*NEW* Moderation: now with discussion!

[Lunatic Goofballs]

It was much earlier on - 10 days in fact - and we've been repeatedly encouraging people to make proper use in all the time since then.

This is a discussion thread, btw. Not a report thread. Kindly keep it within that framework, thank you.

I wasn't making a report.

It also wasn't in the framework of a discussion thread.

[Bezombia]

I wasn't making a report.

It also wasn't in the framework of a discussion thread.

If my post wasn't "in the framework" of this thread, then neither was Kat's. My post was a simple response to what he/she said.

[Dread Lady Nathicana]

It also wasn't in the framework of a discussion thread.

If my post wasn't "in the framework" of this thread, then neither was Kat's. My post was a simple response to what he/she said.

No, it was bringing up yet another incident for 'why isn't this' which ought to be a report, if it's valid. Which it isn't. Bezombia, if you are only here to clutter the thread and bring up report-style issues, kindly stop posting and go make a report of it. We'll deal with it there.

If you have anything actually constructive to offer however, please do so and dispense with the rest. Thank you.

[Bezombia]

I've removed the parts of the post that link to other threads in Moderation. Good now?

[Esternial]

If you guys would prefer, I can make a separate thread for OSRS suggestions. Might help keep things nice and seperated.

[Lunatic Goofballs]

It also wasn't in the framework of a discussion thread.

If my post wasn't "in the framework" of this thread, then neither was Kat's. My post was a simple response to what he/she said.

Well, we are under instructions to remove posts that don't fall in the framework. If we do so, we may remove Kat's post along with the rest of the exchange. The whole exchange involves specific instances.

In the meantime, let's try to get back into the framework of a Discussion thread. These are for constructive GENERAL ideas to improve moderation and not to discuss or analyze specific instances that have already happened.

[Dread Lady Nathicana]

Esternial, if you have a specific bit you want looked at, create a report thread for it, please. We went through the entire OSRS last year, took in everyone's comments, criticisms, suggestions, and compiled it into the shortened version we have now.

We were told originally it was 'too long and complicated' and held too much information. Now we're being told the opposite. It's a no-win that way.

However if something simple needs clarified, fine and well. We'll take a look at it on an individual basis.

[Bezombia]

If my post wasn't "in the framework" of this thread, then neither was Kat's. My post was a simple response to what he/she said.

Well, we are under instructions to remove posts that don't fall in the framework. If we do so, we may remove Kat's post along with the rest of the exchange. The whole exchange involves specific instances.

In the meantime, let's try to get back into the framework of a Discussion thread. These are for constructive GENERAL ideas to improve moderation and not to discuss or analyze specific instances that have already happened.

That should be written down somewhere. Preferably, if we're being told that we can't link to specific instances in threads like this, it would be useful to explain exactly where we can do that, other than flat out reporting it.

[Caninope]

If my post wasn't "in the framework" of this thread, then neither was Kat's. My post was a simple response to what he/she said.

Well, we are under instructions to remove posts that don't fall in the framework. If we do so, we may remove Kat's post along with the rest of the exchange. The whole exchange involves specific instances.

In the meantime, let's try to get back into the framework of a Discussion thread. These are for constructive GENERAL ideas to improve moderation and not to discuss or analyze specific instances that have already happened.

But for what it's worth, he was trying to analyze a specific instance within the context of a larger idea, that of bad faith and spamming moderation. Mentioning specific instances should be fine when placed in the context of a larger discussion.

[Esternial]

Esternial, if you have a specific bit you want looked at, create a report thread for it, please. We went through the entire OSRS last year, took in everyone's comments, criticisms, suggestions, and compiled it into the shortened version we have now.

We were told originally it was 'too long and complicated' and held too much information. Now we're being told the opposite. It's a no-win that way.

However if something simple needs clarified, fine and well. We'll take a look at it on an individual basis.

So a report thread would suit this better?

Thanks, Nathi.

