Moderation Policy and Board Controversy

[Architecht]

Discussion of Moderation Policy on Host Criticism

 

There are things that need to be balanced:

 

1. Basic good community practice of encouraging lively discourse

2. Enforcing some civility among individuals

3. Reigning in negative contributions that aren't constructive for the community, the hobby or CGC without chilling the entire discussion

 

While the CGC forums ARE a place for the community to wrestle with some tough collecting issues and try to come to some consensus, they are not a place for trying to villianize CGC in the process of working these things out. Drawing the line between constructive discussion that may include critical thinking about CGC and spleen venting negativity is not easy, but in the end I think there is a common sense difference.

 

We try to remain open and tolerant of critical comments and leave enough room for people to express their thoughts. . These boards are provided as a service for collectors to discuss general collecting topics. And yes, they're a valuable source of community and customer feedback that is (despite the sour notes of some) monitored and considered. However, the bottom line is that they are not provided as a service to support sentiments fundamentally contrary to CGC. And THAT is what's brutally difficult to moderate. Where is the line crossed from, "Ok this person is just expressing a concerned opinion," to "this person is trying to damage CGCs reputation"?

 

 

Quote:

________________________________________

 

 

CCG encourages free-thinking and open discussion of the hobby and our services among members of the boards, including constructive criticism. We value our members as part of a joint effort to protect and improve the collectibles market. We also expect our members to treat CCG with that same spirit. People who are only here to antagonize the companies and our customers will be asked to pursue those discussions elsewhere. While diverse views and alternative perspectives are needed and wanted here, the CCG boards are not the place for persistent agendas completely in opposition to CCG’s services.

[Architecht]

Moderation Policy in the Context of Restoration vs. Conservation

 

It's not really my place to address anything grading or policy related. So I won't. But I will say that I think the difficulty of addressing these topics is massively under-appreciated on these boards. Just look at the laundry list of interdependent issues entangled up as one unaddressable chunk in the minds of the vocal minority that clamors about these things.

 

In some sense, the role of a third party grader in the market is a lagging role. The market makes decisions about what's acceptable and what isn't, and the third party grader tries to keep a finger on that pulse and form practices and policies that meet the whole market's expectation; however, the grader must do so in a way that creates a viable business model that brings value to everyone involved.

 

Right now the community is erratic on these topics. Also, some of the "ideal world" solutions conceptualized to solve the "problems" (which are NOT universally considered "problems") are operationally non-viable. In the face of the moving target of collecting community sentiments and in a situation with a clear lack of consensus, isn't the job of a third party grader to move slowly and carefully while searching for consensus and best practices?

 

Meanwhile the alarmist reaction of some people to every possible grading discrepancy creates a witch-hunt mentality made far louder by the vocal minority. In the midst of this, I think some people lose sight of the enormous value that expert third party grading brings to collecting. How many books are in purple labels? How many collectors could have spotted that restoration themselves? How many MORE books are NOT in slabs because the owners know they'd end up with purple labels, and they'd rather try to pass them off raw? How much safer does that make buying slabs than buying raw? Shaking your finger at a few examples of books that might have slipped through does NOT in any sense negate the value here.

 

The bottom line here is that in my view what's really happening on these boards is the community trying to mature into understanding the benefits and limitations of third party grading, AND to develop a sense of what's appropriate in caring for the legacy of comics. I see parallels in the coin area for all of these "hot" issues in comics. The difference is that in coins, the collecting universe has already worked out standards on these things and the market has adapted to it. So when a grading discrepancy is found in a slabbed coin, it's noticed, it's commented on, it's sent back to the graders and it’s fixed. When a coin's grade improves because an expert conservationist removes the truly ugly toning, or a PVC spot there isn't an uproar about whether it's acceptable, because the collecting universe already has a basic feel for where those lines are drawn. These things are not treated like the end of the world... again. Why? Because time has proven that although there is variation in the grading process, there IS consistency, there IS integrity, and there IS value in it. AND because there is consensus in the community.

