CF Reform being planned

[I'ddie4him]

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.



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.



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.



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.

So you think that accountability for the members is wrong ??
As for moderation, I was referring to the extent of the demands that have been made. Erwin has the right to do with CF as he wishes. I will not dispute that. I can't. But, A certain amount of diplomacy has to be exercised also when wanting some changes. Erwin is right to be upset about this. Pushing the buck to far is not going to net anything. Right ??

 

[Victory of the Cross]

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 , 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.

The old System works fine Erwin You do a great Job, Secrecy
and accountability need to co-exist,so that justice is done

 

[crazyfingers]

So you think that accountability for the members is wrong ??

Um... No. Please explain how you came to that conclusion based on my comments.

What I have suggested is that there is little that would impose accountability upon the staff without some transparency in terms of communicating a prevailing practice to the uses and making sure that one exists at all.

As for moderation, I was referring to the extent of the demands that have been made. Erwin has the right to do with CF as he wishes. I will not dispute that. I can't.

Have I suggested that Erwin doesn't have the right to dictate policy? I don't think so.

But, A certain amount of diplomacy has to be exercised also when wanting some changes. Erwin is right to be upset about this. Pushing the buck to far is not going to net anything. Right ??

I'm just one user on CF. An atheist. I highly doubt that what I alone say will have much if any influence on what Erwin decides to do. I strongly suspect that Erwin is hearing from a multitude of sources. Unless of course, you think that what I have to say is beyond dispute?

In any case, I realize that change usually doesn't happen overnight. Recall however that this all started when you claimed that warnings are based on facts. That claim was not correct. Warnings are based on interpretations of the rules. Until CF has a way of communicating a consistent set of interpretations of the rules to users, and until it has some checks and balances to ensure that there is a mechanism to cause there to be a prevailing interpretation of the rules, by whatever method, the problems that Erwin described will continue.

 

[Debi1967]

You must want to get this thread shut down for all the rest of the members of the board that want to ability to state their opinions as well here I see because it is more important to some of you to be right .......

 

[I'ddie4him]

Um... No. Please explain how you came to that conclusion based on my comments.

I asked about it and the point was glossed over and forgetton.

What I have suggested is that there is little that would impose accountability upon the staff without some transparency in terms of communicating a prevailing practice to the uses and making sure that one exists at all.

Accountability is fine for the staff, But, it also has to be in place for the members as well. Otherwise CF would be a free for all.

Have I suggested that Erwin doesn't have the right to dictate policy? I don't think so.

Where did I assert that you did ??

I'm just one user on CF. An atheist. I highly doubt that what I alone say will have much if any influence on what Erwin decides to do. I strongly suspect that Erwin is hearing from a multitude of sources. Unless of course, you think that what I have to say is beyond dispute?

Never said that either.

In any case, I realize that change usually doesn't happen overnight. Recall however that this all started when you claimed that warnings are based on facts. That claim was not correct. Warnings are based on interpretations of the rules. Until CF has a way of communicating a consistent set of interpretations of the rules to users, and until it has some checks and balances to ensure that there is a mechanism to cause there to be a prevailing interpretation of the rules, by whatever method, the problems that Erwin described will continue.

Warnings are based on fact. The fact that a member violated the rules. While a consistent interpretation of the rules is needed, Something I won't deny, Enforcement of rules is necessary for anything be it real society or a website. That cannot be denied. People cannot do whatever they want to with no fear of reprisals. If I were to seriously injure another, Should I be allowed to go free and not be punished according to the set rules ?? I think not. I would expect to be punished as the rules are set forth. If a mandatory term of confinement is called for, Who am I to expect preferential treatment ??
Anyone else for that matter ?? Fair is Fair.

 

[I'ddie4him]

You must want to get this thread shut down for all the rest of the members of the board that want to ability to state their opinions as well here I see because it is more important to some of you to be right .......

Who's debating ?? We are simply expressing our opinions about matters.

 

[Debi1967]

Who's debating ?? We are simply expressing our opinions about matters.

In debative fashion IMHO of course

 

[carmi]

.... This does not mean that jumping all over already taxed Mods and Admins is going to make this process go any faster ...

Well said.

.... 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...

Good point.

 

[loribee59]

In debative fashion

at least they're NOT slinging mud! to debate, one must disagree about a point, and present another point to make a point. I can see someone's point, but I respectfully disagree with it, and explain my position about that point.

but you're right... there are times when people cared about who's RIGHT, than about agreeing to disagree or being a friend.

 

[Debi1967]

What I have suggested is that there is little that would impose accountability upon the staff without some transparency in terms of communicating a prevailing practice to the uses and making sure that one exists at all.

This point I would like to say I agree with .... but I also agree with I'ddie4him

There needs to be accountabilty on both sides and it needs to fairly distributed

IOWs you have both made some very good points and both need to be examined and looked at ....IMHO

 

[I'ddie4him]

This point I would like to say I agree with .... but I also agree with I'ddie4him

There needs to be accountabilty on both sides and it needs to fairly distributed

IOWs you have both made some very good points and both need to be examined and looked at ....IMHO

Thank you for that kind comment debi. I think Erwin is wise to try to institute changes. Accountability and consistency are needed. But, This is a slow process. It will be a slow process. With that, I am done.

