum who have either not played Civ in a long time or possibly have never played it, please don't assume everyone agrees with that.*

*I say this as someone who has played Civ I and II extensively and has only a passing acquaintance with Civ III.

Infraction is the default. One does not drop a bowling ball gently. The problem of "people of all ages" is that whenever I look at the birthdays listed most people are 20+ (today they are all 30+). Combine that with Off Topic and the general nature of adult conversation being filtered out through weird rules aimed at protecting a userbase that, as far as I've seen, doesn't actually exist on the scale the moderating staff thinks it does, and you have rules that allow extremist views but no namecalling. Like, Jihadi John can scream Death to Infidels on the playground all he wants, but he better not call Little Susie a name!

I don't understand child-friendly approach, when there is a thread dedicated to objectifying women in Off Topic that isn't at all child friendly.

I have to agree with the last paragraph. Out of curiosity, I skimmed the latest thread. There are a lot of photos there that just barely (no pun intended; can't think of a better word) pass the rules. They're not the sort of pictures I'd want my 13-year-old looking at, if I had a 13-year-old human child. And some people wonder why there aren't more women posting in OT...

 

[Kyriakos]

I think that cancelling of actual infractions is very very rare (not sure if even one of mine has been ever cancelled), but sometimes more 'important' negative decisions can be cancelled. Eg i was once given a permanent point of infraction, which later on got cancelled (without myself requesting it at the time). But it has to be something more evidently down to issues with a set moderator giving such a penalty for more obviously suspect/non-rule following reason, for this to happen.
Besides, a regular infraction is not really leading to much harm even in the case it can get one temporarily banned due to accumulated points in a month.

 

[Truronian]

Infraction is the default. One does not drop a bowling ball gently. The problem of "people of all ages" is that whenever I look at the birthdays listed most people are 20+ (today they are all 30+). Combine that with Off Topic and the general nature of adult conversation being filtered out through weird rules aimed at protecting a userbase that, as far as I've seen, doesn't actually exist on the scale the moderating staff thinks it does, and you have rules that allow extremist views but no namecalling. Like, Jihadi John can scream Death to Infidels on the playground all he wants, but he better not call Little Susie a name!

I don't understand child-friendly approach, when there is a thread dedicated to objectifying women in Off Topic that isn't at all child friendly.

I don't disagree with the final paragraph, but it's worth noting that youngsters nowadays are taught never to share their age or other personal information on-line. The fact that most of the birthdays are for adults doesn't mean that the forum is populated predominantly by them.

 

[peter grimes]

Infraction is the default...

... Like, Jihadi John can scream Death to Infidels on the playground all he wants, but he better not call Little Susie a name!

I don't understand child-friendly approach, when there is a thread dedicated to objectifying women in Off Topic that isn't at all child friendly.

there is no official default since every situation is different (unless you're talking about ad-spam or some other the few other things clearly laid out in the rules).

JJ in this hypothetical would likely get a message or have his post edited or deleted for him. and if he is personally insulting he'd likely get an infraction from me. I tend to go soft on politically (personal to me) offensive opinions but hard on personal insults. I hold to the view that a mature and fruitful discussion can be had about complex subjects, but insults derail and have no place on civil discourse. that's me, though.

and I completely agree with you about the Babe thread(s).

I have to agree with the last paragraph. Out of curiosity, I skimmed the latest thread. There are a lot of photos there that just barely (no pun intended; can't think of a better word) pass the rules. They're not the sort of pictures I'd want my 13-year-old looking at, if I had a 13-year-old human child. And some people wonder why there aren't more women posting in OT...

Thing is, the 13yo can find what they're looking for just about anywhere. I agree that I don't think this is the forum for that, but your hypothetical 13yo will find the stuff one way or another.

I'd strongly prefer they do it somewhere else.

 

[Luckymoose]

JJ in this hypothetical would likely get a message or have his post edited or deleted for him. and if he is personally insulting he'd likely get an infraction from me. I tend to go soft on politically (personal to me) offensive opinions but hard on personal insults. I hold to the view that a mature and fruitful discussion can be had about complex subjects, but insults derail and have no place on civil discourse. that's me, though.

This caused a major backlash in the NES subforum, actually. One user expresses violent and extreme ideological goals, but isn't touched (even though the rules forbid such things), but people calling out said individual for being an extremist are infracted. It causes a major divide in user trust in moderation staff, especially when discussing these sorts of issues falls under PDMA and increases user punishment. Personally, if your website wants to save the children it shouldn't allow such extreme political views the light of day (you wouldn't let Al-Qaeda recruit here, would you?), but should allow users to call one another out directly on such beliefs.

As for the babe thread, it was just an example. If you're going to allow a babe thread the least you could do is have a hunk thread, otherwise it seems sexually biased. I would rather my own children see naked women than anarchist extremism.

 

[Browd]

Hunk thread