[Report]Let's call a spade a spade

[Nierr]

And ignoring the implications of declaring a WA resolution trolling, let's just agree that the only reason. The sole reason to do this is to troll roleplayers.

Let's not have any of this 'argue them down', 'counter-campaign' or any of this other crap.

Make an actual stand against someone who is clearly, clearly, aiming to elicit the kind of reactions we've seen over the past four days.

[Shadow Afforess]

I specifically wrote a resolution that was fair and factually correct. I hardly think sticking to the facts is 'trolling'. In the resolution I did not call any names out, nor make insults.

Now, if moderation decides that Liberations for regions named "Haven" are illegal, I will abide by such a rule, but otherwise, I see nothing wrong here.

[Tsaraine]

It's not trolling. To rule otherwise would be entirely arbitrary.

~ Tsar the Mod.

[Kouralia]

Can you explain why repeating a course of action which has been known to generate such an... intense reaction is not trolling?

Even if not trolling, it without a doubt fulfils the requirement of 'Posts that are made with the aim of angering someone indirectly', i.e. flame baiting.

[Shadow Afforess]

Even if not trolling, it without a doubt fulfils the requirement of 'Posts that are made with the aim of angering someone indirectly', i.e. flame baiting.

Applying such a principle so broadly would mean stating any controversial fact (e.g Climate Change is real) would be flame-baiting. The effect would be that no meaningful discussion would be able to take place anywhere on the forums.

[Nierr]

It's not trolling. To rule otherwise would be entirely arbitrary.

~ Tsar the Mod.

Disappointing but expected.

Appeal pls.

And could I request that said appeal look into the possibility that is indeed flamebaiting?

[Yasuragi]

It's not trolling. To rule otherwise would be entirely arbitrary.

~ Tsar the Mod.

Query: if it is not trolling, then do the accusations of trolling fall under 'troll-naming'?

[Constaniana]

I specifically wrote a resolution that was fair and factually correct. I hardly think sticking to the facts is 'trolling'. In the resolution I did not call any names out, nor make insults.

Now, if moderation decides that Liberations for regions named "Haven" are illegal, I will abide by such a rule, but otherwise, I see nothing wrong here.

This is one of the biggest, steaming piles of bullcrap I have ever seen. Even the author of the exact same proposal that was blocked is disagreeing with you.

[Nierr]

I specifically wrote a resolution that was fair and factually correct. I hardly think sticking to the facts is 'trolling'. In the resolution I did not call any names out, nor make insults.

Now, if moderation decides that Liberations for regions named "Haven" are illegal, I will abide by such a rule, but otherwise, I see nothing wrong here.

This is one of the biggest, steaming piles of bullcrap I have ever seen. Even the author of the exact same proposal that was blocked is disagreeing with you.

Posts like this don't belong in report threads to be honest. They aren't helpful for the mods.

[Kryozerkia]

It's not trolling. To rule otherwise would be entirely arbitrary.

~ Tsar the Mod.

Query: if it is not trolling, then do the accusations of trolling fall under 'troll-naming'?

Only when it's not in Moderation. Here is where such accusations can be made and ruled upon. Calling out someone as a troll, regardless of whether it's true, in a non-Moderation topic is counterproductive and may not be seen.

[Mousebumples]

It's not trolling. To rule otherwise would be entirely arbitrary.

~ Tsar the Mod.

Disappointing but expected.

Appeal pls.

And could I request that said appeal look into the possibility that is indeed flamebaiting?

The posting of a proposal - be it GA or SC in nature - is not, in and of itself, flamebaiting or trolling. Certainly, if there are particular clauses within the text that are troublesome ("All residents of RegionA are stupid jerks, so we should condemn them!"), potentially such a proposal could be dinged for trolling or flamebaiting. However, I do not see any such clauses within the current draft of this proposal; as such, this is not flamebaiting or trolling or otherwise rulebreaking in that manner.

I make no promises as of legality, in terms of SC rules, but I didn't really evaluate the proposal or post on those grounds. However, just like Mall's proposal, it's not trolling/baiting/etc.

-Mouse the Mod

[Kouralia]

So. Having discovered that making a proposal along certain lines is liable to cause great offence among a certain community, someone attempts to replicate that... but they do not conform to the standard of 'made with the aim of angering someone indirectly'?

It's like someone discovering that a word (say, to take a leaf from Top Gear's book, 'Slope') is offensive through the un-intentional stirring of the hornet's nest. Then, once they know the hurt/anger that its use will cause, they themselves do it for no reason other than to see what lolz can be had.

While Mouse's statement 'All residents of RegionA are stupid jerks, so we should condemn them!' would be trolling (as it's direct), there is surely a different standard to be applied to 'indirect angering' as Flamebaiting?