 

[Debi1967]

Thank you for that kind comment debi. I think Erwin is wise to try to institute changes. Accountability and consistency are needed. But, This is a slow process. It will be a slow process. With that, I am done.

You are quite Welcome and thank you for being as humble as you are right now ....

I realize that in a way what I just did may come across as trying to moderate between both of you.... But I am also trying to make sure we all have our say and no one gets into trouble in the wayside .... You took that with much Grace .... That is much appreciated as I am not a mod here at CF and you did not have to listen to me at all ....

 

[I'ddie4him]

You are quite Welcome and thank you for being as humble as you are right now ....

I realize that in a way what I just did may come across as trying to moderate between both of you.... But I am also trying to make sure we all have our say and no one gets into trouble in the wayside .... You took that with much Grace .... That is much appreciated as I am not a mod and you did not have to listen to me at all ....

Not a problem. I may be quite strong in my opinions and such at times, And I do need to exercise some restraint. Doesn't change what I feel, Just means that we can't always be right all the time.

 

[crazyfingers]

I asked about it and the point was glossed over and forgetton.

I'll accept that you concede the point.

Accountability is fine for the staff, But, it also has to be in place for the members as well. Otherwise CF would be a free for all.

Have I suggested otherwise? I have not suggested that users should not be accountable for their actions. All I have suggested is that accountability should to be consistent and in line with a well communicated prevailing practice. Otherise it is or will be seen to be arbitrary and subject to the whims of the the moderators.

Where did I assert that you did ??

By raising the issue in the first place perhaps?

Never said that either.

Then perhaps your comment "But, A certain amount of diplomacy has to be exercised also when wanting some changes. Erwin is right to be upset about this. Pushing the buck to far is not going to net anything. Right ??" was unnecessary?

Warnings are based on fact. The fact that a member violated the rules.

Once again, No. Warnings are based on the moderators' interpretations of the rules and whether a comment from a user was a violation. The issue is whether one moderators' interpretation is consistent with other moderators' interpretations; whether that interpretation is consistent across other cases and whether there exists a well communicated prevailing practice of interpretation on that rule or whether the judgment of the moderator is largely arbitrary.

As it is, there is little, by way of the current system, to know whether it is arbitrary or not. There is largely no mechanism to force a prevailing practice on the moderators or a system to communcate that to the users.

No system will ensure perfect consistency, however any system that strives for consistency of interpretation, and communication of that interpretation to the users at large, needs to have a mechanism to do that. I have not seem such a mechanism here.

While a consistent interpretation of the rules is needed, Something I won't deny,

Good. Then I suspect that you support changes that will create a mechanism that will tend to cause consistency in the interpretation of the rules? What better mechanism that a higher level of transparency?

Enforcement of rules is necessary for anything be it real society or a website. That cannot be denied. People cannot do whatever they want to with no fear of reprisals. If I were to seriously injure another, Should I be allowed to go free and not be punished according to the set rules ?? I think not. I would expect to be punished as the rules are set forth. If a mandatory term of confinement is called for, Who am I to expect preferential treatment ?? Anyone else for that matter ?? Fair is Fair.

The above comments appear to have nothing to do with anything that I have said and appear to suggest that have argued against those comments. I have not. The above appears to be a red herring.

 

[Debi1967]

Not a problem. I may be quite strong in my opinions and such at times, And I do need to exercise some restraint. Doesn't change what I feel, Just means that we can't always be right all the time.

I'ddie4him,
please take the advise of someone that would like nothing better at this point than to also nswer certain posts ..... DON'T just let it alone and leave it be

To all others in this thread

If you believe that this thread will not be shut you are mistaken

I have seen many threads shut and Erwin will not a have problem doing so should you provoke him enough .... Breaking the rules of this very section is quite enough provocation for him to summarily close this thread and then leave orders for all others like it to be shut down too ....

He is the site's Owner and it's creator He may do anything he wishes at anytime and although he is an extremely patient man and fair one at that, I have seen him lose it

Take this from a long standing member of this forum

 

[Rochir]

...a vocal minority of sqeaky wheels ...

I, and many others, are glad to be on a board where injustices can still be talked about and finally are not simply pushed under a rug! Personally, I find your characterisation of us quite uncalled for!

 

[starchild]

I, and many others, are glad to be on a board where injustices can still be talked about and finally are not simply pushed under a rug! Personally, I find your characterisation of us quite uncalled for!

In the US, a vocal minority of squeaky wheels got some great (if incomplete) changes for civil rights. Yay, squeaky wheels!

 

[Rochir]

In the US, a vocal minority of squeaky wheels got some great (if incomplete) changes for civil rights. Yay, squeaky wheels!

Well ... ok.

*SQUEAK - SQUEAK*

 

[Bradford]

MOD HAT ON

The debating has to stop, now. This is NOT a debate forum, and should not be treated as one! Please refrain yourself to polite dialogue.

 

[Miss Shelby]

I, and many others, are glad to be on a board where injustices can still be talked about and finally are not simply pushed under a rug! Personally, I find your characterisation of us quite uncalled for!

You have developed a penchant, both here and on another board, of taking things that I say out of context. I said in my comment that you quoted that it wasn't necessarily a bad thing.

Your apology is duly noted and accepted, whether or not you offer it.

Michelle