[Discussion] Why do mods get all the shit?

[Ovisterra]

Wait, this is the matrix and the mods are Agents? If that's true, where's Neo?

On your point, though, this is how I see it:

Everything's cool with the mods until you're attacked. When you're attacked, you get angry at the Mods and blame them. When you blame them, you get into more trouble. When you get into more trouble, you get Da Boot. When you get Da Boot, you get even more mad. When you get even more mad, people look on and say "Now kids, don't be like that person."

In other words, it's all fun and games till you get the full brunt.

Actually, that's not it.

I've had a clean record (with the exception of a ban that was retracted), and I most definitely have fundamental problems with the way that things are done here. I feel as if there's a lack of transparency (although discussion threads are a step in the right direction), a lack of consistency, and I feel as if many mods, justified or not, do not act with an appropriate level of respect towards the player base.

EDIT: To bring this in line with the topic, that's why I give them "shit".

Indeed, I am the same. I've never been warned or banned a single time, and I occasionally feel the need to raise grievances. I'm pretty sick of the "yeah well you're just angry because you got warned" attitude because it's not true.

[Cerillium]

There's more transparency on NS than other forums. Some matters can not be made transparent because they involve legal issues or else would put information out there that the general public has no business seeing.

The discussion threads are a step in the right direction.

Are Mods perfect? No. Do they screw up? Yes. So do I. So do you. Some Mods get all the shit because of player misunderstanding. Other times they might just deserve the shit due to the way they phrased a response.

Some of us have favorite Mods. Some have "that one Mod" we hope never responds to our call for help because we genuinely felt they were a dick the last time. Human nature. Mods most likely have players they enjoy interacting with and players they personally loathe. The difference is the Mod can't take their loathing out on that player. They're held to a higher standard by Admin and by players.

[The Equal Peoples State of Steelia]

There's more transparency on NS than other forums. Some matters can not be made transparent because they involve legal issues or else would put information out there that the general public has no business seeing.

The discussion threads are a step in the right direction.

Are Mods perfect? No. Do they screw up? Yes. So do I. So do you. Some Mods get all the shit because of player misunderstanding. Other times they might just deserve the shit due to the way they phrased a response.

Some of us have favorite Mods. Some have "that one Mod" we hope never responds to our call for help because we genuinely felt they were a dick the last time. Human nature. Mods most likely have players they enjoy interacting with and players they personally loathe. The difference is the Mod can't take their loathing out on that player. They're held to a higher standard by Admin and by players.

I think you hit the nail in the head there dude.

[Yumyumsuppertime]

The difference is the Mod can't take their loathing out on that player. They're held to a higher standard by Admin and by players.

Of course they can. Speaking as a former moderator and admin at another site, you do have to take certain precautions so as to seem unbiased, but so much of moderation is dependent upon personal judgment calls that one can be astoundingly biased in one's moderation without anyone else ever realizing it. Heck, it's possible to be incredibly biased without realizing it yourself.

[Forsher]

There are two kinds of posters who complain about moderation. There are those who a genuinely troubled by moderation decisions, actions, records and all sorts of things like that (sometimes it's just one really big one). There are also those whose posts are motivated by a personal issue (The evul modz how dare they ban moi!1!1). The former tend to be far more reasonable, respectful (in sense that they realise that they're communicating with people and act as such but also in the sense that they're deserving of the earned kind of respect themselves) and right (or, at least, closer to right). There are, probably, more of them as well. Why, then? Do the mods appear to suffer so?

I think it's rather simple. Notice how I used "tend" before describing the attributes of the likes of Caninope. The problem is when the most vocal and noticeable critics are more generally abrasive and inclined to lack skirt around issues like facts when dealing with anyone (i.e. other standard players as well as mods). Such players, understandably, frequently have extensive records themselves; this fools many into thinking that all mod critics belong to the latter category. This is not the case now but it certainly was in the past when most of the controversy was happening (in my view the most noticeable mod critics, right now, are Caninope, Bezombia and Edlichbury). Often they were totally wrong but, usually, there was a grain of truth to what was being said (the ZS debacle was incompetence, yes, but protection was not happening, for instance). As a result of this prominence and (typically vague) factual basis many came around to that viewpoint but, additionally, drifted towards the abrasive and less reasonable style of posting that led to the asking of this thread's titular question.*

*I should point out that many of the very vocal critics of moderation and I were involved in far too personal heated arguments far too often.

