Well, that's your choice, isn't it? It's not like there wasn't any effort to accommodate people who want to discuss classical paintings and sculpture and post pictures of them. I helped formulate the A&E guidelines, and will point out that I went beyond my personal comfort zone in some instances, for the benefit of the forum members who are interested in that specific subject matter.
I'd love to have a lolcat-themed thread in OT but if I started one, I suspect it would promptly get shoved off to "Humor & Jokes" with a lot of other stuff that to me is either uninteresting, incomprehensible, or offensive. So both of us exercise our choices: You don't like A&E, and I refuse to post in H&J. So neither of us gets what we want.
……. The no PDMA policy prevents threads from being hijacked by... PDMA.
……. one of the primary reasons I keep coming back (for nearly a decade now) is that the moderation here is excellent and encourages a far higher quality of polite discourse than any other forum I know of.
If the goals are increased transparency of moderator thought and action and an increase in the dialog between staff and members, what other ways can those be achieved than by a PDMA thread?
Does the infraction system need an overhaul?
Do the forms used to communicate infractions need more information on them or be more structured?
Should the staff forum thread that keeps a running list of all infractions have a public version?
Should the "reported posts" thread have a public version so everyone can see what reports are discussed and how decisions are made?
What does transparency look like to you all? Is a PDMA solution the only one?
What if there was a thread where members could only post questions about moderation actions. They couldn't comment. If a question was directed at a specific mod, they would be obligated to answer it to the best of their ability.
There are lots of ways to let members have a peek behind the curtain. We just have to find the ones that will work here.
BTW, the best solution is also the simplest if we would let ourselves: a conversation between friends. Because such a conversation is difficult when emotions run high and fingers get the better of us, we have to create more complex structures to account for all the times we let ourselves go astray.
It's entirely reasonable to want and to argue for things to be different, but it strikes me that what infuriates you is that the site owner doesn't share your particular (political) views on what is and is not acceptable behaviour. Without going into specifics, I found that the most significant problems with regards to PDMA centre on people thinking that disagreement with site policy gives them the right - or, indeed, the responsibility - to break site rules. Consequently, when brought up on their rule-breaking, some such individuals would respond by quite deliberately breaking even more rules, and perhaps trying to incite others to do likewise.
Given the enormous number and diversity of sites on the internet for discussion of any and every topic, the unreasonable case lies with the users who demand a particular website conform to their standards as a condition of their remaining rule-abiding, rather than the website which demands users conform to its rules as a condition of their continued participation.
I should also add that your experience of site rules protecting people whose views you see as reprehensible is not limited to people who share your own political views. I imagine most of us who've spent time posting on contentious topics have felt like that at one time or another. However, a review of the discussions taking place in OT at any given time will reveal a huge range of opinion from perspectives many and various, from far-left to far-right and across whatever other axes one might like to imagine. This is surely demonstrative of the site rules doing what they are supposed to do, and being inclusive, even of people who might regard each other's beliefs as beyond the pale. Anyone who can't handle that kind of diversity is looking for discussion in the wrong place, and, happily, is not short of other options.
I have zero interested in reform to the existing PDMA.
All public discussion will encourage is people trying to skirt the line by using past statements as precedent. Infracted posters will look to what has (and has not) received violations in the past and what actions were taken on those violations. People will try to suss out black lines of what is and what is not permitted. This will result in parties crying foul when they believe they were within the lines.
This is not the appropriate way to handle moderation. Moderators should be encouraged to judge the individual need for intervention on a case by case basis, rather than relying solely on an inflexible number of must and mustn't dos. (Of course there are still black lines, profanity and such) This permits the moderator to take into account not merely the content of the post in question but also the context around it.
That and any pubic discussion will assuredly be run over in useless, wasteful noise that distracts moderators from actually moderating.
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.
This simply isn't true. I've been told to correct actions in the past because I got it wrong. The people involved all knew that I corrected my mistake(s) and generally were very polite and forgiving.
But of course if you weren't the person involved you wouldn't hear about it. So I can easily understand why this impression persists.