 

How does all of this apply to moderation and the tolerance levels set on these discussions? And thus, why am I sticking my nose in?

 

Well, it's simple. I feel that there is a certain amount of turmoil inherent in the process of the comic collecting community working these things out. In the course of that process there may even be some natural questions raised about how third party grading helps or hurts the controversial topics. The truth is that opinions on that will vary between those who come down "looser" on these topics than the current CGC standards, and those who come down "tighter". The debate between those groups is actually (I think) an unavoidable part of the maturation of the comic collecting market.

 

However, if in the mix of this internal "domestic dispute" among collectors an individual decides that for some crazy reason it's all CGCs fault -- YOU WILL NOT BE ALLOWED TO USE THESE BOARDS AS YOUR GRAND STAND ON THAT POINT. GO SOMEPLACE ELSE. IT IS HEALTHY TO ALLOW THE DEBATE, BUT IT IS NOT COMPATIBLE TO RUNNING A BUSINESS TO ENABLE AND SUPPORT IN ANY WAY VIEWS COMPLETELY CONTRARY TO THAT BUSINESS. So we aren't going to do it.

 

If you don't like CGC that's your prerogative, although I think time will prove that to be a minority position. Can you still participate on these boards? Sure. Just don't bring that part of your agenda here or you'll be asked to leave.

[Architecht]

 

Moderation Policy and Transparency of Policy Communication

 

 

 

Quote:

________________________________________

 

 

 

Can you give me the gist of what you said? I'm not gonna read all that!

________________________________________

 

 

The gist is....it's all our fault.

 

Actually, I still feel Arch...that a few well-timed answers at critical moments would have alleviated many of the concerns voiced.

 

And whatever they're paying you....it isn't enough.

 

Red

________________________________________

 

 

 

Yeah, you know I think that there are some places where more transparency in the process MIGHT (and I stress might) have been beneficial. But the reality of public discussion is that statements made publicly in a speculative, or "thinking out loud" or "tossing around ideas" mode will be seized upon by some portion of the public as fact, transmitted to others as fact, and then if they don't pan out will be show cased as a let down.

 

If the world were full of fully informed and thoughtful people, all of whom wanted to take the time to understand the nuances of the ongoing process of working towards good solutions... why then you'd want to be as transparent as humanly possible.

 

However, that's not the case. And it's not anyone's fault, really. It's just the reality of the human experience. It's bad practice to make "not ready for prime time" statements publicly, because correcting misconceptions or sending a clear message, when the message itself is not clear or static is HARD. So I think, particularly with such a charged topic, it's better to err on the side of caution.

 

Think of it this way. Greenspan didn't ever make unplanned or unready off the cuff remarks to the press about the economy, because he understood the possible effects. He only made statements with a purpose. These principles are fundamentally why you can sometimes get good information by calling CGC, but there will be no official public statement on the matter.

 

It's possible that here and there a less cautious and more open statement would be good. But finding those moments is ALSO HARD (and much easier in hindsight than foresight). I can tell you that the more knee-jerk the responses on these boards are the more closed the process becomes. Why? Because that's what makes sense to do!

 

When CGC avoids making outright statements on things, it's not because they're unaware of the "damage" that comes from not making a statement, it's because they ARE AWARE of the "damage" that CAN BE DONE by making pre-mature statements.

 

This may sound like a cop-out to some, and it's possible that there ARE and HAVE BEEN places where the risk of being more open is minor and the positive side is worth it - and those may be missed opportunities. But again at the risk of being repetitive...

 

"finding those moments is ALSO HARD (and much easier in hindsight than foresight)"

 

We're trying to be responsive and responsible without being reckless or setting up conditions that are bad for business and the collecting community. But you tell me... how long will it take the community to develop a sense of consensus on some of these issues? Because I would guess that you will find that clear statements of direction from CGC are married to that timeline rather than to each individual collector's sense of when CGC should react.