So explain why we all think it fit to be blatantly ignorant and rude to them on a big scale.

I don't know about you, but I would characterize many of my experiences with Moderation in the last year as encounters wherein I felt Moderation was incompetent or disrespectful of myself or other posters.

Your mileage may vary.

I would characterise most of the mod threads as being disrespectful in general. It wasn't and still isn't, just the mods who are at fault for the way many of those threads turned out. I would say that, usually, the mods did not start the cycle either (but, again, nor did you or, frequently, the players whose posts did get the short end of the stick).

This. It seems to me like the vast majority of "mod supporters" have only been on the site for a few months.

Believe what you will. Frankly, I consider this idea as baseless as the assertion that an extensive record is inevitable given numerous years of activity here.

Forsher: One ban, one informal warning, many thousands of posts. (As far as I am aware, this is my record.)

I don't see why I or anyone else shouldn't mention those things in legitimate, calmly-worded complaints when they happen.

Because, with all due respect to you, this has not been the reality for many of the most prominent people wishing to express their disappointment. Legitimacy is usually more difficult to spot because the complaints have been, frequently, found in harshly worded and antagonistic posts.

You then get the further issue that too many people who do have issues with moderation have exactly one response that is okay in mind and that is one that agrees. Take it from me who, generally, doesn't see an issue with mod rulings (or, at least, the likes of deletion of posts) or simply one that doesn't fully agree (to again use the ZS example... yes the thread should've been looked at more closely but there were reasons why it wasn't that don't boil down to "we needs the visitor count"... this was seriously proposed as a reason for bunch of strange actions but I cannot find it in the time I have available).

[Avenio]

While I generally don't have a huge problem with most of the moderation staff, I do feel that two current serving mods are well past prime, and are long overdue for "retirement" as (to me at least) they seem to carry a "I'm burned out therefore don't give a shit" attitude everywhere they go.

Which is why I suggested around the last time NSG went on this tangent and shortly before the thread was disappeared to CyberSiberia that the mods might want to consider having rolling two year 'terms' for modships. That way it keeps the moderator group staffed with people that will be active, and gives existing mods an opportunity to bow out if their lives get busy or they get burned out.

[Lemongrad Union]

So explain why we all think it fit to be blatantly ignorant and rude to them on a big scale.

A month ago, I might have agreed with you. But then you get banned for a day because apparently that warning you got earlier that month, you know the warning that you actually didn't get earlier that month but was a fluke because the moderator read your forum history incorrectly, just wasn't stern enough. So yeah nobody likes getting F'ed in the A when it's not in the good way. But in the as you sail down the Cahulawassee River, hear the banjo playing, hey, Bobby, "squeal like a pig boy" kind of way. And guess what? there's no Burt Reynolds.

To be honest, I like a few of the mods. But overall I'd say many of them are incompetent and arrogant, short on time, which results in what? Mistakes that usually go unfixed.

So give it some time. You like them now. You sympathize with them now, until you're banned for a day because the moderator misread your posting history. Then you'll know what it's like to get F'd in the A, but not in the good way.

This is going straight to my sig.

[Caninope]

May I just point out that this is absolutely not the basis of my criticisms of Moderation, given that I've frequently talked about a lack of consistency (or perceived lack of consistency, at any rate), such that DLN has told me off for wanting Moderation to be too heavy handed?

That's a new one on me. I haven't been terribly keen on some of your methods, and some of your statements, but I don't recall 'telling you off for wanting Moderation to be too heavy handed'. Of course, perception is reality for most folks, and your perception and mine may vary somewhat.

I'm referring to this.

A mistake is made, is owned, and next thing you know every action is a mistake, clearly, and people should be called to account for it. A controversial call is made, and soon everyone is out for blood. Heads need to roll. Another 'regime' needs to be called in, because clearly, nothing the current group does can possibly be right.

Actually, I'm of the opinion that a few select heads need to roll because there are a lot of mistakes that have been made. However, this is not going to be a constructive avenue of discussion.

If anything, moderation has gotten more lenient, less inclined to heavy-handed actions, showed a tendency to take more time to review prior to making a final call, and been more worried about public perception than I've seen in most of my time here - and that goes back to May 2003.

That, in itself, is sort of problematic, because I personally believe that Moderation has gotten too lenient, and it's a problem. Of course, I've been saying this for a good, long time.

