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

[Thlayli]

Moderators are given a vast amount of power over the community. This is a responsibility entrusted to them by the community. Though this is not a democracy, the moderators do, in fact, rely on the consent of the governed; if people are fed up enough with the moderators, they can vote with their feet!

I love CFC, I have been part of it for a decade, and in large part, I know the moderators are just doing their job. But the moderators are not kings. They are not gods. We live in societies that demand accountability and openness, and I think that it's time that CFC endorse similar policies, at least in a limited fashion.

Discussion, dialogue, and compassion for the positions of injured parties need to be the motivating factors behind our moderators. They are moderators, not enforcers, and in the emphasis, perhaps overemphasis, on enforcement, we have failed to request proper institutions for moderation.

Allowing a release valve for public dialogue of moderator actions away from the rest of the forum will improve community-moderator relations, and make community members and moderators alike feel less alienated by one another's actions. Moderators, you have to understand how it feels when an individual is frustrated and angry, and their expressions of frustration are literally erased from existence. It only serves to compound that frustration and anger.

The PDMA rules are unjustified by the logic of "protecting mods", as moderators have absolute power in CFC. They need no protection from the community.

 

[ainwood]

They need no protection from the community.

So, because they serve the community, it is only fair enough that they get things like this?

Recently, I had an encounter with a couple of moderators who were not only incompetent but also gaming the system to send out infractions. In the process, they did a little witchhunt for perceived PDMA's and I got burned in the process.

 

[Thlayli]

But you have to see, if the PDMA rules did not exist in their current form, neither would his complaint!

Even setting that aside, the solution to occasional unjustified criticism of the moderators cannot be setting all moderators, always and forever, above criticism! You must see that there is a vast, VAST power differential here, and when considering the interests of a large mass of people with no power, and a small group of people with all of the power, perhaps moderators could be slightly more sensitive to the concerns of that larger group than they are now?

The community can say unkind things about you, but they cannot ban you. They cannot infract you. They cannot delete your posts. The power is yours, and I can't believe I'm actually going to say this, but with great power comes great responsibility.

Authority figures will always be criticized. That is human society. Those authority figures can choose to censor all criticism, or they can choose to defend themselves and their actions. That choice defines the difference between democracy and oligarchy/autocracy. It is time for the moderators to decide which society they would prefer CFC to resemble.

 

[ainwood]

But you have to see, if the PDMA rules did not exist in their current form, neither would his complaint!

Seriously? You don't think we would have had that kind of response to other infractions?



It's not the criticism. It's the insults. It's the abuse. It's the complete lack of objectivity.

Interestingly, there is a pretty good inverse correlation between those that are generally polite and civilized in their posting on the forums, and infractions. There is also a pretty good positive correlation between those that are prone to being abusive and insulting on the forums and infractions. If they are insulting an abusive to other posters, do you appreciate what they are like towards moderators who act on that behavior?

 

[Thlayli]

By all means, infract those who in discussing moderator actions, are abusive or insulting.

But if a community member, in all good faith, says "With all due respect, this moderator action is wrong, and this is why I believe it is wrong," and his post is deleted for PDMA, you have done something you did not need to do. I have seen that happen and I see no reason for it.

Do moderators ever make mistakes? Are moderators accountable to the community they moderate? If the answer to either of those questions is yes, then you must recognize the need for a superior grievance process.

If moderators are doing nothing wrong, moderators have nothing to fear. By all means, infract abuse. Infract insults. But PDMA is not either of those things. Ultimately, the community cannot touch you. So you have nothing to lose and everything to gain in offering them this concession.

Prove to us that moderators are people first, and police second.

 

[Lord_Iggy]

Our current PDMA bans the public discussion of moderator actions. This has proven to be devastating to the community, both for the moderation and the posters, as rumors of moderator abuse and doubt was allowed to be spread rapidly throughout the community who was able to connect and communicate each other through means other than this forum.

Much of the depiction of the moderation outside this forum was less than favorable.

[...]

Without any transparencies on the side of the Moderation, without any information that can shed light onto exactly what has transpired and what has been said, we can only believe the words of our peers: those who have been banned.