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.
...
As it stands, PDMA only serves bad moderators by enabling their bad behaviour without repercussions. If the staff members are afraid that flame-wars regarding moderator actions will hijack the flow of a thread, they can easily follow the suggestions here and make all PDMA activity exclusive to this forum (with links permitted).
If you think that a moderator is behaving badly then the proper course of action is to appeal the infraction to a SuperMod. I try and always remind the member of this avenue.
The restriction on PDMA doesn't allow us to get away with witchhunts - it keeps the site civil (at least that how I see it).
Instead of gently giving out a warning or private message, they tend to write red texts to scold and infract at the slightest perceived offense. It is as if their objective is to rub things in other people's faces rather than to moderate the flow of discussions.
This is interesting to me. I do this a lot, but I didn't know that it wasn't helpful to the thread. I thought it was a good idea because it informs the other people in the thread that we've taken some action on a problematic post and simultaneously reminds people of what not to do. That it could be seen as insulting hadn't occurred to me. Thanks for pointing this out.
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.
That frustration can be expressed quite emotionally in a Private Message without sparking trainwrecks of threads, as I see it. I've gotten my fair share of angry tirades (not as many as some of the staff, , but if the message had been posted publicly the person would have been instantly banned for a week. I'd say the current system allows more of a release of frustration - it's just done in private. But remember that the system as it stands is not in place to protect Mods so much as it is to protect order and civility since, as you correctly note, we don't need protection from you.
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.
This is a good point. I'd much rather be told directly that something I did was interpreted in a way I didn't intend it than have someone rail against me without any chance to defend myself - or hear their valid and reasonable point of view. If I don't get a PM asking about why I did something then I'll have know idea that I pissed someone off.
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 something that's really hard to deal with, just know that these sorts of posts generate quite a lot of discussion behind the veil. It's always hard to decide which 'fringe' view crosses a line, and which criticism of the view is not directed at the person. These are the fuzzy edges of the line, and obviously the cause of a lot of perceived injustice. Add in the fact that the membership is fairly international but the site is US-based.
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.
That's the way things tend to work in my experience. Someone who rarely crosses the line won't get an infraction from me, but a warning or even just a friendly PM. But if it's someone who's problematic posting has resulting in numerous recent points, then they have lost the benefit of the doubt and will be treated more and more severely in an effort to encourage them to change their posting habits. We really don't want to see people put on bans - but sometimes their posts are simply too disruptive.
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.
Quoting for truth. I think it's easy for people to forget that we're not here to squelch discussion, we're here to foster a civil environment where discussion can flourish.
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?
I think this is somewhat of a false choice because right now you can have a discussion with mods about something via PM. Even if there were relaxed PDMA there's no way a frustrated member be able to let go with an insult-filled tirade, so they'd have to do that off-site anyway.
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....
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.
You may be right about the only people "punished" by the rule are civil members and mods who are falsely accused of bad actions. But remember that the PDMA rule protects the tone of the site, not mods. As you've rightly mentioned above, we don't need to be protected from the members since the members can't censure us.
SpoilerThlayli'sProposed PDMA Rules :
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.
Regarding these changes I personally could work in that framework for a trial period. But I'm the new guy here I think some of the criticism of your language will be in how gentle it is - discouraged from posting PDMA in other areas, etc. Me replying to this should not in any way be construed to mean that I'm advocating for it or publicly supporting it. I'm just expressing my opinion that I wouldn't quit Moderating if this were tried out.
This simply isn't true. I've been told to correct actions in the past because I got it wrong. The people involved all knew that I corrected my mistake(s) and generally were very polite and forgiving.
But people read a thread, see that someone was ridiculously -in their view- infracted, then the next time they click on 'go to first unread post' and the lifting of said ridiculous points is not witnessed. BING! Reputation of moderation team goes down.
peter grimes said:
That frustration can be expressed quite emotionally in a Private Message without sparking trainwrecks of threads, as I see it. I've gotten my fair share of angry tirades (not as many as some of the staff, , but if the message had been posted publicly the person would have been instantly banned for a week. I'd say the current system allows more of a release of frustration - it's just done in private. But remember that the system as it stands is not in place to protect Mods so much as it is to protect order and civility since, as you correctly note, we don't need protection from you.
