What do & don't you like about CFC forums?

[Sonereal]

I like the conversation system 90% of the time, but do wish there was BCC.

I wished there had been some more warning before the migration because I lost something things with the social groups went up in smoke, but I was less affected by this than some others.

I like that the forum has managed to maintain its niche in the Civilization ecosystem despite the rise of alternatives like the 2K Forums (lol) and the Civilization subreddit.

 

[God of Kings]

I like that the forum has managed to maintain its niche in the Civilization ecosystem despite the rise of alternatives like the 2K Forums (lol) and the Civilization subreddit.

CFC is still better maintained than either. The 2K Forums lack weekend moderation and /r/civ can get toxic at times.

 

[Sonereal]

That's why I put the (lol) after 2K. The forum there just isn't that good.

I agree with you about /r/civ.

 

[Goliht]

To be honest, I'm not really liking the direction of cfc now, used to be a great site and forum, but lately it's gone severely downhill, seems like the metoos and sjws are making an impact and what used to be open, honest discussion is now, say what we want or we'll just lock your threads. ie it's going the same route of steam and 2k, ea and so on.

I've found I've started using alternative forums like discord servers, because they're still honest. Haven't really posted much in cfc, can't see that improving.
That's my tuppence. I've only been registered since 2015 tho I watched the forums long before that, never decided to join it. Now I wonder if it's really worth my time.

As for swearing, sex, drugs, death.. these subjects don't bother me, the only thing I object to is direct accusation. ie petty namecalling. Like "troll" or "fanboy"

 

[God of Kings]

@Goliht

You prefer a more laissez-faire approach to moderation, in which mods only remove spam posts? There's a reason why Reddit, YouTube, Facebook, and Twitter are toxic and that's not only because of progressives.

You said that you oppose direct accusations, but you complain about "progressives?" You complain about progressives, yet you have no problem with the alt-right?

Well then, political correctness isn't restricted to progressives.

Thank the mods. And no, not all CivFanatics mods are politically liberal.

 

[earlc]

I only started posting here after Civ VI was released and we were speculating about the DLC civs. I like it. I like that it's not a cesspool of ignorance and hatred, that in general people seem to have a conscience and broader awareness and are actually interested in history and all the real-world topics Civ covers. I assume that's largely because of the moderators, because every now and then something absolutely vile makes it through before it can be removed. But even so, it's a lot less frequent here than other gaming communities (typically cesspools) and general internet communities (typically cesspools). And frankly if that type of person is getting chased away, there's nothing lost at all... besides maybe the humor in seeing someone being hysterically over-sensitive about purported over-sensitivity, but that gets old too.

If I try to find something negative, it does seem like the off-topic moderation gets a little too strict sometimes. I understand not wanting threads derailed and that usually seems to be where intervention happens, but there also seems to be times where the organic flow of conversation is a little stifled.

 

[God of Kings]

I only started posting here after Civ VI was released and we were speculating about the DLC civs. I like it. I like that it's not a cesspool of ignorance and hatred, that in general people seem to have a conscience and broader awareness and are actually interested in history and all the real-world topics Civ covers. I assume that's largely because of the moderators, because every now and then something absolutely vile makes it through before it can be removed. But even so, it's a lot less frequent here than other gaming communities (typically cesspools) and general internet communities (typically cesspools). And frankly if that type of person is getting chased away, there's nothing lost at all... besides maybe the humor in seeing someone being hysterically over-sensitive about purported over-sensitivity, but that gets old too.

If I try to find something negative, it does seem like the off-topic moderation gets a little too strict sometimes. I understand not wanting threads derailed and that usually seems to be where intervention happens, but there also seems to be times where the organic flow of conversation is a little stifled.

I strongly agree. After all, a community is as good as its moderation.

There are many interesting discussions. For example, we made a few thousand posts about speculating the next civs for Rise & Fall, as well as learning about the fascinating cultures of those civs (the inclusion of the Cree for example led to awareness of the Canadian government's poor historical treatment of Chief Poundmaker, and thanks to the Civ community, Poundmaker will be officially exonerated). However, sometimes, discussions can get stifled by the mods, but it's all for the greater good. It means that mods are doing a great job.