Seon's hit the nail on the head here, and Thlayli backs up these concerns with more valid points. When communities can't discuss moderator actions with the moderators around, they instead take it to a place where the forum's rules do not apply, and where the moderators are not present. This leads to a very one-sided, and thus rather negative, understanding of moderator actions. When all of this forum moderation happens behind a veil, we do not understand what has happened, what transgressions have happened, and what stances the moderators are taking on various issues. I was at work and busy during the time that the recent events in the NES forum began to flare up, and when I came back to observe the aftermath, the only information that I could find was what people told me through private channels, because there was no way to discuss it in the moderated forum.

Ultimately, the core of the issue here is a lack of trust in moderation. If we can't discuss and politely, frankly question moderator actions when they seem dubious, then we lose our faith in the whole moderation system.

Moderator powers are often overused or used in a heavy-handed manner. I would much rather talk to someone normally, conversationally, rather than see that someone has edited Redtext directly into my own posts. If a moderator steps in, doesn't put Moderator Action into their post and simply tells a feuding group to 'cool your jets', and maybe points out where they've crossed the line, it can help to establish what the accepted boundaries are. If we are allowed to discuss this, we can build up a strong rapport with our moderators. If, however, moderators act quickly with the instant punitive measures, and do not allow discussion of what has happened, then we end up with the same PR nightmare facing many police forces: they're seen as trigger-happy, aloof and unaccountable. This leads to paranoia and a lack of trust from some community members, and a distrustful population becomes increasingly unruly and difficult to moderate, especially if they feel that they are driven to the point of lashing out, as happened in the cases of several of the bans.

Then there's the entire issue of people expressing some very offensive views, but doing so in a polite manner, while people who directly call them out are infracted for personal attacks. This is somewhat on the side of a metadiscussion of PDMA, but it illustrates one of the issues some people see with forum moderation. It is also something that they struggle to discuss, due to the whole difficulty in bringing specific acts of the moderation team.

Through a lightening of the restrictions on PDMA, we could have a much more open environment, and enjoy a great deal more moderator-member communication. I think that this would be a large step towards resolving several of the outstanding issues that parts of our forum are currently facing.

 

[Daftpanzer]

I believe Thlayli and Iggy have said it best, and that their views represent the less-vocal, patient majority of NES forum.

I just want to stress the point that PDMA *does* happen. If its banned on CFC, the discussion simply moves to chat and social media and other forums. In the recent extreme case of NES forum, the whole community focus has shifted away from CFC as well, as a result of this.

As Iggy pointed out, to find out what was going on with our community we were effectively forced off-site. And yes - that's a very one-sided discussion. People rally round their friends and the narrative inevitably gets biased, since the only communication we have from the mod's side of things is in their moderator action / thread closed posts. Meanwhile the offending posts are banished into oblivion, leaving behind a question mark. The lack of openness creates a a downward cycle.

Mods have, unintentionally or otherwise, made it 'their' site instead of 'our' site. I think we need to get to a point where people who break the forum rules are seen as a nuisance for everyone, instead of some kind of martyr against oppression.

 

[Loppan Torkel]

PDMA could be interesting, but I'd guess it would become a pita for the mods pretty soon. They do a good job, imo, staying impartial and objective despite dealing with a politically tilted forum. I even ventured into the NES forum to get some grasp about it. Poor mods

This one seems level headed though -

Spoiler :

There is no dissatisfaction from me. In my 12 years on CFC I have not seen a single case where a moderator have wronged anyone in the NESing community. Every single warning, ban, and that other thing were always well reasoned. The only difference is that in the last few years some NESers have begun to not like being told when they misbehave, culminating in the whole “inclusivity rule” mass which have calmed into to now rise again and reaching the so called “exodus”. The moderators have done nothing, and I do mean nothing, wrong as far as moderation goes. Perhaps there are personal dislikes between certain moderators and NESers but I have never seen that lead to any misbehavior by moderators.
As for disagreement with the rules, again, none from me. The rules of the forums are perfectly fine in my opinion (with PDMA lower in this list, but that isn’t the subject, so moving along).

The only thing I see from the arguments against the moderation here is the wish to have a NESer moderator in the forum. We had one, Birdjaguar, but he left NESing as far as I can see and so cannot be considered that bridge anymore. The problem with the demand for a NESer moderator is that I personally do not trust most NESers (probably including myself, albeit to the opposite direction) to be good moderators, as in following the rules of CFC to the word. I fear the forum will be chaos in such a case, something akin to what has been going in WWW thread not being solved or even fixed and the misbehavior allowed to continue. (Me to the opposite means I will go too far with following the rules&#8230

I guess I mostly said my thoughts on the issues you outlined. I don’t think there are issues, nor that there should be any changes. Perhaps a NESer moderator should be added, but the choosing of one should be very careful, and he should never be on his own in this. I have no idea who would be good for this for the reasons I gave above.

