Clarification requested on "assisting DoS players"

[Minoa]

All offsite forums/channels/chats have people in an equivalent position of authority to NS moderators. If problems are happening offsite, contact the relevant offsite forum admin/IRC channel op/whatever, and get them to address it. They are the ones who have will the evidence to make a decision on the matter, as well as the tools to address it. If they do that, and we enforce our rules on NationStates, then people who exhibit problem behaviour offsite get banned offsite; onsite, they either behave (in which case they are not a problem), or they don't behave and end up getting banned from NS too.

The evidence point is an important one. Everything NS mods do is logged, and based on evidence recorded on the site. That means that the decisions we make, and actions we take, can be reviewed by other staff members to ensure they were proper. Gameplay more than any other NS community is vulnerable to abuse from moderators - and it happened in the past. If we open ourselves up to using offsite evidence - which we can never truly verify - you make it far easier to get away with. That occasion when it happened in the past led to the moderation team going almost five years without any gameplay representation, with all the associated problems you'd expect from that. I don't want us to be in a situation again where gameplayers can't be trusted to be on the team.

Gameplayers themselves have also been known to fake evidence for a whole range of reasons. If anyone has a practical suggestion for how NationStates moderation can know that certain behaviour happened offsite, I'm all ears. If it uses the words "screenshots", "logs" or "trust", then you're wasting my time.

Even if it were possible to accurately act based on offsite behaviour (which it isn't), I'd question whether we should be doing so. It's up to other offsite communities to determine how they wish to run themselves. I'll note that The West Pacific has long considered Tweedy a part of their offsite community, despite him having a years-long record of harassing players on NS that earned him a DOS. Similarly, Cromarty - also DOS - continues to participate in TNP's offsite. Neither seems to have a problem with that situation. Should we start insisting that NS-related offsites enforce our bans too? That's the flip-side to that argument.

Regarding Riftey, I'm also of the view that the punishment wasn't strict enough given his record, and had already brought it up for discussion behind the scenes.

Hi,

In respect of the relationship between off-site activity and NationStates, NSindex at present does not allow known Delete-on-Sight players to edit NSindex, because even though it is only an encyclopaedia, there is no clarification on OSRS or in this thread on what amounts to "knowingly working with or assisting Delete-on-Sight players".

Due to the lack of clarity, I am unable to determine whether merely allowing Delete-on-Sight players to edit an independent off-site encyclopaedia like NSindex or IIwiki amounts to "knowingly working with or assisting Delete-on-Sight players".

I would appreciate a clarification on this matter, thanks in advance.

[The Blaatschapen]

I've split off your inquiry from the main thread, since it is very specific and asks for a clarification that is only tangentially related to the other topic.

[Ever-Wandering Souls]

I've split off your inquiry from the main thread, since it is very specific and asks for a clarification that is only tangentially related to the other topic.

Pardon me, but can we get an appropriate thread title, or at least a [split] up there? Thanks!

[Idzequitch]

Potentially relevant:

Bottom-line, players aren't moderators. We don't require you to police your friends and tell us everything you hear under penalty of deletion.

Someone who assists in rule-breaking, or acts as a proxy for a banned player, will of course find themselves dealing with the mods, and possibly banned as well. Also, we definitely appreciate the help and tips we get from players sometimes in identifying rule-breaking, since this helps us keep the site running well for everyone. But there's no umbrella "shielding" rule, where "shielding" covers things like possibly knowing someone was banned but staying quiet.

I don't know if the bolded would be considered a catch-all definition for assisting a DoS user, but based on what [v] said, combined with the fact that NS moderation can't act upon offsite issues, I would have to think that allowing them to edit an independent site would be a non-issue.

[Ballotonia]

Due to the lack of clarity, I am unable to determine whether merely allowing Delete-on-Sight players to edit an independent off-site encyclopaedia like NSindex or IIwiki amounts to "knowingly working with or assisting Delete-on-Sight players".

I would appreciate a clarification on this matter, thanks in advance.

The rules on NS only apply to activity on NS itself. We do not have rules regarding ones behavior on other sites. So the whole 'assisting' rule should be read as assisting ON NS. For instance: posting on the NS forum on behalf of a DOS player.

Ballotonia

[CoraSpia]

I'm sorry if this is too unrelated, but I'd like some clarification on what constitutes helping DOS players on the NS site, as moderation rulings on the subject seem not to paint a very clear picture. So, sorry if this is tedious (and feel free to tell me you can't rule on it, I'd understand since it's not really come up) but if I post a few hypothetical cenarios, could you please tell me if they would breach the rules?