If there's some viable suggestions and solutions, make 'em. I'd like to hear 'em, see what might be done to help. If this is going to be more gnawing old bones and harping on old grievances, I've got no time for it. If you have an individual issue to address, make a report of it.

For what it's worth, I did that, and I had one simple request. Every forum ban (which I later narrowed to every forum ban of a player, so as to exclude spam bots) should be wrote down somewhere in public whenever it is implemented.

Not in one giant list with all infraction. Just somewhere that's publicly accessible. That one request and grievance I've had has been rejected by Moderation, straight out, without an explanation that I truly understand the reasoning of.

[Alyakia]

There are two kinds of posters who complain about moderation. There are those who a genuinely troubled by moderation decisions, actions, records and all sorts of things like that (sometimes it's just one really big one). There are also those whose posts are motivated by a personal issue (The evul modz how dare they ban moi!1!1). The former tend to be far more reasonable, respectful (in sense that they realise that they're communicating with people and act as such but also in the sense that they're deserving of the earned kind of respect themselves) and right (or, at least, closer to right). There are, probably, more of them as well. Why, then? Do the mods appear to suffer so?

I think it's rather simple. Notice how I used "tend" before describing the attributes of the likes of Caninope. The problem is when the most vocal and noticeable critics are more generally abrasive and inclined to lack skirt around issues like facts when dealing with anyone (i.e. other standard players as well as mods). Such players, understandably, frequently have extensive records themselves; this fools many into thinking that all mod critics belong to the latter category. This is not the case now but it certainly was in the past when most of the controversy was happening (in my view the most noticeable mod critics, right now, are Caninope, Bezombia and Edlichbury). Often they were totally wrong but, usually, there was a grain of truth to what was being said (the ZS debacle was incompetence, yes, but protection was not happening, for instance). As a result of this prominence and (typically vague) factual basis many came around to that viewpoint but, additionally, drifted towards the abrasive and less reasonable style of posting that led to the asking of this thread's titular question.*

there are two kinds of posters that feverishly defend moderation. ones that actually this is really silly, wrong and patronizing as all hell and i'm not going to do it. thank god i dodged that bullet.

The problem is when the most vocal and noticeable critics are more generally abrasive and inclined to lack skirt around issues like facts when dealing with anyone (i.e. other standard players as well as mods).

*I should point out that many of the very vocal critics of moderation and I were involved in far too personal heated arguments far too often.

well at least you don't appear to be trying to hide that your house appears to be constructed of some sort of glass-like material

[Tim-Opolis]

As a GPer, we usually don't need as much Moderating as the other forum sections. From what I've seen, although I might not always agree with them, our mods are competent and generally fair and level-headed with their rulings. It frustrates me that people will cite outlier cases and use them to present an argument that Moderators are inept, even if nothing has actually changed. In my four years here, not much has changed on the Moderation policy that made the Moderators suddenly become villainous bastards. They're competent, and they're fair. If you don't like what they're doing, you try running a forum of hundreds of thousands of people.

[Forsher]

there are two kinds of posters that feverishly defend moderation. ones that actually this is really silly, wrong and patronizing as all hell and i'm not going to do it. thank god i dodged that bullet.

Why else do people complain about moderation? I see that there can only be two options, or, at least, two that we should worry about. Either a player cares about a ruling because they have a problem with a bigger picture or a smaller picture. What other explanations exist? Even those posters that seem to hang around entirely complain about moderation fall into one of these two categories. We've seen numerous statements in this thread by people explaining that they belong to the former.

Indeed, I am the same. I've never been warned or banned a single time, and I occasionally feel the need to raise grievances. I'm pretty sick of the "yeah well you're just angry because you got warned" attitude because it's not true.

I've had a clean record (with the exception of a ban that was retracted), and I most definitely have fundamental problems with the way that things are done here. I feel as if there's a lack of transparency (although discussion threads are a step in the right direction), a lack of consistency, and I feel as if many mods, justified or not, do not act with an appropriate level of respect towards the player base.

There have also been a few posts where individuals explain that their reason for realising that there are wider issues is because of rulings that struck home a bit more. You could argue that this is a third category but, in all honesty, such posters are motivated by a desire to express their genuine beliefs that moderation is, in the scheme of things, actually wrong. Why they began to hold those beliefs doesn't actually matter... that is beyond the scope of the category. At the same time we all know there are posters that do attack/criticise/complain about moderation simply because of their own interactions with moderation. I will nominate Karinzistan as an example of this but I know there are/have been others.