One important thing. I do think the NESers should be allowed to have one thread with OT subjects. Sometimes debates open that begin in game threads and have nothing to do outside the NESing communities. This were allowed in the WWW thread, but were terribly taken way out of line by practically everyone who were a part of those discussions. If people can’t behave, OT rights should be taken away from us, but I don’t think we misbehaved that badly just yet, it was very few of us, and they were dealt it by the moderation.

Strange that you say that, moderation here has been making me feel like there is someone to talk to about unacceptable posts, and have made me feel very safe.

Isn’t saying anything like “Violence against so and so should be taken” should be against the rules? In particular when those so and so have done nothing wrong according to the law? It should be if it isn’t yet.

There really is no way of defending Amon’s rather violent opinions unless the rules of the forums just merely allows such opinions to be spoken freely. I assume they don’t, and if they do they shouldn’t.

Thanks EQ, for reminding me of #nes. The living proof for why I am a hundred percent on the side of the rules and moderation in this. In #nes there is no moderation. In #nes I was told several times by ‘people’ that they hope my country is burned and that my entire culture murdered, including support for the Holocaust. I was insulted many times etc… I don’t want that to ever be the state of our forum. I do not want the forum or any OT thread to become #nes or even barely resemble it. Which is why I hope the moderators never ever ever change their minds in regard to the laws of behavior and inclusivity. If those laws are somehow phased out I feel and fear I will be out of my hobby, for good. I will certainly not be here if insults and calls for my people’s extermination are a normality, and I wouldn’t be able to play in most games here without a law forcing all moderators to accept me into their games.

Like EQ I think the community’s “culture” have gone for the worse, much worse than he assumed thought.

As for this whole “moving”. I think their claims are seriously lacking, and to me it looks like all they want is, well I guess it would just ruin this thread’s sensibility up until now if I say it here too. I said what I think the reasons behind this whole move are in the WWW thread. I am quite certain of it too which is why I don’t see any reason why the moderators should change anything about how things are going. Things are going fine for all those who know how to behave and be inclusive. Only thing I may support is a NESer moderator but I stated my fears from such a move.

In the end, this seems like a problem within the NES community. Perhaps a split could be made - one tavern and one chamber forum.

 

[Angst]

I don't think issues with PDMA is restricted to the NES forum.

The problem with allowing PDMA in, say, Site Feedback would be the inherent noise of pleas that would erupt from allowing it. Perhaps make a time requirement following the Moderator Action in order to have people cool down? Allow people to do PDMA in a Site Feedback subforum when, say, three days or one week has passed since the instance of moderator action? This would require the poster to be calm when discussing the moderator action so much of the noise would be diminished and all the discussion should hopefully be more rational.

I'm not sure I support it per se, but it's more transparent than the status quo, so I think I'd support it over the current situation at least.

 

[Daftpanzer]

Also note that the small, close-knit nature of NES means things get taken to extremes more easily. Whereas I think larger forums lack that critical mass of personal connections, dramas are short-lived and you can count on momentum to quickly smooth things over, even if one or two leading characters get banned at a time.

(IMO, Erez is among the few NESers who is happy to write off the 'troublemakers')

In that sense NES is something of an oddity. But hopefully some useful lessons can be gained from all this.

 

[The_J]

The current PDMA rules are absurd. It's part of the larger problem of how once you join the moderator staff, you're suddenly untouchable and can do no wrong. There's not enough moderator accountability.

There is some, but you can't see it.
The admins know, and they'll tell a mod if he did something wrong.
You'll never get to know it though. Because that would undermine the authority, which is essential for enforcing the rules.

By all means, infract those who in discussing moderator actions, are abusive or insulting.

But if a community member, in all good faith, says "With all due respect, this moderator action is wrong, and this is why I believe it is wrong," and his post is deleted for PDMA, you have done something you did not need to do. I have seen that happen and I see no reason for it.

The problem here:
Either you apply the rules to everyone in the same way. Then you need to infract also the reasonable people, because everyone is the same.
Or you allow more personal judgement. Then you'll be called out for favoritism. "Why did X not get infracted while I got?" And it's not so that consistency isn't a big deal. Even with the rules which should be applied in the same way, people will easily complain about favoritism.

