Poll troll

[Allrule]

http://forum.nationstates.net/viewtopic.php?f=20&t=15432&start=25
Every option is the same thing; OBAMA IZ EBIL KOMMYOONIST!!11!!!!!!11!!!
Yeah.

[Reploid Productions]

The poll's been removed; and I do believe Melkor has already bopped the OP over the head for the troll poll. And apparently I'm on a rhyming roll.

[Melkor Unchained]

Yeah, I came across that one shortly after I woke up this morning. I was under the impression that the OP was okay but that the poll... wasn't, so much. I had to wait for some other mods to log in to get another opinion, because I wasn't sure whether I should warn/lock or whatnot. However, it seems to have spawned a legitimate and mostly civil debate, so we were inclined to leave the OP up but Rep took down the poll and I issued a warning for it.

[Allrule]

The poll's been removed; and I do believe Melkor has already bopped the OP over the head for the troll poll. And apparently I'm on a rhyming roll.

I have an ominous feeling we're going to see more of this from NM in the coming weeks...

[New Mitanni]

The poll's been removed; and I do believe Melkor has already bopped the OP over the head for the troll poll. And apparently I'm on a rhyming roll.

I have an ominous feeling we're going to see more of this from NM in the coming weeks...

You don't have that long to wait, pal.

Since when is there a policy requiring "positive" responses in a poll? I've seen many a poll without any such responses, and many, many polls that I would characterize as "not adding anything to the discussion" that haven't drawn complaint, let alone Moderation action.

This thread, with its poll, was intended to be critical of the Obama regime. Are you now saying that critical threads are barred from polling?

And the third option was clearly positive: deliberate choice. Or are you suggesting that characterizing Jones and Obama as leftists is somehow "unequivocally negative"? You may dispute the characterization, but I see no connection between the two.

And how is "who cares?" negative? Especially when the rest of it supports the appointment? Sarcastic, maybe. Negative? Come on.

And where the heck does "LG appointed them" fit into all this? Negative?

MU, looks to me like you've been unduly influenced by Obamunist whining. I'd expected better from you.

So, do I need to start monitoring polls now, and run to Moderation citing this new "fair and balanced" polling policy in the future?

[Melkor Unchained]

NM, like I said, the topic and OP were fine, but the poll (since it was a debate thread) was seen as a little over the top. There wasn't really any way to answer it without looking like an asshole; I concluded that it was included only to polarize/annoy, which is basically what trolling is.

As for your "Deliberate choice" defense, even that was loaded with rhetoric to the effect that it was a "radical choice of a radical regime." If you want to include a poll in your OP, room should be made for people who may have actually agreed (for whatever reason) with the appointment and accordingly aren't outraged by the man's beliefs/practices or Obama's. Strictly speaking, a poll doesn't technically have to "add to the discussion" (since people rarely discuss their results in the thread anyway) but they should at least be pertinent and offer a decent spectrum of options. Yours was pertinent, but lacked said spectrum.

That said, it's just a warning, it's no big deal. Considering I've been your advocate in the past (and even overturned a prior warning against you) I should hope you would understand that I wouldn't have done this without good reason.

[New Mitanni]

NM, like I said, the topic and OP were fine, but the poll (since it was a debate thread) was seen as a little over the top. There wasn't really any way to answer it without looking like an asshole; I concluded that it was included only to polarize/annoy, which is basically what trolling is.

As for your "Deliberate choice" defense, even that was loaded with rhetoric to the effect that it was a "radical choice of a radical regime." If you want to include a poll in your OP, room should be made for people who may have actually agreed (for whatever reason) with the appointment and accordingly aren't outraged by the man's beliefs/practices or Obama's. Strictly speaking, a poll doesn't technically have to "add to the discussion" (since people rarely discuss their results in the thread anyway) but they should at least be pertinent and offer a decent spectrum of options. Yours was pertinent, but lacked said spectrum.

That said, it's just a warning, it's no big deal. Considering I've been your advocate in the past (and even overturned a prior warning against you) I should hope you would understand that I wouldn't have done this without good reason.

Don't think I don't appreciate your advocating on my behalf, I do, even if I sometimes seem a bit snarky (it's that hot-blooded Italian thing again ). But as I'm sure you realize, I have become very sensitive about any Moderation action, in view of past history, which I've mentioned previously. I really did not think the poll in issue was even borderline actionable or I wouldn't have created it. I've been trying to exercise due diligence about avoiding infractions (whether or not some people believe that).

I'll leave it at that. Next poll will just include an "I agree" option or some such.

[Melkor Unchained]

NM, like I said, the topic and OP were fine, but the poll (since it was a debate thread) was seen as a little over the top. There wasn't really any way to answer it without looking like an asshole; I concluded that it was included only to polarize/annoy, which is basically what trolling is.

As for your "Deliberate choice" defense, even that was loaded with rhetoric to the effect that it was a "radical choice of a radical regime." If you want to include a poll in your OP, room should be made for people who may have actually agreed (for whatever reason) with the appointment and accordingly aren't outraged by the man's beliefs/practices or Obama's. Strictly speaking, a poll doesn't technically have to "add to the discussion" (since people rarely discuss their results in the thread anyway) but they should at least be pertinent and offer a decent spectrum of options. Yours was pertinent, but lacked said spectrum.

That said, it's just a warning, it's no big deal. Considering I've been your advocate in the past (and even overturned a prior warning against you) I should hope you would understand that I wouldn't have done this without good reason.

Don't think I don't appreciate your advocating on my behalf, I do, even if I sometimes seem a bit snarky (it's that hot-blooded Italian thing again ). But as I'm sure you realize, I have become very sensitive about any Moderation action, in view of past history, which I've mentioned previously. I really did not think the poll in issue was even borderline actionable or I wouldn't have created it. I've been trying to exercise due diligence about avoiding infractions (whether or not some people believe that).

