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

[Thlayli]

Lefty, I would encourage you to consider my specific suggestions above for reform of the PDMA rules, and consider taking up discussion of these proposed changes with the supermods and admins.

I would also encourage a wider community response to these ideas; a specific poll posted here or in OT on members' opinions of the proposed changes would certainly do wonders for taking the pulse of the community.

 

[Lefty Scaevola]

Ainwood is the best for leading that subject. I gave up on it about 2 years ago, having finally shared Thunderfall's epiphany about it. He still has hope about it and has last the last few staff discussions on it. He is following this thread closely. I will work to help implement anything they might agree to try.

 

[Thlayli]

The thing that I would like to stress is that members who wish to politely and rationally critique moderator policies and actions they disagree with, in the spirit of openness and fair debate that is constantly prized on CFC, should be allowed to have their voices heard.

In no way should relaxation of the PDMA rules allow spam, trolling, flaming or other disrespectful or unhelpful behavior that is otherwise restricted by the forum rules.

The moderators have nothing to fear from us, and we have nothing to fear from the moderators. I have been consulted by people who have felt like they cannot calmly say what is in their hearts for fear of their words being censored. And that is a state of affairs which we have a moral duty to correct, for this community which we all truly care about.

 

[Tee Kay]

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

See mods, posts like this one. Infract away. Need no PDMA ban for this, you can get this one under the "no trolling" rule.

 

[Quintillus]

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.

In the case in your second paragraph, you could always PM the moderator who closed the thread politely asking as to the reason. No guarantees on the reply, of course, but most of the moderators are pretty friendly, at least if you aren't the type that tends to rack up lots of infractions. And it's public discussion of moderator actions that isn't allowed, so you can send a private message asking about why a thread was closed.

I'm skeptical of the need for change since by and large CFC has worked well over the past 14 years. There are a few specific cases that I'd be curious about. But by and large, I think there'd be a not-insignificant risk of it devolving into essentially a flame-fest over infractions. Perhaps if there were strictly enforced rules around PDMA (while not completely outlawing it) it might work - i.e. if you flame the moderator who infracted you for flaming, you get triple the penalty or a short-term ban or something.

The other general problem seems to be that the people who want to allow PDMA often are the ones who feel aggrieved against due to some past moderator action. I think we've seen that a little bit in this thread as some of the posters have undermined their own argument to allow such discussions. What we really need is someone who is not going to be directly affected to come up with a good alternative that can be agreed upon (including by the moderators). Thlayi may be that person, or may not... we aren't in the same sub-forum often enough for me to know.

We can also see what has brought success or decline to other civilization game sites.

I think this is a good point. There are certainly examples of Civ forums that have been much looser with the regulations, and that has not always gone so well. Some were decent, but others became dens of trolling. I can't think of an example off the top of my head where looser PDMA regulations was a significant advantage for a Civ site.

 

[Winston Hughes]

Thinking out loud...

Could you have something like Thlayli suggests, but with massively increased consequences for any rule-breaking within the discussion thread, so that anyone who wanted to exercise the privilege of PDMA would have to be super-careful to stay within the rules, or risk a lengthy ban? (Kind of like how people get hit with contempt charges when they misbehave in court.)

 

[Kyriakos]

What about MDPA?

 

[ainwood]

here is a very long and painful thread on the subject, but there are a few relevant points made.

 

[Thlayli]

You have not addressed my points though. Ainwood.

Be straight with me - Are you contemplating reform or not? I have outlined a very clear pathway to improved accountability without sacrificing security. Will you engage with it?

 

[Loppan Torkel]

Whatever happened to Buster's Uncle in the former thread? He also had some ideas how to reform the moderation, then he disappeared...

 

[NinjaCow64]

Before we start getting into absolutes about having/not having reform, I wish to suggest some sort of compromise.

I have recently come under the impression that the standard practice for moderators when dealing with PDMA is to delete the posts and lock the thread for "cool down". Unfortunately, locking threads doesn't cool people down it makes people go offsite and start ranting and raving there. People get drawn to the locked threads, go offsite to ask what happened, get the angry version and you have an angry mob out for blood. I'm not only blaming the Moderators, when the users see things get deleted for PDMA, heck when they are posting PDMA, they are thinking with anger and don't think to follow the (admittedly complex) rules for moderator discussion.

