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

[ywhtptgtfo]

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

I am surprised they didn't. CFC is becoming like Paradox where the term "trolling" is thrown around too much. Part of the frustration here is that there is a vocal minority of touchy people who would label even the most trivial of negative comments as trolling.

 

[Luckymoose]

I am surprised they didn't. CFC is becoming like Paradox where the term "trolling" is thrown around too much. Part of the frustration here is that there is a vocal minority of touchy people who would label even the most trivial of negative comments as trolling.

The moderation staff loves to selectively apply rules. It must makes them feel good to mistreat us.

 

[ywhtptgtfo]

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.

Not every moderator is the same. Even if the majority of moderators are great, the bad behaviour of a minority can taint the reputation of the whole since people tend to focus on the negative actions more.

I try to remember that when I think of CFC moderators.

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.

Already did. In fact, one of the decision makers already commented on my posts. I wouldn't mind discussing the issue in public but then I can get banned for doing this.

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).

I used the term witchhunt because it fits the zeal at which the moderators/admins I dealt with in trying to go after perceived PDMA's and trying to mold non-PDMA materials into supposed instances of PDMA. And of course, that was apparently condoned.

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.

High-profiled slaps in the wrist are usually not taken well especially if done over minor trespasses. And as we can observe, CFC and Paradox moderators do that a lot.

A secondary observation takeaway from these moderator actions is that the moderators are more interested to achieve their goals by punishing rather than trying to diplomatically resolve an issue.

It doesn't mean all infractions are undeserved but I feel they are overused over scraps which, in turn, would irritate people unnecessarily.

The moderation staff loves to selectively apply rules. It must makes them feel good to mistreat us.

Despite your sarcasm, I wouldn't be surprised if a couple of them do. Trolls and moderators are not mutually-exclusive. After all, they are normal human beings just like the rest of us. I've participated in Wikipedia's editorial process from time to time and witnessed the trolling and rule-lawyering done by administrators there (but then again, Wikipedia admins are a different breed since it takes a lot of dedication and time to become one).

 

[ywhtptgtfo]

Does the infraction system need an overhaul?

Not really. What appears to be pissing people off is that some moderators are applying rules inappropriately and the private appeal process did not settle the differences.

 

[Luckymoose]

I wasn't being sarcastic. Some of them have in recent days broken their own rules, selectively applied them, and otherwise sided with some individuals over others.

 

[BvBPL]

If a public discussion of moderator actions is warranted then it should be conducted with an appropriate degree of civility, maturity, and respect, not just between posters and moderators, but also between posters.

Not every post in this thread is reflective of those qualities. This makes me cautious of the usefulness of such a forum for the rest of the community.

I bet most infractions are issued not because of per se violations of the rules, but because of posts that are hostile to other posters. There will certainly be occasions when a infractee raises an issue about an issue infraction and interested parties who believe they were harmed by the infractee's actions. Public discussion between the infractee, the moderators, and the allegedly harmed party, as well as any other interested parties, must be at a certain level for the public discussion to be useful and effective rather than aggravating relations. This will likely will require the development of new set of ground rules to govern such discussions.

This is to say nothing of the deference that, I feel, should be accorded to the moderators in these discussions. (Deference that I think should also be offered to allegedly harmed parties.)

 

[ywhtptgtfo]

I wasn't being sarcastic. Some of them have in recent days broken their own rules, selectively applied them, and otherwise sided with some individuals over others.

I haven't seen that yet but I have largely stayed off CFC these days. Your description does apply quite well for Paradox moderators though! The holier-than-thou attitude, selective ruling, no PDMA rule, and openly trolling posts (The moderator <snip by moderator>) comes to mind.

The only thing that's keeping those forums populated are the popularity of the current product, which is fueled by the virtual monopoly the company has over the niche market of historical grand strategy games.

If a public discussion of moderator actions is warranted then it should be conducted with an appropriate degree of civility, maturity, and respect, not just between posters and moderators, but also between posters.

The far majority of the forums on the Internet do not explicitly ban public discussions of moderator actions. I wonder how these forums survive these rowdy crowds of unruly forumites who are out for moderator blood.

 

[Zelig]

--Why you think that the infraction is wrong.

It was issued to me.

--What outcome you are seeking.

Monetary restitution?

IMPORTANT! - Please note that the requests of posters who persistently ask for a review for all, almost all, or most of their infractions (you know who you are) will not be granted, and those posters will generally be dealt with in the same manner as those who abuse the report posts function.

In what matter are people who abuse the report posts function dealt with?

The far majority of the forums on the Internet do not explicitly ban public discussions of moderator actions. I wonder how these forums survive these rowdy crowds of unruly forumites who are out for moderator blood.

Most forums don't have an infraction system, they just ban sufficiently sucky posters. Works great as long as your mod pool has good opinions on what qualifies as sufficiently sucky.