Sure laissez-faire modding leads to honest discussions, but often, these "honest" discussions are really toxic and not really things one can say in a crowded public square without coming home physically injured or worse. For example, calling the Cree "lazy Indians" is not exactly civil or constructive, as that is considered ignorant and hateful at best and is very hurtful if uttered in front of a Cree, especially one who grew up in the Residential School system. Me, I want to see Poundmaker's legacy fulfilled and I consider the Cree a great nation that happened to be abused by the Canadian government for the longest time. The Cree are generally not lazy and they are neither ethnically related to Gandhi nor to Chandragupta. I have much great respect for the Cree.

Losing a potential member due to issues with the perceived "over-sensitivity" of the community is not really a loss. There are many other avenues for that, in the form of other Civ communities, in the form of other gaming communities, and in the form of other general Internet communities, and I have an honest discussion about all of those alternatives. Those other avenues are toxic at best, filled with such vile ignorance and hatred towards others.

CivFanatics is a very diverse community, with people of various backgrounds from all around the world. With diversity comes the need for greater moderation.

Those who complain about diversity are generally those who prefer a closed community. Closed communities often have no room for fresh perspectives.

I am very tolerant. Just not the intolerant.

Thank you CivFanatics and thank the mods at CivFanatics for their hard work and dedication making this community the way it is.

 

[Birdjaguar]

I was a moderator for 5 years and I think things improved right after I left. Moderating CFC OT is a challenge, and the volunteer staff who take on that work do struggle for a consistent message. During my tenure the staff forum was often beleaguered with discussions about how to align very different moderating styles and goals. Right now I think things are going pretty well. My only concern is that there seems to be a very high turnover among moderators that I see active in OT.

 

[God of Kings]

I was a moderator for 5 years and I think things improved right after I left. Moderating CFC OT is a challenge, and the volunteer staff who take on that work do struggle for a consistent message. During my tenure the staff forum was often beleaguered with discussions about how to align very different moderating styles and goals. Right now I think things are going pretty well. My only concern is that there seems to be a very high turnover among moderators that I see active in OT.

It would be interesting if the staff-only forum(s) have guidelines for proper moderation. Practically every message board has such a forum.

 

[Birdjaguar]

It would be interesting if the staff-only forum(s) have guidelines for proper moderation. Practically every message board has such a forum.

If you mean do admins moderate the staff forum, yes they do. Or at least they did while I was on staff. Moderators are just regular posters who have been elevated. Discussions regarding posters are usually open and frank as they should be. When moderators couldn't agree or disagreed, we would rely on the admins to sort things out. While I was on staff, for the most part the staff worked pretty well as a team.

And there is also an admin forum where the admins can talk about problem staff in private.

 

[Hygro]

Right now I think things are going pretty well. My only concern is that there seems to be a very high turnover among moderators that I see active in OT.

I think that's a good thing. I wish more of it.

 

[Birdjaguar]

I think that's a good thing. I wish more of it.

There is a learning curve to moderating and, I think, a discovery period during which new mods find out if they want the job. Unless things have changed, team building is part of it. I think that for OT it takes time to find ones comfort zone about how to do things. Some don't. If the turnover is too high, I think that consistency gets lost and quality declines. I haven't been a part of staff for a few years now, so it might be different now, but people don't change. It's like any new job and finding one's place in the mix takes time. If the turnover is too fast, too many tasks will fall on the old timers and the odds of failed responses will increase. Stability among the moderators and other staff is important to keep the ship sailing in the right direction. What are the advantages you see in more turnover?

 

[Synobun]

He spends less time reading moderator actions from people he doesn't like.

<3 u haygro

Anyways, speculating on turnover is mostly a crapshoot for those not in-the-know. Unless you specifically know the person leaving the team and they tell you why they left, all you have are assumptions.

It's generally a good idea to not assume that they simply couldn't, or didn't want to, handle the responsibilities of the job itself. It's far more likely that other circumstances apply more than any potential dislike of the gig. I won't speak for any of the moderators who have recently taken a step back, especially since none of them have actually left the mod team, but for myself I can say that I left CFC's staff because of my health. It was beginning to impede my ability to respectfully interact with members during conflicts, and that automatically eliminates me from being worthy of the position. I could do my job but I could not do it at a standard that I personally wanted to hold myself to. I don't believe in maintaining a title if I don't have a clear idea on when I would be able to sufficiently return to 'duty'. So for me, the decision was simple to make. Should I get 'better' and should they want me back, that's definitely something I'd be amenable to. But that, of course, requires the former before the latter ever becomes relevant.