Here's my proposed solution to both these issues:

Stop locking the threads when enforcing PDMA, instead purge the posts that were rule breaking and then post something akin to this in the thread: "Please do not publically discuss moderator action, please privately discuss moderator action in the way outlined by the rules". The encourages posters to read the rules and contact the moderators appropriately.

I don't nessecarily agree with the way PDMA is enforced but the Admins seem convinced of its virtues. I hope that this solution is a compromise everyone can agree on. The only downside is that moderators and admins inboxes might be filled with angry PMs about this-and-that but I don't doubt that happens already.

 

[Lefty Scaevola]

Whatever happened to Buster's Uncle in the former thread? He also had some ideas how to reform the moderation, then he disappeared...

The CFC Secret Ministry of Internal Security denies any knowledge of this incident.
I was not here, I did not post this.

 

[Camikaze]

Thinking out loud...

Could you have something like Thlayli suggests, but with massively increased consequences for any rule-breaking within the discussion thread, so that anyone who wanted to exercise the privilege of PDMA would have to be super-careful to stay within the rules, or risk a lengthy ban? (Kind of like how people get hit with contempt charges when they misbehave in court.)

One of the problems that I think might arise is that, if PDMA threads have rules of some sort which are enforced, discontent at actions will simply transplant itself to decisions made in accordance with those rules. If someone thinks they have a legitimate grievance, and we infract them for the manner in which they express it (currently that is publicly rather than privately), history shows they're not likely to be happy, no matter how obviously rule-breaking that expression of grievance may be. We can point to clear cut guidelines and say "look, it says right there that you can't do that", but the poster in question will still feel hard done by, because it would be viewed as cutting down what they believe to be a legitimate grievance. Changing the rules as to how such grievances can be expressed shifts the focus of discussion, but wouldn't remove the sense of injustice felt by the poster (no matter how unreasonable that feeling is). Instead of complaints about the initial action, there would be complaints about the way in which the PDMA thread was dealt with (and presumably action in these PDMA threads would not be contestable, so an attempt to contest it would be met with another response they won't like). So as far as the suggestion for a rules change is designed to relieve the sense of injustice felt by a poster in relation to an action against them, I think it would largely fail. Posters already have a private avenue to satisfy them that they've been dealt with fairly, even if they disagree with the rules which are being fairly applied. Some are nonetheless unsatisfied, but I'm not sure public PDMA threads would change that.

(Though I recognise that's not the only purpose - the effect on third parties is also relevant)

 

[Thlayli]

If that were truly the case, Camikaze, you should get rid of the opportunity to privately PM appeals to moderators too, since that's just displacing the initial anger of the infraction from the thread to the location of the PM, cluttering up mods' inboxes and giving them additional work. Same logic applies, really.

The point of PDMA threads is for forum members to have the opportunity to express disagreements with mod actions without having their posts wiped out of existence. A poster saying "I can't believe Mod X did this!" really doesn't pose any sort of threat to the moderator; he cannot rise up and cast him out of his position. If he decides to spam or insult the moderator his post can simply be deleted. Why delete it then? What benefit does it accrue but frustration?

PDMA honestly has no point in existing. The issue here is really moderator accountability. The current intent of the PDMA policy is to insulate and protect moderators, but it does so at the expense of the members of the community who are often upset and angry and deserve a place to publicly appeal moderator actions. As previously demonstrated, PDMA is like a shield for a man wearing an invincible suit of armor. It is unnecessary and 'protects' moderators from nothing except legitimate critiques of their actions. Abusive and insulting posts can easily be deleted in seconds anyway!

Repealing or limiting PDMA will, if nothing else, cause moderators to be more rationed in their discipline. Encouraging them to defend their actions will make them more likely to engage in dialogue. Obviously if someone is blatantly spamming or spouting hate speech, there will be no grounds for them to come into the PDMA thread and appeal it.

It costs the moderators nothing to revise this policy, and while it might not improve anything, it would at least show the forum that the moderation staff do not view themselves as overlords, but as partners in this community.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

Whatever happened to Buster's Uncle in the former thread? He also had some ideas how to reform the moderation, then he disappeared...

He's running his own forum these days. The emphasis is on Sid Meier's Alpha Centauri and Sid Meier’s Civilization: Beyond Earth. Other than myself, I don't know to what extent he still stays in contact with other people here. He did indicate that he is uninterested in engaging in any more CFC Site Feedback discussions, although that's something only he knows for certain.

