CF Reform being planned

[thereselittleflower]

Then why are warnings overturned on a regular basis?

Who are the lucky ones who get warnings overtuned on a regular basis? I would really like to know!




Peace

 

[thereselittleflower]

This is an announcement, why has it got 94 repplies most are useless?

Becaues this one isn't useless and it is something that strkes a nerve with MANY here at CF.


I am happy to hear this is being done . . .

Thank you Erwin.

 

[Debi1967]

Thanks debi. I hear what you are saying. I have never suggested that there is no room for change. (In fact, in my work on staff, I believe that I have attempted to be an agent for positive change and continued care of members.) Nor have I stated that there is a conspiracy. However, statements like those continue to be made about me in other places on the internet, and I am a bit weary of them.

I am very sorry that you have encountered this behaviour from people as I have always found you to be fair .....

Also I am indeed saddened to see that you are no longer on Staff as I thought that you were indeed a very highly respected member of the staff here in my book....

 

[thereselittleflower]

Well come on over!! There's room for more! heehee... that's so funny!

LOL


Peace

 

[Debi1967]

There are LOTS of members not complaining at all. One could safely deduce it's because they don't have a problem with the moderating or if they do it's not something that they let run their lives. THEY are in the majority.

Michelle

Michelle
I am sorry I have to agree this time with TLF....To deduce this is incorrect, as is evidenced in this thread alone ...

Then on top of that, it would be a serious rule 7 violation even if one did so effectively even if we did have issues of the sort that you are saying with Moderators and Mod Actions that we could still do nothing about then we cannot vioce them in the forum ... And no one said that it runs someone's life, but it does not mean that when we are members we have to sit back either and just deal with what is arbitrarily dealt to us .... We should be able to voice our concerns as well.

 

[Miss Shelby]

I think it is a serious error think one can safely deduce such a thing . . .




Peace

No I still think my observation is accurate and that a vocal minority of sqeaky wheels are now getting their grease. Nothing wrong with though, I guess.

Michelle

 

[Debi1967]

No I still think my observation is accurate and that a vocal minority of sqeaky wheels are now getting their grease. Nothing wrong with though, I guess.

Michelle

A squeaky wheel still needs to be fixed .....

 

[Annabel Lee]

I plan on making some radical changes to CF moderation and the appeals process.

I am still discussing this with some people and senior staff.

These changes will please some and upset others. However, I anticipate that the changes will overall address the issues of accountability, transparency and clarity being raised by some members. It will involve a rethink of how the whole system works really.

These changes will not happen overnight, and will take time to implement.

I thank you for your patience. We are not perfect and we have our internal issues, and I apologise for this. There is plenty of room for improvement and I am aware of this.

Bear with me as I find out the best way to do this.

Thank you so much.

 

[ChristianPoet05]

I, for one, think this site is alright, but maybe there is room for improvement....hmmmm. Guess I've never thought about it.

 

[B®ent]

Will there be any change in the new ''only post bland & generic posts or you'll get a warning" rule that sprouted up in the last half of last month?

 

[Chrysalis Kat]

This is an announcement, why has it got 94 repplies most are useless?

Obviously 93 replies disagree with your 'premiere' post on CF Alice.

 

[crazyfingers]

Warnings are not issued based on assertions, They are based on fact.

I disagree. Warnings are not based on fact. Warnings are issued based on the Moderators' interpretation of a general rule as applied to a specific case. There is no getting around that fact that moderators must interpret a rule if they are to attempt to enforce it.

Under the system as it currently stands, with a private appeals process and where most "violations" are deleted or hidden, users here have essentially no way to know whether the moderator giving the warning is interpreting a given rule with any consistency or whether that moderator interprets the rule in a way that is consistent with how other moderators interpret the rule. There is also no way to know whether the moderator or moderators interpret the rule in a consistent way across different cases.