I remember one such situation. One poster complained that he got infracted, while someone else got only a warning. The reason was simply that the other user was new, hasn't got an infraction yet. Then you give a warning, to say "this is wrong, don't do it again", without doing it with the big stick, without consequences.
Simple difference. Easily explainable. And people get seriously mad about it.

Moderator powers are often overused or used in a heavy-handed manner. I would much rather talk to someone normally, conversationally, rather than see that someone has edited Redtext directly into my own posts. If a moderator steps in, doesn't put Moderator Action into their post and simply tells a feuding group to 'cool your jets', and maybe points out where they've crossed the line, it can help to establish what the accepted boundaries are.

That sadly only works in some situations, with some specific requirements.
Besides that it doesn't have to be already too late (e.g. serious insults are thrown around), you need to know that these posters will listen to you, and you need to be willing to "babysitt" the thread for a while (means you need to be online and constantly have a look at it), to ensure that hell doesn't break loose.
Oh, and there can't be a dozen of threads like this. Ruins your nerves.
But yes, that works. But same as for the accountability: You'll not get to know that, you'll not see it.

 

[Winston Hughes]

Reading Seon's excellent post early in this thread, I felt inclined to agree with his general position with regards to PDMA. But, having spent several hours looking into some of the issues behind this present debate (my research not being limited to material available at CFC), I have to say that, whilst I still regard Seon's argument as perfectly reasonable in itself, I now have much more sympathy for the mods' perspective. I should add that the research I did for my own reasons (the development of intra-communal tensions being an issue relevant to both my professional life and my academic interests), and I submit this brief, non-specific overview only to provide a third-party perspective on the matter at hand. As always, YMMV.

Most pertinently to the debate, I encountered repeated claims of supposedly outrageous behaviour from CFC moderators which, when I uncovered the exact details, turned out to be nothing of the sort. There were several cases of mods using a sharper tone than was necessary, and several others of them phrasing things in a way which left room for ambiguity. But I saw no evidence that suggested to me that mods were behaving unfairly with regards to the application of site rules, or treating their duties as an opportunity to lord it over other posters.

By contrast, the way in which some (and I must emphasise this word) complainants spoke to and about the moderators was - even on the most sympathetic reading - aggressive, sensationalist, and characterised by a determination to read the worst motives into every moderator action. There was, it seemed to me, a common theme of posters who had received infractions for clear rule breaks, but who felt that they had been justified in breaking the rules, talking themselves and each other into a state of righteous indignation that was completely out of proportion to the moderators' actual failings.

In light of this, and having also seen how fraught the post-infraction discussions have got at some other sites I checked out for the sake of comparison, I can perfectly understand why staff here would be leery about relaxing the PDMA rules. That said, I do believe there's merit in Seon's argument that greater transparency would be helpful here at CFC, and if there's any way that that can be achieved without opening a big can of worms, then I would certainly support it.

One last thing: I've been very careful here to avoid any specifics, and I would appreciate if people reading it can try not to make assumptions about exactly who I'm referring to, and refrain from making requests for clarifications that may reveal such details. Please take this is as it is intended: an overview of what I encountered, rather than an attempt to pin blame on any particular individuals.

 

[Double A]

The problem here:
Either you apply the rules to everyone in the same way. Then you need to infract also the reasonable people, because everyone is the same.

Can't people who use PDMA and personal attacks in the same post be infracted for trolling, because that's obviously what they're doing? PDMA seems to be tangential to what the real problem is, which is just general dickishness.

Or you allow more personal judgement. Then you'll be called out for favoritism. "Why did X not get infracted while I got?" And it's not so that consistency isn't a big deal. Even with the rules which should be applied in the same way, people will easily complain about favoritism.

Shouldn't people who follow the rules consistently be given the benefit of the doubt once in awhile? Someone who gets <7 points every time their infractions expire is a very different person from someone with no infractions doing something out of stress or being pushed hard. There are also people who used to be the former and turned into the latter.

I remember one such situation. One poster complained that he got infracted, while someone else got only a warning. The reason was simply that the other user was new, hasn't got an infraction yet. Then you give a warning, to say "this is wrong, don't do it again", without doing it with the big stick, without consequences.
Simple difference. Easily explainable. And people get seriously mad about it.

What the hell? That's exactly what a warning is supposed to be. Please tell me the mods didn't stop giving out warnings to new users because of some crazy troll.