I'll leave it at that. Next poll will just include an "I agree" option or some such.

Fair enough; but remember that you still only have the one. We have posters still around with more; that shouldn't be taken as license to toe the line or what-have-you, but just to put things into perspective. A good rule of thumb with polls (if it's meant to supplement the debate) is to go for the "One Through Five" scale; where you have "Strongly agree" on one side, "Meh" in the middle, and "Strongly disagree" on the other side. You can word them (for the most part) however you like, as long as they comprise a decent spectrum.

[Ryadn]

I know this isn't my issue, but I can't sit by and not say anything. This entire exchange is one big "hey, you know I always protect you from the angry libruhls, try to keep all your trolling down to a level where I can argue it away (or just overturn it)". Is that what Moderation is about, now--looking after particular individuals instead of the forum as a whole? I can tell you that as someone who has witnessed NM's inflammatory invective many, many times, I am really disheartened that it appears an extra effort has been made to keep him 'out of trouble'. Unless I've missed something, and everyone is entitled to have their own Mod to advocate for them---is there somewhere we can sign up?

[Melkor Unchained]

Gotta love NS. I rule against a conservative for trolling, and yet still manage to be accused of being biased towards them. All I said was that NM had been falsely accused in the past, and that i overturned a warning of his that was unjustified (and no, we don't make a habit of doing that unilaterally. I sought second and third opinions and can provide them if you're inclined to question my integrity any further). His "inflammatory invective" has either been (somehow) unreported or it's no more partisan than the Bush-bashing we justifiably allowed from 2003-2008. If you have something you think he should be warned for, link to it. Don't just content yourself to intone I'm still operating with a conservative agenda and leave it at that.

[Ryadn]

:roll:

Gotta love NS. I rule against a conservative for trolling, and yet still manage to be accused of being biased towards them. All I said was that NM had been falsely accused in the past, and that i overturned a warning of his that was unjustified (and no, we don't make a habit of doing that unilaterally. I sought second and third opinions and can provide them if you're inclined to question my integrity any further). His "inflammatory invective" has either been (somehow) unreported or it's no more partisan than the Bush-bashing we justifiably allowed from 2003-2008. If you have something you think he should be warned for, link to it. Don't just content yourself to intone I'm still operating with a conservative agenda and leave it at that.

My comment has absolutely nothing to do with your ruling; it has to do with the conversation between you and NM in this thread. I am not 'intoning' that you're operating with a conservative agenda. I find it disturbing that you count yourself an advocate of NM; your word, not mine. He has been reported to moderation, several times, though probably not as often as he's reported others. I couldn't give you the exact figures---I don't keep score, and I've made maybe two reports to moderation in my entire tenure.

To summarize: it was not your ruling that disturbed me, it was your advocacy for an individual poster who is no stranger to vitriol and controversy.

[Scolopendra]

In Melkor's defense, both Reploid and I concurred with smacking NM for the poll. We (Reploid and I) generally don't agree with Melkor on anything political. Since before certain recent events we've been talking in back rooms about how to better standardize and we're trying to put that into practice.

Ryadn: If Melkor wants to have unpopular 'friends' on this board, that's his choice. As a moderator, his ruling is all that matters and if you have no complaint with his ruling and therefore no complaint with his actual duty, we're done here.

As for the advocacy, that was in internal discussion with the rest of the (mostly liberal-leaning) moderation staff in dealing with our biases. To that, we are thankful to Melkor. It was nothing personally having to do with NM and, to be honest, I think you assume too much in saying it is.

[New Mitanni]

Well, I thought this was resolved by MU, but it looks like R wants to make things personal.

My comment has absolutely nothing to do with your ruling; it has to do with the conversation between you and NM in this thread. I am not 'intoning' that you're operating with a conservative agenda. I find it disturbing that you count yourself an advocate of NM; your word, not mine.

Mel and Rep have both dealt with this canard, but "advocating" for a position that I argued and that ultimately proved correct is no basis for complaint, disturbance or anything else. R's position smacks of petulance.

He has been reported to moderation, several times, though probably not as often as he's reported others. I couldn't give you the exact figures---I don't keep score, and I've made maybe two reports to moderation in my entire tenure.

Now that's a real laugh, considering that R is one of those who have tattled to Moderation about me, both here and back on Jolt. Once because she was bent out of shape about one of my previous sigs (a complaint Moderation rightly rejected), and once again when I sent her a private message about the subject, which upset her delicate sensibilities, for little apparent reason (My exact words: "There's plenty more where that came from. Get used to it." ). Let's see, that's twice, so that must be R's "entire tenure." Oops, forgot this one, so that makes more than R's entire tenure. Whereas, to the best of my memory, I have never sought Moderation about her, for the simple reason that ever since her signature gripe I have ignored her.

And if R wants to make accusations based on numbers of complaints (a statistic of questionable significance, I might add), I suggest that she actually do some research and back up her words.

To summarize: it was not your ruling that disturbed me, it was your advocacy for an individual poster who is no stranger to vitriol and controversy.

That's the biggest laugh of all, and a better instance of a pot calling a kettle black I haven't seen in years.

In conclusion, I suggest R re-read her own previous post. The one about how this isn't her issue.

[Ardchoille]

We've had complaint, discussion, ruling on the original topic (the poll). We've also had complaint, discussionand ruling on the second topic (Ryadn re "advocacy" by mods/Scolo's response).

There's also been discussion in this forum about when to lock threads. In my opinion, to let this one continue when the emotional temperature is rising and inflammatory language is being used would only lead to it becoming more directly personal and unduly inflamed.

The option to reopen of course remains, should any other mod feel enough time has gone by to allow tempers to cool.