The bottom line is that warnings are not based on fact. They are based on interpretations. And the system provides no feedback on whether any particular interpretation of the rules is consistent with policy and prevailing practice. Actually, the system as it now stands, provides little to no feedback on what the prevailing interpretation on any given rule actually is or whether a prevailing practice exists at all.

 

[CaDan]

I disagree. Warnings are not based on fact. Warnings are issued based on the Moderators' interpretation of a general rule as applied to a specific case. There is no getting around that fact that moderators must interpret a rule if they are to attempt to enforce it.

Under the system as it currently stands, with a private appeals process and where most "violations" are deleted or hidden, users here have essentially no way to know whether the moderator giving the warning is interpreting a given rule with any consistency or whether that moderator interprets the rule in a way that is consistent with how other moderators interpret the rule. There is also no way to know whether the moderator or moderators interpret the rule in a consistent way across different cases.

The bottom line is that warnings are not based on fact. They are based on interpretations. And the system provides no feedback on whether any particular interpretation of the rules is consistent with policy and prevailing practice. Actually, the system as it now stands, provides little to no feedback on what the prevailing interpretation on any given rule actually is or whether a prevailing practice exists at all.

Precisely.

You must adminstrate a site or something.

 

[I'ddie4him]

I disagree. Warnings are not based on fact. Warnings are issued based on the Moderators' interpretation of a general rule as applied to a specific case. There is no getting around that fact that moderators must interpret a rule if they are to attempt to enforce it.

Under the system as it currently stands, with a private appeals process and where most "violations" are deleted or hidden, users here have essentially no way to know whether the moderator giving the warning is interpreting a given rule with any consistency or whether that moderator interprets the rule in a way that is consistent with how other moderators interpret the rule. There is also no way to know whether the moderator or moderators interpret the rule in a consistent way across different cases.

The bottom line is that warnings are not based on fact. They are based on interpretations. And the system provides no feedback on whether any particular interpretation of the rules is consistent with policy and prevailing practice. Actually, the system as it now stands, provides little to no feedback on what the prevailing interpretation on any given rule actually is or whether a prevailing practice exists at all.

Then I guess we can agree to disagree on this. When a post blatantly violates the rules, It is based on fact. Right ??

Further, When a member does this repeatedly, and the previous warning record shows that. It is based on fact, Correct ??

When a member is warned for something that blatantly breaks a rule and continues the actions despite warnings, It is fact. Right ??

I have been on that side of the fence and I have seen it many times. Any rule can be interpreted different ways.

When it is spelled out in concrete terms and it is apparent that the post broke the rules, The member will feel differently. That is a given in any situation and is completely normal to see this.

However, When a member repeatedly takes advantage of a loophole, It is to be expected that that loophole be patched and the member be warned for it after doing so again later. Right ??

For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.
Meaning, You break the rules, You get warned or edit requests or whatever the case may be. What happens is our fault for violating the rules. No one elses. Accountability is such a big concern for the staff, How about accountability for the members as well ??

Fair is Fair.

 

[Chrysalis Kat]

Crazyfingers, I hope and pray that Erwin takes advantage of your practical and positive knowledge while he's in reconstruction mode. He needs to hear from those like you that are outside of 'staff' yet can bring in so much value if allowed to do so.

 

[crazyfingers]

Then I guess we can agree to disagree on this. When a post blatantly violates the rules, It is based on fact. Right ??

Further, When a member does this repeatedly, and the previous warning record shows that. It is based on fact, Correct ??

When a member is warned for something that blatantly breaks a rule and continues the actions despite warnings, It is fact. Right ??

I have been on that side of the fence and I have seen it many times. Any rule can be interpreted different ways.

When it is spelled out in concrete terms and it is apparent that the post broke the rules, The member will feel differently. That is a given in any situation and is completely normal to see this.

However, When a member repeatedly takes advantage of a loophole, It is to be expected that that loophole be patched and the member be warned for it after doing so again later. Right ??