But yes, that works. But same as for the accountability: You'll not get to know that, you'll not see it.

Then how do we know it exists?

 

[Lefty Scaevola]

So Lefty Scaevola, do you feel we are uneducated inferior beings that need to be guided and governed by superior overlords?

Not me, I just volunteer to do a task for Thunderfall, and the origins and basis of the rules (including PDMA) comes from him, evolved later by others in more recent years as the site grew and he left day to day management. For around half this sites history, every rule was his rule, every appeal of a moderators action was directly to him, and all staff was selected by him, and if they flipped out, removed by him. This site is what the owner wanted it to be, it is Thunderfall's house. As for the wisdom of his culture for CFC, it started small with just a couple dozen or so of us form his old site, and then surpassed all other civilizations site, including those that hard started earlier and much larger.
Personally, I have no gripe with flaming, trolling, adult content, salty language, etc, at sites where it is official allowed, and in fact, I excel at those skills. Such a site is where I do almost all my personal posting. At CFC, almost all my posting is staff business.

 

[erez87]

PDMA isn't a problem of just NES. The lack of public discussion of moderation action in a public forum is a bit unnerving... It makes moderation a little bit too secret. Thought discussing moderation action EVERYWHERE is also a very bad thing.

I think the reasons given before are good enough already. Question is - can this law even be changed by the moderators?

 

[Lefty Scaevola]

The rules currently are under the admins and supermoderators as a committee formally, but with with advice, brainstorming, and other input from supermoderators and front line moderators actually driving most evolution. Also "the rules" are not a Napoleonic Code type monolith. They are a more a old British common law type where the printed letter is only a skeleton and guidelines, and decisions, interpolations, extrapolations, and interpretations make of the bulk of the "law". The immediate objective of enforcement is order: if there is a disruption breaking out, the first priority is to use what powers there are to contain and then stop it.

 

[Gori the Grey]

What if there was a thread in Site Feedback, where a poster was allowed to post a question about moderator actions, and that's it? No arguing, no talking back at all, no making a case for things being different. And questions that aren't really questions disallowed. But if a poster has a sincere question, he or she can ask it and it gives the mods a chance to publicly elaborate on their actions.

I only ask because recently in OT, a thread was closed that I thought was still in a relatively productive mode, and I couldn't understand the rationale for its closure. I wasn't personally involved, so I wasn't upset. I just wished I could understand better what had lead to the closing of that thread, if only to understand the standards by which the mods were operating. But I couldn't ask.

 

[erez87]

What if a certain law, like PDMA law, seems to cause disorder?

 

[Thlayli]

I view Lefty's post as encouraging. It means that we, working with the moderators, collectively have the power to reform this situation.

Moderators cannot stop all PDMA. Moderators cannot behave as the thought police. Would moderators prefer PDMA discussion to occur in a controlled setting on CFC, or would they prefer it to occur off-site, in an uncontrolled setting where moderators cannot defend themselves?

Reforming the PDMA rule will help moderators, and will improve moderator-community interactions, because it will allow the moderators to defend their actions in a way that everyone can see and understand. It is understandable that a culture of censorship for the purpose of enforcing order became entrenched and established at CFC, but we now have the exceptional opportunity to replace that culture with one of openness and civil discussion, while doing it in a measured fashion that prevents the chaos the moderators fear.

The question is this: Can we truly take brave actions to improve this situation for the benefit of those who are finally fed up?

There is some, but you can't see it.
The admins know, and they'll tell a mod if he did something wrong.
You'll never get to know it though. Because that would undermine the authority, which is essential for enforcing the rules.

The J, I am not sure if you are familiar with human institutions, but these defense has been used time and time again to justify lack of openness and reform. You ask us to trust that accountability exists, but in the end, you have no way of proving if it does. That is not accountability. And no, authority does not rest upon censorship. Authority rests upon it defending a legitimate purpose and being supported by the people.

In sophisticated human institutions, there are policies of independent review in order to prove that a hierarchy is not simply circling the wagons and protecting its own. We have no Inspector General or neutral judiciary to do so here on CFC, so the only responsible independent review that can exist is allowing the community to judge the morality of moderators' actions. The moderators are not giving up any of their powers; they are simply saying that they believe we are mature enough to discuss their actions. CFC has matured, as have the ages of its members and a more mature process now needs to exist for those who are behaving maturely.