EDIT: Think of it this way - if I start discussing rape in a thread and a load of people are hugely offended by it, this ruling means that it is not trolling or flamebaiting for (once I have stopped doing so) someone else to come into the thread and restart the discussion.

[Shadow Afforess]

So. Having discovered that making a proposal along certain lines is liable to cause great offence among a certain community, someone attempts to replicate that... but they do not conform to the standard of 'made with the aim of angering someone indirectly'?

It's like someone discovering that a word (say, to take a leaf from Top Gear's book, 'Slope') is offensive through the un-intentional stirring of the hornet's nest. Then, once they know the hurt/anger that its use will cause, they themselves do it for no reason other than to see what lolz can be had.

While Mouse's statement 'All residents of RegionA are stupid jerks, so we should condemn them!' would be trolling (as it's direct), there is surely a different standard to be applied to 'indirect angering' as Flamebaiting?

I agree with you, but what exactly can the moderators do? Ban liberations of regions named "Haven" because it is offensive to certain groups? Before long, we'd have hundreds of regions arbitrarily exempted from rules of gameplay. It's not workable.

[Nierr]

Disappointing but expected.

Appeal pls.

And could I request that said appeal look into the possibility that is indeed flamebaiting?

The posting of a proposal - be it GA or SC in nature - is not, in and of itself, flamebaiting or trolling. Certainly, if there are particular clauses within the text that are troublesome ("All residents of RegionA are stupid jerks, so we should condemn them!"), potentially such a proposal could be dinged for trolling or flamebaiting. However, I do not see any such clauses within the current draft of this proposal; as such, this is not flamebaiting or trolling or otherwise rulebreaking in that manner.

I make no promises as of legality, in terms of SC rules, but I didn't really evaluate the proposal or post on those grounds. However, just like Mall's proposal, it's not trolling/baiting/etc.

-Mouse the Mod

To qualify for myself, is this the outcome of my appeal?

[Vetok]

It's not trolling. To rule otherwise would be entirely arbitrary.

~ Tsar the Mod.

Oh dear. Well, looks like you're not doing anything about it, so what do we do? Submit proposals left and right to liberate their regions and nations? Please, tell us. I've reported it before that Mallorea's actions as a player were textbook trolling and griefing, then got accused of making a 'logic trap' by Fris. Tell us what we're supposed to do when we're being trolled and griefed over and over.

[Jenrak]

I'm having difficulty not seeing this as trolling.

Opposed. Haven has experienced a boom of activity in the past several days, the arguments listed here are just silly.

Mallorea agrees that the arguments posed are too silly. I'm having difficulty separating the post from the context of the previous few days, which many people have clearly established that there have been no measures put in place to prevent this sort of thing from happening to it again. Likewise, since Mall's repeatedly stated that the failure of the previous one has set soft-precedence that it'll fail again, I can't fathom why Shadow would propose it so soon.

I can't see this as anything but an attempt to rile up already angered RPers by rubbing it in their face.

[Mousebumples]

The posting of a proposal - be it GA or SC in nature - is not, in and of itself, flamebaiting or trolling. Certainly, if there are particular clauses within the text that are troublesome ("All residents of RegionA are stupid jerks, so we should condemn them!"), potentially such a proposal could be dinged for trolling or flamebaiting. However, I do not see any such clauses within the current draft of this proposal; as such, this is not flamebaiting or trolling or otherwise rulebreaking in that manner.

I make no promises as of legality, in terms of SC rules, but I didn't really evaluate the proposal or post on those grounds. However, just like Mall's proposal, it's not trolling/baiting/etc.

-Mouse the Mod

To qualify for myself, is this the outcome of my appeal?

Yes.

EDIT: Although I would probably classify it more as a request for a second opinion than an appeal.

[Bezombia]

Wait a minute, if Mouse answered the second opinion, but then Jenrak answered after that, is Jenrak's post still considered "official"?

[Glen-Rhodes]

I can't see this as anything but an attempt to rile up already angered RPers by rubbing it in their face.

But Mall's wasn't trolling, even though he knew very well that the last time the same thing was proposed, it riled up angry RPers? So, basically, if Afforess had waited a month or two, or a year, it wouldn't be trolling anymore?

[Shadow Afforess]

I'm having difficulty not seeing this as trolling.

Opposed. Haven has experienced a boom of activity in the past several days, the arguments listed here are just silly.

Mallorea agrees that the arguments posed are too silly.

Mallorea is a biased participant, of course he thinks my proposal is silly and his was well-formed. You might as well ask Romney what he thinks of Obama. You'd get the same kind of response. Mallorea should recuse himself entirely of these proceedings, IMHO.