[Enfaru]

As I have been told repeatedly ad nauseum (and really...ad nauseum), Mods do not rule on hypothetical situations.

Ballo was very clear, if your assistance involves the use of Nationstates itself, then that is against the rules. If you interact with players offsite then this is not within NS jurisdiction. Hence, an offsite wiki would not be constituted as helping a DOS player.

Ballo also makes it very clear that you have to help them evade moderation rules possibly by acting on behalf of them or in aid of them ON the NS website. So no maintaining their old regions for them, no posting for them or reflecting their opinions on NS. Those sort of things.

Depending on the situation, if you are found to be helping a DOS player, depending on the circumstances they may simply give you the back end of a newspaper and explain what you were doing wrong. You won't be banned for giving them information however, it's just...they can't do anything about said information. Not on NS anyway.

That's pretty much what I've been getting from the Mod vibe.

[Idzequitch]

As I have been told repeatedly ad nauseum (and really...ad nauseum), Mods do not rule on hypothetical situations.

Ballo was very clear, if your assistance involves the use of Nationstates itself, then that is against the rules. If you interact with players offsite then this is not within NS jurisdiction. Hence, an offsite wiki would not be constituted as helping a DOS player.

Ballo also makes it very clear that you have to help them evade moderation rules possibly by acting on behalf of them or in aid of them ON the NS website. So no maintaining their old regions for them, no posting for them or reflecting their opinions on NS. Those sort of things.

Depending on the situation, if you are found to be helping a DOS player, depending on the circumstances they may simply give you the back end of a newspaper and explain what you were doing wrong. You won't be banned for giving them information however, it's just...they can't do anything about said information. Not on NS anyway.

That's pretty much what I've been getting from the Mod vibe.

Except the bolded simply isn't true. As per the quote from [v] earlier in the thread, Hladgos, Kannap, and Liberonscien were initially DEAT'ed for "shielding" a DoS player, a ruling that was reversed when [v] said that there is no rule against shielding a DoS, so they passively assisted a DoS user onsite, and it was ruled non-actionable.

[The Silver Sentinel]

Ballo also makes it very clear that you have to help them evade moderation rules possibly by acting on behalf of them or in aid of them ON the NS website. So no maintaining their old regions for them

Untrue. You can maintain their old regions for them, or how many people would have been breaking the rules for maintaining The Black Riders after Halc was DOS'd?

[Enfaru]

Ballo also makes it very clear that you have to help them evade moderation rules possibly by acting on behalf of them or in aid of them ON the NS website. So no maintaining their old regions for them

Untrue. You can maintain their old regions for them, or how many people would have been breaking the rules for maintaining The Black Riders after Halc was DOS'd?

Might need a mod ruling right here.

It was my understanding that acting on behalf of a DOS player on Nationstates was and remains against the rules.

If Halc? (Halcyon I assume, I remember seeing the name around before) was indeed DOS'd then acting on behalf of them for them to continue manipulating events not in an OOC forum but actually directly would be an offence under my understanding of Mod rulings so far.

I'm assuming that there is indeed evidence that someone did in fact act in this way on behalf of Halcyon after they were DOSd?

[The Silver Sentinel]

Untrue. You can maintain their old regions for them, or how many people would have been breaking the rules for maintaining The Black Riders after Halc was DOS'd?

Might need a mod ruling right here.

It was my understanding that acting on behalf of a DOS player on Nationstates was and remains against the rules.

If Halc? (Halcyon I assume, I remember seeing the name around before) was indeed DOS'd then acting on behalf of them for them to continue manipulating events not in an OOC forum but actually directly would be an offence under my understanding of Mod rulings so far.

I'm assuming that there is indeed evidence that someone did in fact act in this way on behalf of Halcyon after they were DOSd?

General Halcones, and no we don't need a ruling. The region is still going, and has subject to three liberation attempts. The mods are well aware of it.

[NERVUN]

There's no rule against maintaining a region.

Where the do not assist DOS users comes into play would be if a player actively attempts to help a DOS player regain access to NS, such as posting for them or creating nations to turn over to them.

[Zaolat]

Untrue. You can maintain their old regions for them, or how many people would have been breaking the rules for maintaining The Black Riders after Halc was DOS'd?