To clarify and repeat what I said before, though: I'm not adding information, aside from a single sentence.

[Lunatic Goofballs]

Well, we are under instructions to remove posts that don't fall in the framework. If we do so, we may remove Kat's post along with the rest of the exchange. The whole exchange involves specific instances.

In the meantime, let's try to get back into the framework of a Discussion thread. These are for constructive GENERAL ideas to improve moderation and not to discuss or analyze specific instances that have already happened.

That should be written down somewhere. Preferably, if we're being told that we can't link to specific instances in threads like this, it would be useful to explain exactly where we can do that, other than flat out reporting it.

From Page 1:

Discussion Threads
Discussion threads are for informal chat about moderation processes, including rules, rulings, and policies. The purpose of a discussion thread is to share ideas for making the NationStates forums a better place. In a discussion thread:

• Anyone may post.
• Opinion is welcome.
• A topic prefix is not required.
• Reports about specific incidents should not be made. If you require a ruling about an incident, please start a report thread instead.

Moderators are free to participate in discussion threads, but they aren't interviews where players ask mods questions. Instead, as in the Technical forum, discussion threads are for players to raise ideas and share opinions with each other about how to improve NationStates for all. While mods and/or admin may contribute to those discussions, they don't have to.

That's it for the bare rules! For a longer discussion of WHY and some context and explanation, please see the following post.

[Bezombia]

That should be written down somewhere. Preferably, if we're being told that we can't link to specific instances in threads like this, it would be useful to explain exactly where we can do that, other than flat out reporting it.

From Page 1:

Discussion Threads
Discussion threads are for informal chat about moderation processes, including rules, rulings, and policies. The purpose of a discussion thread is to share ideas for making the NationStates forums a better place. In a discussion thread:

• Anyone may post.
• Opinion is welcome.
• A topic prefix is not required.
• Reports about specific incidents should not be made. If you require a ruling about an incident, please start a report thread instead.

Moderators are free to participate in discussion threads, but they aren't interviews where players ask mods questions. Instead, as in the Technical forum, discussion threads are for players to raise ideas and share opinions with each other about how to improve NationStates for all. While mods and/or admin may contribute to those discussions, they don't have to.

That's it for the bare rules! For a longer discussion of WHY and some context and explanation, please see the following post.

So, even in the context of "raising ideas and sharing opinions with each other about how to improve NationStates for all", past threads posted in Moderation cannot be linked to, or else the post suddently becomes a report, even when the poster wasn't actually trying to report anything?

[Caninope]

That should be written down somewhere. Preferably, if we're being told that we can't link to specific instances in threads like this, it would be useful to explain exactly where we can do that, other than flat out reporting it.

From Page 1:

Discussion Threads
Discussion threads are for informal chat about moderation processes, including rules, rulings, and policies. The purpose of a discussion thread is to share ideas for making the NationStates forums a better place. In a discussion thread:

• Anyone may post.
• Opinion is welcome.
• A topic prefix is not required.
• Reports about specific incidents should not be made. If you require a ruling about an incident, please start a report thread instead.

Moderators are free to participate in discussion threads, but they aren't interviews where players ask mods questions. Instead, as in the Technical forum, discussion threads are for players to raise ideas and share opinions with each other about how to improve NationStates for all. While mods and/or admin may contribute to those discussions, they don't have to.

That's it for the bare rules! For a longer discussion of WHY and some context and explanation, please see the following post.

There's a pretty distinct difference between discussing or linking to a previous discussion or ruling and trying to report an infraction or make an appeal, LG.

[Lunatic Goofballs]

From Page 1:

So, even in the context of "raising ideas and sharing opinions with each other about how to improve NationStates for all", past threads posted in Moderation cannot be linked to, or else the post suddently becomes a report, even when the poster wasn't actually trying to report anything?