For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.
Meaning, You break the rules, You get warned or edit requests or whatever the case may be. What happens is our fault for violating the rules. No one elses. Accountability is such a big concern for the staff, How about accountability for the members as well ??

Fair is Fair.

You've missed the point entirely. The point is that there is no way for your hypothetical user to know whether the rule is being applied to him or her in a way that it is consistent with how it is applied to others. And there appears to be no mechanism which ensures that a rule as applied to one person is applied to others in the same way.

 

[fyodoros]

so, what changes can we look forward to? what specifically?

 

[I'ddie4him]

You've missed the point entirely. The point is that there is no way for your hypothetical user to know whether the rule is being applied to him or her in a way that it is consistent with how it is applied to others. And there appears to be no mechanism which ensures that a rule as applied to one person is applied to others in the same way.

I did not miss your point, I have been there and done that too. It has been said MANY times that before a warning is issued, There is a concensus based upon the staff from that forum. Why is this hard to understand ??
Erwin has already expressed his displeasure after posting about this reform. If this keeps escalating, He might just say the heck with it.
Can a little bit of moderation also be used in what is being asked for ?? This is gonna have to be done in baby steps, Not giant leaps and bounds.

 

[crazyfingers]

I did not miss your point, I have been there and done that too. It has been said MANY times that before a warning is issued, There is a concensus based upon the staff from that forum.

First, there is no way to know that. Second, if such a consensus exists, it is not communicated to the users overall, only to the user in question and in private. Third, there remains no way to know if a consensus in one case is consistent with a consensus in another case. There remains no way to know if a prevailing interpretation of a rule exists and if it does, what it is.

Why is this hard to understand ??

Understand what you say? Not hard.

To accept that a prevailing interpretation of a rule is communicated to the users overall and to accept that it is applied uniformity? No. I know of know reason to accept that because I know of no mechanism by which such a prevailing interpretation of the rule would be communicated to the users overall or any mechanism which would cause a prevailing interpretation to exist, without transparency.

Erwin has already expressed his displeasure after posting about this reform. If this keeps escalating, He might just say the heck with it.

I am not sure what you are talking about. While I have not read all posts in this topic, most of what I have seen has been fluff or off-topic. I doubt that Erwin would have started this topic if he didn't expect on-topic comments. As it is, I think that the comments in his OP were quite good.

But, I was responding to your post, not the OP.

Can a little bit of moderation also be used in what is being asked for ?? This is gonna have to be done in baby steps, Not giant leaps and bounds.

Moderation in describing the problem? No. I don't think that there is any particular need to whitewash the problem that exists. I think that the problem is clear. There is largely no mechanism to communicate prevailing practice to the users and there appears to be no mechanism to ensure that there is a prevailing practice at all. Accountability and opacity are not generally compatible.

 

[Debi1967]

Ladies and Gentlemen in all the time that I have been here I have seen many changes take place on this forum but one thing I do also know is that ERWIN does not like this either ....

So now, considering I am and Administrator of my own Website let me give you some insight as well .... In fact it is MY WEBSITE (not CF)

Although I too would like to see changes and I am advocating them as well .... This does not mean that jumping all over already taxed Mods and Admins is going to make this process go any faster ...

Unfortunately with all rules and regulations there it is an area where due to a persons outlook it is up to the person to interpret what the meaning of it is .... Every situation is not a standard sitaution and therefore if you try to standardize the sitautions then you also get yourself into bigger problems down the line too... This is from and Administrative point of view .... That means that if someone has done something outside of the box then I am trapped by the box I made .... You cannot expect that they will trap themselves like that ... We have way too much DIVERSITY here to do that....

It might help everyone here if you posted your suggestions but then also for the others ........ let others have the right to their opinion !!!!! Then let the Staff decide what they want to do and not want to do witht he input recieved from the members ...

But I can tell you that it is not going to be recieved well if it is debated over