 

[Winston Hughes]

(Though I recognise that's not the only purpose - the effect on third parties is also relevant)

Aye, I was thinking more about that transparency bit: allowing the rest of us to see that moderators are acting reasonably. As I mentioned above, finding out the details behind complaints against the mods gave me more sympathy for their decisions.

 

[ainwood]

You have not addressed my points though. Ainwood.

Be straight with me - Are you contemplating reform or not? I have outlined a very clear pathway to improved accountability without sacrificing security. Will you engage with it?

Noting that you haven't addressed all my points, either.

Ref your question: Not in the form presented, but I have been mulling over some ideas and may present them (to staff initially) once they've crystallised a bit more.

 

[Thlayli]

I appreciate hearing that and I look forward to seeing how it goes forward.

 

[North King]

Honestly, the obvious problem is the fact that if there's any accountability, it's completely invisible. People message moderators and it's as if the report goes into a memory hole. Some sort of way to track the progress of your complaint (received -> in discussion -> evaluated -> warning issued/post cleared) would go a long ways towards showing whether you've been ignored or actually given a fair look.

 

[Camikaze]

If that were truly the case, Camikaze, you should get rid of the opportunity to privately PM appeals to moderators too, since that's just displacing the initial anger of the infraction from the thread to the location of the PM, cluttering up mods' inboxes and giving them additional work. Same logic applies, really.

I wasn't meaning to suggest that posters shouldn't be able to appeal at all because they might still be unhappy, just that a managed PDMA system would seem unlikely to make them much happier. So such a system isn't particularly attractive at least to the extent that that is one of its supposed benefits.

The idea of accountability is an interesting one, because you seem to be describing it in terms of government (with democracy therefore being a crucial element). Perhaps unfortunately, as Lefty alluded to earlier, moderator power derives from Thunderfall's ownership and complete control over the site (exercised through 'site administration'). It's necessarily the case, then, out of the sheer quasi-fiduciary nature of a moderator position, that staff are accountable to site administration, and site administration alone. Now, that statement can superficially seem quite a harsh one, and probably needs some qualification to explain it fully. It's not saying that the staff should not care about the community, because site administration has prescribed that as the moderators' job. It would therefore be a misuse of our power, or an abuse of our position, to not act in the community's interest - but this is the community's interest as defined by site administration, and a failure to act in accordance with that definition would equally be a misuse of our power, or an abuse of our position.

And this is not something that can be changed as a matter of policy; it's simply a description of the nature of forum ownership. If we say that the public can vote in moderators, this still proceeds from the fact of site administration's control, not from some inherent sovereignty of members which would form the basis of site governance. Similarly, site administration could give more of their power over moderators to some group of members (including all members as a whole), but accountability would still ultimately lie with the site administration.

Working public accountability into that system, then, involves moderators being seen to be accountable to the site administration (not actually making moderators accountable to the public, which is a democratic notion). This is currently achieved through the site administration either publicly supporting moderators, or in relation to an individual action, by privately supporting that action through the appeals process. It could also be achieved through site administration publicly admonishing moderators, but I don't believe that's what's being proposed.

I don't think it could be contended that the moderators are not accountable to the site administration - the statements of support from site administration of the moderators make it perfectly clear that moderators are acting in accordance with what site administration wants. What is being asked for, then, is more control over site administration itself. That is, the issue is not moderator accountability, because it's clear that moderators are accountable to those who they are meant to be accountable to, unless it is contended that the site administration has lost control of moderators (by losing the password to the AdminCP, perhaps). The issue is rather who moderators are accountable to, with the request being that the community should at least partially take the place of site administration. Or alternatively, this could be phrased as a submission being made to site administration to reconsider what the community's interests are.

That's a fairly theoretical take on the 'can we please have PDMA' request, but I think it's important to recognise that allowing for PDMA threads doesn't actually make moderators any more accountable to members; you state this in a different way by saying that moderators would still have an 'invincible suit of armour'. It just means that things are explained publicly, which would hopefully make people happier. But if it's not making people happier (and this is the point of my previous post), then there's not much point to it.

Which in the end means the key question is whether third parties would be made happier by the presence of PDMA threads, and whether that happiness is worthwhile in the sense of being the most efficient way to achieve happiness with the limited time moderators have. For example, more time spent responding to PDMA leads to less time dealing with reported posts - are third parties made happier by moderators spending time on PDMA, or by having a report responded to? If PDMA threads were to make moderators more reluctant to deal with particularly litigious individuals, would this make people happier than a system which allows those people to be more easily dealt with? etc.