If you intend to post examples that helps illustrate a constructive improvement that's one thing. But a discussion thread is NOT the place to go back and re-analyze moderator decisions for two reasons: First, because they aren't Report threads, and second, because Discussion threads aren't intended to be a question and answer session between players and moderators. If moderators participate here at all, it's intended to be as players ourselves.

[Caninope]

So, even in the context of "raising ideas and sharing opinions with each other about how to improve NationStates for all", past threads posted in Moderation cannot be linked to, or else the post suddently becomes a report, even when the poster wasn't actually trying to report anything?

If you intend to post examples that helps illustrate a constructive improvement that's one thing. But a discussion thread is NOT the place to go back and re-analyze moderator decisions for two reasons: First, because they aren't Report threads, and second, because Discussion threads aren't intended to be a question and answer session between players and moderators. If moderators participate here at all, it's intended to be as players ourselves.

They aren't intended to be q&a sessions I understand, but we can only suggest rule changes once we understanding the reasoning of the current rules.

I cannot, for instance, understand what exactly is "bad faith", and before we go any further with a discussion on it, it'd be nice to know what it actually is.

[Lunatic Goofballs]

From Page 1:

There's a pretty distinct difference between discussing or linking to a previous discussion or ruling and trying to report an infraction or make an appeal, LG.

True, but both discussing or analyzing specific previous instances and making reports or appeals are BOTH contrary to the purposes of a Discussion thread.

So, let's generalize and be constructive: Do you think the 'bad faith' metric needs to be re-examined?

[Caninope]

There's a pretty distinct difference between discussing or linking to a previous discussion or ruling and trying to report an infraction or make an appeal, LG.

True, but both discussing or analyzing specific previous instances and making reports or appeals are BOTH contrary to the purposes of a Discussion thread.

So, let's generalize and be constructive: Do you think the 'bad faith' metric needs to be re-examined?

Yes, partly because I don't actually know what it is.

[Esternial]

True, but both discussing or analyzing specific previous instances and making reports or appeals are BOTH contrary to the purposes of a Discussion thread.

So, let's generalize and be constructive: Do you think the 'bad faith' metric needs to be re-examined?

Yes, partly because I don't actually know what it is.

I agree, or at the very least that whenever it is used as a reason to dismiss a post/warn someone the Mod adds motivation as to why this particular poster was deemed to be posting in bad faith.

I thought it merely enveloped posts/content made with malicious intent, but as I've learnt this is not true.

[Dread Lady Nathicana]

Yes, partly because I don't actually know what it is.

I agree, or at the very least that whenever it is used as a reason to warn someone the Mod adds motivation as to why this particular poster was deemed to be posting in bad faith.

If you are here seemingly only to stir up trouble, to rehash resolved and closed incidents/reports/etc to your own ends, to post inappropriately or in the wrong place under new clarified guidelines, to add nothing substantive to the current discussion, to only criticize baselessly or otherwise post in a manner unconducive to problem-solving, reporting, or suggestion-giving, it will probably be considered 'bad faith' and as such, removed. This is on a case by case basis, and is likely discussed behind the scenes by several or more moderators when it is done, and as always - it is recorded in the logs for reference and review.

Not all that difficult to understand, really.

[Esternial]

I agree, or at the very least that whenever it is used as a reason to warn someone the Mod adds motivation as to why this particular poster was deemed to be posting in bad faith.

If you are here seemingly only to stir up trouble, to rehash resolved and closed incidents/reports/etc to your own ends, to post inappropriately or in the wrong place under new clarified guidelines, to add nothing substantive to the current discussion, to only criticize baselessly or otherwise post in a manner unconducive to problem-solving, reporting, or suggestion-giving, it will probably be considered 'bad faith' and as such, removed. This is on a case by case basis, and is likely discussed behind the scenes by several or more moderators when it is done, and as always - it is recorded in the logs for reference and review.

Not all that difficult to understand, really.

Yes, all that is obvious, but what about content that is intended as (perhaps a bad attempt at) humor?