Also, I am not sure there are any fevered defenders of moderation out there. That would imply there are people who defend moderation all the time for no particular reasons whatsoever. I mean, you might as well assert that all who disagree with moderation would/did/still do support Karinzistan style revolutions.

Now, you could be more concerned with my descriptions of how the different kinds tend to post. Taking issue with that part is more troublesome but I will say that is my observation. Others are free to have alternative observations.

The problem is when the most vocal and noticeable critics are more generally abrasive and inclined to lack skirt around issues like facts when dealing with anyone (i.e. other standard players as well as mods).

*I should point out that many of the very vocal critics of moderation and I were involved in far too personal heated arguments far too often.

well at least you don't appear to be trying to hide that your house appears to be constructed of some sort of glass-like material

I am not going to argue that my experience in those threads where I encountered some of the worst methods of arguing did not later influence my opinions of the arguments presented in the same manner later on. Pointing out this is so is important because it does reflect my perceptions of who the most vocal and noticeable posters are. When my explanation for the thread's reasoning is so grounded in that then that becomes important to my point. I will take the opportunity to point out that my explanation, itself, has not actually been criticised here... just how I introduced it.

Certainly, I won't deny that this particular post does have a quite personal focus but that's because we're discussing people (the question is, why do NSers react in an excessively negative manner to the mods?) rather than ideas (which was the issue in those threads). This is entirely consistent with the approach to answering this question that many have taken, whether or not they agree with me. In fact, it's really both the honest and correct means of exploring why people react like people. Tuckman's ideas about group development are applicable here. When a group is formed one of the stages ("forming") is about getting used to bounds of behaviour that are acceptable within that group. If players see that the abrasive and personal style is all around that will be adopted as the "norm". We see this in NSG and that's reflected in many moderation decisions (standard NSG snark type stuff). It is entirely reasonable and factually derived to propose that the OP's observation is for this reason.

However, I am not abrasive and I'm not particularly "vocal or noticeable" either. A very simple search for Forsher will find that my posts are, generally, not considered worth bothering with by those that they respond to or are relevant to (because they discuss a particular area of interest of another). Naturally, there are exceptions such as this one where a reply was forthcoming.

As to facts? I have included facts throughout. If there's anything you think is not true please point them out and I will, within reason (don't want to derail the thread here), explain why I think they're true.

Finally, I am just as entitles to preach my particular version of the truth as anyone else. It's just that I don't think that I personally pretend that it's the only possible way of seeing the world and anything that disagrees is bollocks and cannot possibly so (and, that dear friends, is exactly my interpretation of numerous player responses to mod rulings/statements... but it does not mean that I think the mods cannot be wrong and critics right).

(Edit, I fixed two typos I noticed.)

[Drop Your Pants]

I'm not sure what all the fuss is about. Its not hard to follow the site rules (from a GP perspective anyway). I've lost a nation due to an inappropriate name and the mods i dealt with were very forth coming about the reason. They even restored it. Then i kiiled it with fire

People don't realise, they're volunteers in a game. This isn't a paid job for them, they do it for the giggles (except sedge, never seen him smile let alone giggle).

[Ethel mermania]

Wait, this is the matrix and the mods are Agents? If that's true, where's Neo?

On your point, though, this is how I see it:

Everything's cool with the mods until you're attacked. When you're attacked, you get angry at the Mods and blame them. When you blame them, you get into more trouble. When you get into more trouble, you get Da Boot. When you get Da Boot, you get even more mad. When you get even more mad, people look on and say "Now kids, don't be like that person."

In other words, it's all fun and games till you get the full brunt.

Actually, that's not it.

I've had a clean record (with the exception of a ban that was retracted), and I most definitely have fundamental problems with the way that things are done here. I feel as if there's a lack of transparency (although discussion threads are a step in the right direction), a lack of consistency, and I feel as if many mods, justified or not, do not act with an appropriate level of respect towards the player base.

EDIT: To bring this in line with the topic, that's why I give them "shit".

i think one issue is expectations, the site puts forth the idea that the mderation process is transparent. this makes the user base expect transparency. when it doesnt get that transparancy, (and it doesnt) the base gets upset. it would be better if the claim were not made in the first place. it would be better if the site said we try to be fair, and not we try and be open.