And those private exchanges contribute to secrecy -no third opinions- and have been abused by moderators in the past who've just piled more infractions on someone they didn't like in the first place.
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.
Why? Based on my infraction history I could be characterized as person like that - if I'm only getting one infraction per year, it's completely irrelevant to me whether it's a 0-point warning or a 6-point infraction.
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.
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)
This is interesting to me. I do this a lot, but I didn't know that it wasn't helpful to the thread. I thought it was a good idea because it informs the other people in the thread that we've taken some action on a problematic post and simultaneously reminds people of what not to do. That it could be seen as insulting hadn't occurred to me. Thanks for pointing this out.
The question, as before, is whether or not there will be any concrete changes to a clearly flawed system, or whether institutional inertia will allow this to die down like it has in every previous case.
The question, as before, is whether or not there will be any concrete changes to a clearly flawed system, or whether institutional inertia will allow this to die down like it has in every previous case.
I am frequently confrontational and sarcastic, and on occasion outright insulting to some posters, but I have zero permanent infractions despite my occasional resort to name calling so I can't say as I have much sypathy for people who do.
Secondly, i'm not convinced that the mods will just outright ban someone merely for topping an arbitrary threshold after several years. There's a difference between a short-term member who has been racking up the red cards and someone who is close to the edge (whatever it is) after a dozen years. The mods know that and I have to say that based upon past performance I trust them not to do anything crazy.
But people read a thread, see that someone was ridiculously -in their view- infracted, then the next time they click on 'go to first unread post' and the lifting of said ridiculous points is not witnessed. BING! Reputation of moderation team goes down.
Do the forms used to communicate infractions need more information on them or be more structured? No
Should the staff forum thread that keeps a running list of all infractions have a public version? No, it would doubtless contain far to many uninteresting examples and may encourage finger pointing
Should the "reported posts" thread have a public version so everyone can see what reports are discussed and how decisions are made? No, as above
What does transparency look like to you all? Is a PDMA solution the only one? No, I think more public information on specific decisions (such as appeals) is a better solution that offers a good balance
What if there was a thread where members could only post questions about moderation actions. They couldn't comment. If a question was directed at a specific mod, they would be obligated to answer it to the best of their ability. That's the sort of thing, yes.
This is actually something where a PDMA thread could be of some use. There's a lot of drama from time to time, about infractions and unfair moderation, although usually, you only see aftermatch. While there's no actual need, from me at least, for greater transparency, it could benefit the mods too to be able to show the 'ridiculous infraction', if the infracted wanted it.
I highly recommend asking Garb, Grn, or any other higher-ups about the whole process if there are any questions floating around in your head. They're all pretty cool guys and would be happy to help out another forum. TWC also employs a local moderator system (in which I take part) where community members of a subforum can act as first responders to any incidents and generally give the red name guys a much easier time with site management.
A appeal forum section would be useful indeed for both ensuring accountability and to control any... counter unjust counters by ensuring a area which can enable judgement to be set in notion. A mod or a group of mods would of course have to be appointed high judges. It would also allow a continuation of the threads the issue is set towards. The forum could be set to enable those who are banned to be able to post their concerns. That said we would have to ensure this is not exploited for spammy, trollish or other "not taking the point appeal" actions.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
, but if the message had been posted publicly the person would have been instantly banned for a week. I'd say the current system allows more of a release of frustration - it's just done in private. But remember that the system as it stands is not in place to protect Mods so much as it is to protect order and civility since, as you correctly note, we don't need protection from you.
I think some of the criticism of your language will be in how gentle it is - discouraged from posting PDMA in other areas, etc. Me replying to this should not in any way be construed to mean that I'm advocating for it or publicly supporting it. I'm just expressing my opinion that I wouldn't quit Moderating if this were tried out.
I could not see any of the appeal threads since I am not a member, but the process is well explained.