[Dread Lady Nathicana]

If you are here seemingly only to stir up trouble, to rehash resolved and closed incidents/reports/etc to your own ends, to post inappropriately or in the wrong place under new clarified guidelines, to add nothing substantive to the current discussion, to only criticize baselessly or otherwise post in a manner unconducive to problem-solving, reporting, or suggestion-giving, it will probably be considered 'bad faith' and as such, removed. This is on a case by case basis, and is likely discussed behind the scenes by several or more moderators when it is done, and as always - it is recorded in the logs for reference and review.

Not all that difficult to understand, really.

Yes, all that is obvious, but what about content that is intended as (perhaps a bad attempt at) humor?

I'd hope that we could tell the difference between a poor attempt and pointless snark or the like. This is why there's an appeal process etc. In case of.

[PsyKim]

Hi, I would like to ask a question about the rules, and I don't know if this is the right place.
I read in the rules that "nudity" is prohibited.
That exactly means "nudity"? What are the acceptable limits?
Not all countries are Puritans, such as, maybe, the United States or other countries.
I come from a country which is not puritanical: in our beaches a woman can turn bare-breasted. Everywhere. And can even get to sunbathe bare-breasted in a public park.
But I realized that if a nation's flag has a drawing (pay attention: a drawing, not a photo!) of a woman with bare breasts, with absolutely not sexual attitude, and with everything else well covered, this image is considered "nudity" and "obscene". I dont think a woman's breast is obscene. And for me "nudity" is only "integral" nudity.
I find it absurd, especially when the game issue wonder if Nudism must be legalised in the nation and even though it may be compulsory!
Basically we can have a flag where a single breast discovered (and illustrated, not pictured!) is considered "nudity" and "obscene", but it is absolutely normal that underneath this flag is written that in the country the Nudism is compulsory.
For me this thing is impossible to understand.
I also fear to post images of women in miniskirts or plunging neckline on the chest, since I don't understand what are the limits.

[Mitheldalond]

Hi, I would like to ask a question about the rules, and I don't know if this is the right place.
I read in the rules that "nudity" is prohibited.
That exactly means "nudity"? What are the acceptable limits?
Not all countries are Puritans, such as, maybe, the United States or other countries.
I come from a country which is not puritanical: in our beaches a woman can turn bare-breasted. Everywhere. And can even get to sunbathe bare-breasted in a public park.
But I realized that if a nation's flag has a drawing (pay attention: a drawing, not a photo!) of a woman with bare breasts, with absolutely not sexual attitude, and with everything else well covered, this image is considered "nudity" and "obscene". I dont think a woman's breast is obscene. And for me "nudity" is only "integral" nudity.
I find it absurd, especially when the game issue wonder if Nudism must be legalised in the nation and even though it may be compulsory!
Basically we can have a flag where a single breast discovered (and illustrated, not pictured!) is considered "nudity" and "obscene", but it is absolutely normal that underneath this flag is written that in the country the Nudism is compulsory.
For me this thing is impossible to understand.
I also fear to post images of women in miniskirts or plunging neckline on the chest, since I don't understand what are the limits.

There is a big difference between saying "I'm naked" and posting a naked picture (be it photo or illustration) of yourself.

[PsyKim]

I've posted here, few minutes ago.
Where is my post?

[PsyKim]

There is a big difference between saying "I'm naked" and posting a naked picture (be it photo or illustration) of yourself.

Yes, there is.
But the difference is far little if you compare saying "I'm totally compulsory naked" and posting a bare-breast woman (drawing, not picture) with everything else well covered.
For me the first thing - I mean saying "I'm totally compulsory naked" - is far more "weird" (and also, in some ways, "obscene"!) than the second one. Compulsory nudity is not "normal", bare-breasted women are normal in my country, on the beaches and even in public parks (during summer, not winter, of course).
And you also missed the main point: what is the acceptable limit?