[Eoghania]

i think one issue is expectations, the site puts forth the idea that the mderation process is transparent. this makes the user base expect transparency. when it doesnt get that transparancy, (and it doesnt) the base gets upset. it would be better if the claim were not made in the first place. it would be better if the site said we try to be fair, and not we try and be open.

This. Quite probably the biggest issue, and the obvious rebuttal to anyone (mod or no) saying "we're much more transparent than anyone else our size - you have appeals and a forum and stuff!". Most forums don't claim any kind of transparency, they just have a listing of rules and ding anyone they feel breaks them, with warn notes for other mods to avoid collisions. If someone is banned, it's either obvious why to anyone who was interacting with them or the response to anyone asking is a very simple "they were flaming/trolling/whatever other rule was broken". Nobody expects transparency. When you claim to be transparent, any time you fall short you've screwed up. Any time someone is banned without a public note becomes something to be concerned about. It's not what was bought into. Best for all if either moderation stops claiming to be "super duper open guys", or actively is such. When someone goes "can we have a list of who's banned and why that's regularly updated?" you can't say no and keep claiming to be transparent.

[Jetan]

There are obviously problems in Moderation, and to be honest I do not think all of the people in the team are acting in the manner they should (altough the vast majority are). However, all things considered we have it pretty good. What we have here is akin to a tough and maybe a bit too conservative justice system, as opposed to the wild west complete with lynchings and sheriff shooting the suspicios people just to make sure, that many other sites have. I've frequented many forums over the years, all the way from one where I know of a one (1) ban over it's over decade existence in one form of another to another one where mods are referred to as Overlords only half-jokingly, which has no appeal process and Bans tend to be either "first a week, second time ip" or straight to permaban. On that site for example a Admin response to "Being annoying is no grounds for a ban though." by a poster was, and I quote, "Since when?".

All this, combined with the fact that I don't honestly have the solutions myself, means I usually keep quiet. Moderation is not perfect, but it's a lot better than it could be.

[Ballotonia]

i think one issue is expectations, the site puts forth the idea that the mderation process is transparent. this makes the user base expect transparency. when it doesnt get that transparancy, (and it doesnt) the base gets upset. it would be better if the claim were not made in the first place. it would be better if the site said we try to be fair, and not we try and be open.

Can you please point (link) to what is fueling your expectations with regard to transparency in moderation?

Where would a new user pick up on the notion of transparency and have expectations (which the site doesn't meet) ?

The main recent item I can find is (emphasis added) :

We don't want to hide from our mistakes, or defend a bad policy. Instead, we have an exhaustive process for reporting rule breaches, including misbehavior by moderators. This entire Moderation forum exists to provide what I believe is an unprecedented level of transparency and openness for an internet forum of this size. This forum is an exercise in good faith, exposing what moderators do and how they make decisions, so that everyone can see.

It's a bit odd for me to see that while the Moderation forum (now with discussion) is intended to provide a higher-level-than-elsewhere transparency, your suggested solution to the transparency not being absolute (which would require anyone to be allowed to look into all available data, including private information) is to have no transparency at all. I would've thought that having a lot of transparency is better than none, no?

Ballotonia

[Ethel mermania]

i think one issue is expectations, the site puts forth the idea that the mderation process is transparent. this makes the user base expect transparency. when it doesnt get that transparancy, (and it doesnt) the base gets upset. it would be better if the claim were not made in the first place. it would be better if the site said we try to be fair, and not we try and be open.

Can you please point (link) to what is fueling your expectations with regard to transparency in moderation?

Where would a new user pick up on the notion of transparency and have expectations (which the site doesn't meet) ?

The main recent item I can find is (emphasis added) :

We don't want to hide from our mistakes, or defend a bad policy. Instead, we have an exhaustive process for reporting rule breaches, including misbehavior by moderators. This entire Moderation forum exists to provide what I believe is an unprecedented level of transparency and openness for an internet forum of this size. This forum is an exercise in good faith, exposing what moderators do and how they make decisions, so that everyone can see.

It's a bit odd for me to see that while the Moderation forum (now with discussion) is intended to provide a higher-level-than-elsewhere transparency, your suggested solution to the transparency not being absolute (which would require anyone to be allowed to look into all available data, including private information) is to have no transparency at all. I would've thought that having a lot of transparency is better than none, no?