On the subject of turnover itself, I'm not sure it's much to feel anything over as long as the job keeps getting done. Which it is, much to LM and Arakhor's credit.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

What are the advantages you see in more turnover?

There are a couple of advantages.

The first is that when somebody has been on staff for years and years and years, there's a risk of becoming so entrenched in "my turf" that new ideas or solutions are simply shot down out of hand.

The second is that staff forums can become safe havens and I've noticed on a number of forums over the years that some moderators and admins just become so comfortable there that they stop interacting with people in the public parts of the forum unless they're wearing their staff hat. That's something that can affect morale to the extent that the staff who do this are seen as unapproachable.

 

[Ryika]

What are the advantages you see in more turnover?

More people can give it a try and see if they can handle the job.

And it confirms that the users are still doing their jobs. Because if the moderators feel comfortable in the position, then we've become weak.
Users shall never be fully tamed.

 

[Birdjaguar]

More people can give it a try and see if they can handle the job.
And it confirms that the users are still doing their jobs. Because if the moderators feel comfortable in the position, then we've become weak.
Users shall never be fully tamed.

If one of the goals of this site is to educate and train users to be moderators, then you might have a point. My understanding is that the goal of the staff is to maintain a stable website that meets the standards that Thundefall has set. Since moderators and staff are all volunteer positions, the member base is a great place from which to recruit those folks, but having to continuously recruit and train is a drain on already scarce resources of time. Your "weak" comment sounds more political than based in the practical reality of what it takes to keep a site like this functioning. Moderators should feel comfortable in their position. If they aren't then there is a problem at some level. Perhaps they are not suited for the position, not a team player, have a different philosophy about moderating, too lazy, don't have enough time, don't want to learn how to do what needs to be done, picked on by other staff, too bossy, etc. Being a moderator here is like having a second job with no pay, but real responsibilities. When people are uncomfortable in a job (for whatever reason) they tend to perform worse because they get focused on their discomfort rather than the job.

 

[Akka]

I have some pie-in-the-sky complaints (especially that people aren't infracted when playing dumb, but that'd require more of a "debate arbiter" than a "moderator" position), but overall, despite butting head with some moderators from time to time, I think that guidelines are more "natural" than strict rules and I can accept the "variable" factor coming from the idiosyncrasy between individual moderator and enforcement.

The only two things I really dislike are :
- The "like" system. We're lucky to have a community educated enough to temper the worst of the system, but it's still pretty annoying as a concept.
- Most of all, the utterly childish approach to swearing. It's just ridiculous and often feels embarrassing. I don't like excessive swearing, but acting like if swearwords which are commonly used in the workplace are some sort of explosive device is just facepalm material.

 

[Noble Zarkon]

Most of all, the utterly childish approach to swearing. It's just ridiculous and often feels embarrassing. I don't like excessive swearing, but acting like if swearwords which are commonly used in the workplace are some sort of explosive device is just facepalm material.

This is a family friendly site for discussion, swearing adds nothing to a discussion and I'm glad it's not allowed here. I've worked all over the world in different industries and in every workplace I've been in swearing would be frowned upon. I don't know anyone amongst my friends or family who swear either (I mean as routine - if someone hits their thumb with a hammer that's different!). I'm sure there are lines of work or particular cultures that would have a very different story but that's my experience so I just don't get the desire to swear as part of a discussion.

 

[Sonereal]

in every workplace I've been in swearing would be frowned upon.

Work the kitchen at a pizza parlor.

It isn't so much that swearing it frowned upon, but swearing is frowned upon. A lot of forums where swearing is acceptable in discussions tend to devolve into a contest in who can strategically drop f-bombs. CFC OT is already cancerous and god forbid people didn't have to wash their mouths out before launching into a tirade about migrants.

 

[schlaufuchs]

There's swearing conspicuously and there's swearing insultingly. Those are bad, I agree.

Then there's having to actively censure my speech because the Media standards still haven't quite caught up with particles that have become standard in everyday speech.

I mean [intensifying particle] c'mon, it's [intensifying particle] ridiculous that this [generalizing pronoun] is still banned in 2018!