I am not saying that you give every troll a platform. I am saying you need to create a space for free discussion.

The moderators fundamentally have not opposed the basic logic of the importance of freedom, open civil discussion, and accountability. They have made small, partial defenses of the rule, but only by conflating PDMA with trolling and flaming. They have not proven that the rule itself can stand on moral grounds. There is no security threat to the mods that requires enforcement of this rule. If mods are insulted or abused, they can delete posts on the grounds of insults and abuse. The only people who are truly punished by PDMA are civil individuals who want to have an open, fair, and level discussion where they disagree with something a moderator did.

By forcing members to take their concerns private, the PDMA rule prevents the community from judging the rightness of a certain action. You remove moderator accountability to the community, and make moderators accountable to moderators alone. Moderators and community members should not be separated by this vast divide, as the moderators, too, are part of this community. We are all human beings.

As such, it is time for democratization of the PDMA rules. The question now becomes how to do this.

What will prevent this rule from being altered now is institutional inertia. Traditions are what they are, and oftentimes established authorities will defend them simply because they are traditions; because changing them is hard and admitting any sort of imperfection in a system one represents is embarrassing. But the shell of the rules is good; we simply need to change the emphasis from protecting moderators to protecting moderators and community members alike.

Public discussion of moderator actions (PDMA)
Public discussion of actions taken or not taken by moderators or admins is not permitted. If you have a problem with something a moderator has done, then PM the moderator concerned. If you are not aware of which moderator made the action, then PM one of the moderators of that particular forum. Moderators are required to answer you and justify their actions, but they are not necessarily required to agree with you. Please give any mod pmed at least 24 hours to respond. If you do not get a response to the PM within that time frame or are not happy with the response you did get, then you can request a review (see details below). In your PMs, it is highly recommended that you be polite. There are occasions where moderators get something wrong, but generally this is a perception issue, and they may not have seen something in the same way that you have. Remember this if you want to have a constructive discussion with the moderators.

General discussion of how and why moderators do what they do are permitted in the Site Feedback forum when the discussion is in the spirit of improving the forum. Discussing specific incidents of warnings, infractions, bans, specific posters or moderators is not allowed. A statement of a fact of a warning, infraction or ban you yourself have received without value judgements is allowed. Publicly discussing a specific instance as a "hypothetical" is not allowed.

Public discussion of moderator actions (PDMA)
Public discussion of actions taken or not taken by moderators or admins is permitted under certain circumstances. If you have a problem with something a moderator has done, the first resort should be to PM the moderator concerned. If you are not aware of which moderator made the action, then PM one of the moderators of that particular forum. Moderators are required to answer you and justify their actions, but they are not necessarily required to agree with you. Please give any mod pmed at least 24 hours to respond. If you do not get a response to the PM within that time frame or are not happy with the response you did get, then you can request a review (see details below) or post in the moderator feedback and appeals thread in Site Feedback. In your PMs and the appeal thread, it is highly recommended that you be polite. There are occasions where moderators get something wrong, but generally this is a perception issue, and they may not have seen something in the same way that you have. Remember this if you want to have a constructive discussion with the moderators.

Specific concerns with moderator behavior and enforcement are permitted in the designated moderator feedback and appeals thread in the Site Feedback forum. Please avoid flaming or trolling moderators when you express your concerns publicly, as the opportunity to discuss moderator actions is a privilege afforded to CFC members as members of a mature community. Please try not to abuse this privilege.

Outside of the appeals process, mentions of specific incidents of warnings, infractions, bans, specific posters or moderators are allowed, but are discouraged outside of Site Feedback. Posters discussing moderator action in other forums will be forwarded to the appeals thread, or to the appeals process listed below.

My proposed changes are listed in bold. Please consider them and offer ideas for improvements of your own.

 

[Lefty Scaevola]

What if a certain law, like PDMA law, seems to cause disorder?

The appearance is probably deceptive. The cumulative experience of staff of staff with what has worked and what has not worked is vast. Yet we keep brainstorming, and sometimes experimenting, on how things might work better. PDMA rules and what might improve them has had multiple threads in staff. At LOT of work goes on in there. From a quick glance, the main staff forum (not counting the GOTM, Content, etc forums, just the administration and moderation stuff) has around 140,000 reports and posts about moderator action, and 80,000 posts on administration, policy, rules, recruitment, training, and other stuff.
We can also see what has brought success or decline to other civilization game sites.