Ballotonia

on the phone it is fairly difficult to give examples off of searches, but the post of violets i think is a sufficent to show the sites intent to be transparent "unprecidented level of transparancy" . (and thank you for posting it). i dont think the user group is asking for every detail on every decision moderation makes but a general list of the basics, who, what, where, when and why. all very short. one line or less.

irl openness and transparancy is an enormous pain in thee ass, it takes much more documentation and more than triple the work of just doing something privately. we pay over a thousand dollars a pc, and that is just because open bid and documenting it takes so much time, from us and the vendors.

yes more transparency is better, the problem arises when creating the expectation and not delivering on it. from a human management point of view it is always better to under promise and overdeliver. violet's quote makes it appear that this will be the most transparent site ever. clearly it has not been, even if the reason for it not being transparent is reasonable. the site has set an expectation it is not meeting, and is getting called out for it.

[Dread Lady Nathicana]

We find ourselves at a bit of an impasse then, don't we? Some want more. Some seem to want less. Simplest solution would be to have no transparency at all. Either way, a whole lot of folks are going to be disappointed, upset, dissatisfied, what have you. As it stands, our marching orders have been given and [violet] has released how we're to operate going forward.

If anyone has some viable solutions to their angle on things, please provide them. Overall commentary on this, that, or the other is fine and well, but without suggestions on how they would like to see things improved in whatever direction they're supporting, we don't have much to work with.

"I don't like ..."

"I'm still upset about ..."

"I think that ..."

It only gets us part way.

[Yaltabaoth]

i think one issue is expectations, the site puts forth the idea that the mderation process is transparent. this makes the user base expect transparency. when it doesnt get that transparancy, (and it doesnt) the base gets upset. it would be better if the claim were not made in the first place. it would be better if the site said we try to be fair, and not we try and be open.

Can you please point (link) to what is fueling your expectations with regard to transparency in moderation?

Where would a new user pick up on the notion of transparency and have expectations (which the site doesn't meet) ?

The main recent item I can find is (emphasis added) :

We don't want to hide from our mistakes, or defend a bad policy. Instead, we have an exhaustive process for reporting rule breaches, including misbehavior by moderators. This entire Moderation forum exists to provide what I believe is an unprecedented level of transparency and openness for an internet forum of this size. This forum is an exercise in good faith, exposing what moderators do and how they make decisions, so that everyone can see.

It's a bit odd for me to see that while the Moderation forum (now with discussion) is intended to provide a higher-level-than-elsewhere transparency, your suggested solution to the transparency not being absolute (which would require anyone to be allowed to look into all available data, including private information) is to have no transparency at all. I would've thought that having a lot of transparency is better than none, no?

Ballotonia

And here we have another case of "damned if you do, damned if you don't".

Moderation on this site will never be entirely transparent, and that is a GOOD THING.

Many posters seem to be forgetting that there are valid legal reasons (the least of which is player privacy) for many Mod-level actions to be kept private.

I'm still on NationStates after over 7 years precisely because of the degree to which it is moderated. I've flirted with a number of other forums over the years, and I've given most of them up due to the lack of (a) decent moderation and (b) restraint by participants in regards to other participants in the absence of decent moderation - in other words, they ended up being mostly abusive troll-fests.

Moderators aren't perfect, nor should we expect them to be. Frankly, if offered the role, I'd turn it down in an instant. Because there's no way I'd ever have the patience to deal with the kinds of crap that players here manage to come up with.

And yes, (generic) you can reply that they volunteered, heat-kitchen-cliche etc.
But if we want to maintain a decent level of moderation on the site (and I believe we do) then the players who benefit from the site have to understand that the moderators are also players, and want to enjoy their time here as well.

But I also think players need to understand that, not only are the mods volunteers, but they are also amateurs (and I do not mean that disrespectfully in any way). While some of the mods are also teachers and some are parents (and some may even be both), they are not professionally trained counsellors or lawyers.

There are avenues of appeal, it's been re-iterated time and time again that all mod actions are logged in an un-tamperable form, there's more transparency that any other forum I've visited in my years, and that transparency has progressively increased over my time here.

I'm starting to tire of this forum, but it's not because of the moderation team. I'm not a screaming fanboy (and to briefly address the most common accusations levelled at anyone supporting the mods, I've been here for over 7 years, and I'm 40 years old with an 18 year professional career. If you're replying to this post, please don't make the mistake of assuming I'm either new, or naive. I assure you, both youth and naivete are shores I long ago lost sight of and will never see again.)