 

[Kyriakos]

I think we should have a Heliastic system where each month representatives of the distinct CFC tribes/castes serve as dikastai and epitropoi, and also there is an ostracism poll every now and then

And finally enforce some minor payment for the more prolific posters

 

[ywhtptgtfo]

Most forums don't have an infraction system, they just ban sufficiently sucky posters. Works great as long as your mod pool has good opinions on what qualifies as sufficiently sucky.

Yes, that's true.

On a related note, the contention against PDMA also stems from discontent over what appears to poor enforcement decisions being made.

I think we should have a Heliastic system where each month representatives of the distinct CFC tribes/castes serve as dikastai and epitropoi, and also there is an ostracism poll every now and then

And finally enforce some minor payment for the more prolific posters

Careful Kyriakos, Greek spamming can be the next infractable offense. If not, your post can be construed as "spamming" because it is at risk of being "unconstructive".

 

[Takhisis]

Of course, people who have studied history get his reference instantly even if they are not Greek or do not speak Greek.

 

[Buster's Uncle]

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

I've been tending to my own knitting.

I simply do not have time for people who make everything impossible - getting involved with CFC is akin to living in the waiting room at the DMV, and I have too many responsibilities running my own place, where people are treated with respect, to waste time continuing ramming my head into the CFC wall.

There's actually a long -and probably very interesting, in the context of this discussion- narrative of the pattern of shoddy treatment I've endured from the management here, and especially the immediate circumstances of my giving up on this argument about a year ago, but I may not relate the relevant details, per the very rule under discussion. Recommended Reading: Catch 22 by Joseph Heller.

The sad part of this is that the word's not getting put out at CFC about SMACX goodies available - I wasted too much energy a few months ago trying to talk peace to these guys a few months ago, only to be pretty much ignored. There are limits, and I'm not a masochist.

Sorry - I tried, but my time and energy is better spent elsewhere.

 

[ywhtptgtfo]

Of course, people who have studied history get his reference instantly even if they are not Greek or do not speak Greek.

It was a tongue-in-cheek post.

The sad part of this is that the word's not getting put out at CFC about SMACX goodies available - I wasted too much energy a few months ago trying to talk peace to these guys a few months ago, only to be pretty much ignored. There are limits, and I'm not a masochist.

Sorry - I tried, but my time and energy is better spent elsewhere.

"I'm not a masochist". Well said.

 

[Takhisis]

It was a tongue-in-cheek post.

Same.

 

[peter grimes]

High-profiled slaps in the wrist are usually not taken well especially if done over minor trespasses. And as we can observe, CFC and Paradox moderators do that a lot.

...

A secondary observation takeaway from these moderator actions is that the moderators are more interested to achieve their goals by punishing rather than trying to diplomatically resolve an issue.

A slap on the wrist is a privately messaged warning - something the rest of the community would never see because it's, well, private. You assume that we don't pursue 'diplomatic' means towards our desired ends but that's simply not true. The vast majority of my moderator interactions with members is through PMs. Unless you get a PM from me you'd never know that. So from your point of view all you see is the public stuff. It's biasing your perception.

I'm not saying we can't me more diplomatic - but we only resort to punishments (points, temp-bans, permaban) when diplomatic methods have proven ineffective.

We're not idiots, you know.

 

[ywhtptgtfo]

I'm not saying we can't me more diplomatic - but we only resort to punishments (points, temp-bans, permaban) when diplomatic methods have proven ineffective.

My last post for this week.

I did see moderators acting without infractions but that's usually associated with thread closure (which can occur without warning and are occasionally questionable) or steering a thread back to topic.

But as for warnings, I'd say every personal warning experienced by me or people I correspond with privately was always accompanied with an infraction and a public declaration in red text. That's regardless of the severity of the offense. So no, there were no diplomacy witnessed. At least not by us. Given the discontent shown by numerous others, it seems unlikely for these to be isolated incidents.

We're not idiots, you know.

No need to be defensive, since that's never been put to question.

 

[Luckymoose]

But as for warnings, I'd say every personal warning experienced by me or people I correspond with privately was always accompanied with an infraction and a public declaration in red text. That's regardless of the severity of the offense. So no, there were no diplomacy witnessed. At least not by us. Given the discontent shown by numerous others, it seems unlikely for these to be isolated incidents.

This is absolutely true.

 

[Seon]

I'm not saying we can't me more diplomatic - but we only resort to punishments (points, temp-bans, permaban) when diplomatic methods have proven ineffective.

We're not idiots, you know.

I'm sorry, but I am calling bull on that. I have never witnessed the CFC moderation staff resort to diplomacy other than very few isolated cases regarding very few moderators. Vast majority seems to choose to infract and punish rather than try to moderate.

 

[Kyriakos]

I would like the moderation to be more openly nepotistic, as long as i am being favored.

 

[brennan]

It is looking increasingly as though the people agitating for change just want to be able to get away with breaking the rules. I for one am not surprised the mods are not particularly interested in taking part in such a discussion.