I'm having difficulty separating the post from the context of the previous few days, which many people have clearly established that there have been no measures put in place to prevent this sort of thing from happening to it again. Likewise, since Mall's repeatedly stated that the failure of the previous one has set soft-precedence that it'll fail again, I can't fathom why Shadow would propose it so soon.

As I said above, if moderation rules that regions named "Haven" are exempt from Liberations, I will shelve it. Alternatively, I suppose there could be a "cooldown" time for liberation attempts. But whichever you choose shouldn't retroactively punish me for a rule that hadn't existed yet.

I can't see this as anything but an attempt to rile up already angered RPers by rubbing it in their face.

I didn't participate in the previous resolution debate - at all.

[Jenrak]

I can't see this as anything but an attempt to rile up already angered RPers by rubbing it in their face.

But Mall's wasn't trolling, even though he knew very well that the last time the same thing was proposed, it riled up angry RPers? So, basically, if Afforess had waited a month or two, or a year, it wouldn't be trolling anymore?

I think you misunderstand me, I'm not saying that a further, arbitrary time down the road invalidates someone on the grounds of trolling. Neither should my ballpark estimate of a future occurrence be seen as an official claim on what is an acceptable versus unacceptable post to be considered for trolling.

Though I personally did not agree with his assessment, I'm willing to take Mall's word for it when he says that he expected the result to be different. The problem is that I can't reasonably believe that Afforess wrote that proposal - in light of the highly public and dramatic kerfuffle - and expect anything positive to come from it. Even Mall has stated that in the future it won't pass, and the current proposal is on shaky grounds.

Afforess has established himself to be an intelligent person, so I'm having difficulty seeing his claim out of a naive expectation that it'll work this time.

Mallorea is a biased participant, of course he thinks my proposal is silly and his was well-formed. You might as well ask Romney what he thinks of Obama. You'd get the same kind of response. Mallorea should recuse himself entirely of these proceedings, IMHO.

This is a herring. Any bias he brings to the table has no bearing on the timing of your post, which is what I'm having difficulty wrapping my head around.

As I said above, if moderation rules that regions named "Haven" are exempt from Liberations, I will shelve it. Alternatively, I suppose there could be a "cooldown" time for liberation attempts. But whichever you choose shouldn't retroactively punish me for a rule that hadn't existed yet.

So you're looking for a clear black and white ruling on a situation where the nature of the issue is still being hammered out. This is starting to look like you want us to set a precedence.

I didn't participate in the previous resolution debate - at all.

Whether you participated or not is irrelevant, since you didn't need to participate to know about it or read about it. Again, you're throwing out another herring. It's clear that you're aware of it by the timing and wording of your proposal.

[Shadow Afforess]

So you're looking for a clear black and white ruling on a situation where the nature of the issue is still being hammered out. This is starting to look like you want us to set a precedence.

I don't want you to do anything. But I'm a constructive person by nature, hence my suggestions.

[Glen-Rhodes]

I think you misunderstand me, I'm not saying that a further, arbitrary time down the road invalidates someone on the grounds of trolling. ... Though I personally did not agree with his assessment, I'm willing to take Mall's word for it when he says that he expected the result to be different.

I just think you guys should be consistent. You're taking Mall at his word, even though he's well-versed in Gameplay politics and would most likely know that his proposal would stir the pot. He admitted that he never thought from the very beginning that it would pass, which means he knew that it would be controversial and unpopular. I think that's enough circumstantial evidence to prove that Mall trolled. But seeing as I was warned for troll-naming outside of Moderation, and told flat-out that Mall didn't troll, because if he did, admins would have punished him... I'm not under any illusion that anybody will change their minds about it.

But Afforess just did the same thing Mall did. So if Mall isn't going to be warned, then Afforess shouldn't. That doesn't mean Afforess isn't trolling. You're right that you can't reasonably believe Afforess wasn't intent on causing more anger. It just means it would be inconsistent to view Afforess' actions as substantially different from Mall's, if there's no arbitrary time that determines when knowingly posting a high controversial proposal is considered trolling.

(Also, if my posts aren't welcome here, please let me know. I don't feel like getting banned from the forums.)

[Vicious Debaters]

I don't think it's trolling, it's just NationStates politics.

Do you really want to bring the banhammers in and create that kind of a precedent? Seems far better to just shoot Afforess's latest trick down, which is something we should be able to do easily.

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

[Mallorea and Riva]

Just for the record: Afforess I recused myself from this moderation matter the moment it was brought up, as I do with every other moderation matter which involves threads I am in or about me.