[Dread Lady Nathicana]

I'm not a screaming fanboy (and to briefly address the most common accusations levelled at anyone supporting the mods, I've been here for over 7 years, and I'm 40 years old with an 18 year professional career.

zomg, another adult! Get out! I was almost thinking others were a myth! (I kid, I kid - but it is always kinda fun to find someone else of like age, if nothing else for similar levels of life experience and perhaps, some basis in mutual time periods in growing up, and memories of. Huzzah.)

[Eoghania]

Simplest solution would be to have no transparency at all.

Honestly, if Moderation were to drop most of the transparency and make clear that they are not attempting to be transparent, I'd argue that as being a better situation than our current.

[Yaltabaoth]

Simplest solution would be to have no transparency at all.

Honestly, if Moderation were to drop most of the transparency and make clear that they are not attempting to be transparent, I'd argue that as being a better situation than our current.

I believe that moderation do try to be transparent where it is practical to do so. (At least more so than most other forums do.)

It is not always practical to do so.

That's really about it.

I wish I could go into further detail (though I both can't and won't, so please don't ask) but I've had interactions with Mods that absolutely had to be kept private and confidential - and if the GHR system hadn't existed and my report could only have made publicly, then I believe the report would have actually made the situation worse due to further publicising a matter that needed to be kept private.

This isn't meant just for you Eoghania, but for everyone reading. There are circumstances in which moderation simply cannot be transparent.

The problem (as I see it) is that players don't seem to be recognising that there have to be necessary boundaries and limitations to what can be made public. Transparency doesn't, can't, and won't, EVER mean total transparency.

That doesn't change the fact that NationStates is, relatively speaking, more transparent than most forums, and more willing to engage regarding policy as this very discussion demonstrates.

All-or-nothing helps nobody, because the easy and obvious choice is "nothing". And I really don't believe anyone here, be they Max, mods, or players, actually wants that. I certainly don't.

I'm not a screaming fanboy (and to briefly address the most common accusations levelled at anyone supporting the mods, I've been here for over 7 years, and I'm 40 years old with an 18 year professional career.

zomg, another adult! Get out! I was almost thinking others were a myth! (I kid, I kid - but it is always kinda fun to find someone else of like age, if nothing else for similar levels of life experience and perhaps, some basis in mutual time periods in growing up, and memories of. Huzzah.)

Given the almost reverential regard post-count seems to have on NSG, sometimes I wonder if I'm just a myth too…

[Dread Lady Nathicana]

Simplest solution would be to have no transparency at all.

Honestly, if Moderation were to drop most of the transparency and make clear that they are not attempting to be transparent, I'd argue that as being a better situation than our current.

We've been trying to be clear that we are doing the best we can to balance things. It isn't perfect, it will never be perfect, and there will always be someone who disagrees with how it's handled. That's pretty much par for course. And we continue to deal with issues as they come, to the best of our ability, in spite of whether or not we have 100% agreement from the public at large as to how they would prefer we did so.

[Northwest Slobovia]

I'm still on NationStates after over 7 years precisely because of the degree to which it is moderated. I've flirted with a number of other forums over the years, and I've given most of them up due to the lack of (a) decent moderation and (b) restraint by participants in regards to other participants in the absence of decent moderation - in other words, they ended up being mostly abusive troll-fests.
...

I'm starting to tire of this forum, but it's not because of the moderation team. I'm not a screaming fanboy (and to briefly address the most common accusations levelled at anyone supporting the mods, I've been here for over 7 years, and I'm 40 years old with an 18 year professional career. If you're replying to this post, please don't make the mistake of assuming I'm either new, or naive. I assure you, both youth and naivete are shores I long ago lost sight of and will never see again.)

Sing it, brother, sing it! I'm another creaky ancient who willingly stays in Singapore-upon-Internet because of the moderation.

I think the problem the moderators have is paradoxical: in general, they do such a good job that their mistakes -- and unfortunately, they do make some whoppers once in a while -- look much worse by comparison. I think there are some solutions or partial solutions to this, but I'll have to get back to this thread later. Work, if not duty, calls.

[Caninope]

Many posters seem to be forgetting that there are valid legal reasons (the least of which is player privacy) for many Mod-level actions to be kept private.

Could you (or anyone) please explain this then?

I've been hearing about this for months, but various individuals trained as lawyers with connections to this game have told me that this claim is bunk.