Might need a mod ruling right here.

It was my understanding that acting on behalf of a DOS player on Nationstates was and remains against the rules.

If Halc? (Halcyon I assume, I remember seeing the name around before) was indeed DOS'd then acting on behalf of them for them to continue manipulating events not in an OOC forum but actually directly would be an offence under my understanding of Mod rulings so far.

I'm assuming that there is indeed evidence that someone did in fact act in this way on behalf of Halcyon after they were DOSd?

Just to clear some thing up Halcyon is one of my old aliases and not Halcones the DOS player.

[Enfaru]

General Halcones, and no we don't need a ruling. The region is still going, and has subject to three liberation attempts. The mods are well aware of it.

O.o; Never saw them. Anyway... I have no reason to disarm the region. I was simply concerned about the DOS status that's all. Perhaps, less ruling and more "clarification."

There's no rule against maintaining a region.

Where the do not assist DOS users comes into play would be if a player actively attempts to help a DOS player regain access to NS, such as posting for them or creating nations to turn over to them but having users maintain the DOS user's old region under the DOS user's direction is perfectly fine.

I've edited to try to check if I have understood your first sentence in the proper light. Emboldened of course.

Just to clear some thing up Halcyon is one of my old aliases and not Halcones the DOS player.

Loud and clear, thanks for that.

[NERVUN]

There's no rule against maintaining a region.

Where the do not assist DOS users comes into play would be if a player actively attempts to help a DOS player regain access to NS, such as posting for them or creating nations to turn over to them but having users maintain the DOS user's old region under the DOS user's direction is perfectly fine.

I've edited to try to check if I have understood your first sentence in the proper light. Emboldened of course.

That one would be a bit more problematic and gets into hypotheticals that I wouldn't feel comfortable addressing.

[Enfaru]

It would, but Silver Sentinel has just stated that players were acting under direction of a DOS player, I want to know whether that is in fact kosher.

Edit, perhaps it might be wise, to bump this back to Ballotonia as they were the one that initially made the comment.

[CoraSpia]

There's no rule against maintaining a region.

Where the do not assist DOS users comes into play would be if a player actively attempts to help a DOS player regain access to NS, such as posting for them or creating nations to turn over to them.

So am I right in believing that if a DoS player joins my region (not having helped or asked them or any of that crap), and I end up raiding with them, that's not going to get me sniped at?

[Leppikania]

There's no rule against maintaining a region.

Where the do not assist DOS users comes into play would be if a player actively attempts to help a DOS player regain access to NS, such as posting for them or creating nations to turn over to them.

So am I right in believing that if a DoS player joins my region (not having helped or asked them or any of that crap), and I end up raiding with them, that's not going to get me sniped at?

Your question aside, how would a DoS player go raiding before their raiding nations got deleted?

[CoraSpia]

So am I right in believing that if a DoS player joins my region (not having helped or asked them or any of that crap), and I end up raiding with them, that's not going to get me sniped at?

Your question aside, how would a DoS player go raiding before their raiding nations got deleted?

I've seen a doS nation go to over 5 bil before getting deleted.

[RiderSyl]

So am I right in believing that if a DoS player joins my region (not having helped or asked them or any of that crap), and I end up raiding with them, that's not going to get me sniped at?

Your question aside, how would a DoS player go raiding before their raiding nations got deleted?

DoS player Frak has managed to do this on several occasions in the past, so it is possible.

[Reploid Productions]

They can sneak under the radar on occasion. That's why it's Delete-on-Sight.

But yeah, the "assisting DOS players" thing pretty much applies to antics like passing messages for them (actual example: a DOS tried to have members of his region pass along his RMB posts for him after he was DOSed; a few warnings to the players doing the posting-by-proxy for him put a stop to that) or creating nations to hand off/help them sneak back. (Another actual example, a user was making nations for his DOSed friend, mistakenly thinking that if he made the nation and then handed it off to his friend, it wouldn't trip our detection tools. A very stern warning and reminder about the risks of sharing nations with DOSes put a stop to that.)

Of course, ideally we would prefer it if players report it when someone they know is a DOS has snuck back, but the general guideline from on high is that we should not be punishing people for what is essentially an inaction, which was a clarification made after Hladgos and the others got toasted, hence those deletions being reversed. But you guys lack our tools, we can't expect you to magically KNOW that the surprisingly talented new guy is actually some DOS player.