[Inquiry] My Warning

[Tim-Opolis]

Sorry, didn't particularly know what to title this thread, if you've got a better title you can suggest that'd be sweet.

So Sedge warned me for my post, and while I'm not really contesting the warning at this time as it was admittedly a clear thread-jack and I'm sorry about that, I'm curious which part of my post was actionable for rules lawyering? Would it be the snarky reference to G-R's avoidance of a warning through self-deprecation, or is there something else I may be missing?

I'd also like to inquire as to how exactly my post is flame-baiting. I perceived Unibot's topic to be yet another effort by his character to re-surge within Gameplay and expressed a short list of his various in-character actions across Nationstates, such as subversion efforts in The South Pacific or fracturing of Defender unity by his role as Chief of the Band to express why I don't believe that character should really be tolerated within various regions. It just seems that the line, as many others have brought up already, is incredibly tough to figure out on when we move from pointing out a player's various actions and when that falls into flamebaiting.

[Mallorea and Riva]

Sorry, didn't particularly know what to title this thread, if you've got a better title you can suggest that'd be sweet.

So Sedge warned me for my post, and while I'm not really contesting the warning at this time as it was admittedly a clear thread-jack and I'm sorry about that, I'm curious which part of my post was actionable for rules lawyering? Would it be the snarky reference to G-R's avoidance of a warning through self-deprecation, or is there something else I may be missing?

I'd also like to inquire as to how exactly my post is flame-baiting. I perceived Unibot's topic to be yet another effort by his character to re-surge within Gameplay and expressed a short list of his various in-character actions across Nationstates, such as subversion efforts in The South Pacific or fracturing of Defender unity by his role as Chief of the Band to express why I don't believe that character should really be tolerated within various regions. It just seems that the line, as many others have brought up already, is incredibly tough to figure out on when we move from pointing out a player's various actions and when that falls into flamebaiting.

I think you hit the nail on the head with the rules lawyering bit. As far as flamebaiting I won't speak for Sedge but in my eyes what makes it flamebait is also what made it a threadjack: that it was an out of nowhere attack on the individual that had nothing to do with the actual topic of the thread, despite your nominal justification. If you accept that it was a threadjack then I hope you can see why it would then be construed as baiting.

[Tim-Opolis]

Sorry, didn't particularly know what to title this thread, if you've got a better title you can suggest that'd be sweet.

So Sedge warned me for my post, and while I'm not really contesting the warning at this time as it was admittedly a clear thread-jack and I'm sorry about that, I'm curious which part of my post was actionable for rules lawyering? Would it be the snarky reference to G-R's avoidance of a warning through self-deprecation, or is there something else I may be missing?

I'd also like to inquire as to how exactly my post is flame-baiting. I perceived Unibot's topic to be yet another effort by his character to re-surge within Gameplay and expressed a short list of his various in-character actions across Nationstates, such as subversion efforts in The South Pacific or fracturing of Defender unity by his role as Chief of the Band to express why I don't believe that character should really be tolerated within various regions. It just seems that the line, as many others have brought up already, is incredibly tough to figure out on when we move from pointing out a player's various actions and when that falls into flamebaiting.

I think you hit the nail on the head with the rules lawyering bit. As far as flamebaiting I won't speak for Sedge but in my eyes what makes it flamebait is also what made it a threadjack: that it was an out of nowhere attack on the individual that had nothing to do with the actual topic of the thread, despite your nominal justification. If you accept that it was a threadjack then I hope you can see why it would then be construed as baiting.

Ah, alright. Having seen Sedge's post past-lock post in a different thread here I can see how it was perceived as such, though I would have hoped it would be incredibly evident that I was making a sarcastic remark rather than actually trying to use it as my own way of dodging punishment. Furthermore, I'm not really sure how in context my post was different than that of G-R's in that sense, particularly given the lack of clarity we've been provided on the matter as of late. While I still contest personally that it was a threadjack, I can understand why it was ruled as such and don't see much potential in appealing it.

If it's possible, however, and I don't know if there's merit in it but I think it'd then get stricken from my record if granted, I'd like to raise a flag to appeal just the Rules Lawyering part of my warning, given the fact that I was in no way trying to "lawyer" the rules, particularly given the lack of clarity on what the rules really are right now, and the fact that the tone and context made it a rather evident intent of parody rather than any sort of warning dodging.

[Frisbeeteria]

I think it'd then get stricken from my record

Technical answer: Nothing is ever "stricken". We can indicate that an entire warning is reversed, but all mod logs are non-editable. In any event, you weren't given three warnings - just one warning tagged for three different aspects. So removing those two words would have no effect on your warning.

Judgement answer: As for whether it was a deserved warning, I agree with Mall and Sedgistan. Creating a subset of NS players called "jerks", and then including yourself in that subset; does not absolve you from being warning for flaming the other members of the subset. That's pure rules lawyering.

[Tim-Opolis]

I think it'd then get stricken from my record

Technical answer: Nothing is ever "stricken". We can indicate that an entire warning is reversed, but all mod logs are non-editable. In any event, you weren't given three warnings - just one warning tagged for three different aspects. So removing those two words would have no effect on your warning.

Judgement answer: As for whether it was a deserved warning, I agree with Mall and Sedgistan. Creating a subset of NS players called "jerks", and then including yourself in that subset; does not absolve you from being warning for flaming the other members of the subset. That's pure rules lawyering.

Right, I got that. I just kind of assumed it might be better record wise to not have a warning attributed to two things than to three things. Anyways, understood, thanks for the explanation Fris.

*leaves some Valentine's Day cupcakes*

[RiderSyl]

Creating a subset of NS players called "jerks", and then including yourself in that subset; does not absolve you from being warning for flaming the other members of the subset.

Yes it does, Fris. That's the exact comment Tim was mimicking in his post, actually.

[Frisbeeteria]

Yes it does, Fris.

I saw that before I posted, and I disagree with the concept that you can freely insult someone else if your include yourself in the insult. I'm not going to overturn Sedge's ruling in that case, but I also an not going to change my explanation in this instance.

[RiderSyl]

Yes it does, Fris.

I saw that before I posted, and I disagree with the concept that you can freely insult someone else if your include yourself in the insult. I'm not going to overturn Sedge's ruling in that case, but I also an not going to change my explanation in this instance.

So moderation enforces that you can freely insult someone else if your include yourself in the insult, and at the same time enforces that you cannot?

This is downright confusing.

[Phydios]

I saw that before I posted, and I disagree with the concept that you can freely insult someone else if your include yourself in the insult. I'm not going to overturn Sedge's ruling in that case, but I also an not going to change my explanation in this instance.

So moderation enforces that you can freely insult someone else if your include yourself in the insult, and at the same time enforces that you cannot?

This is downright confusing.

Despite jokes about the Hive Mind, moderators don't all think the same way. So, yes, they can reach different conclusions. I, however, do think the team needs to clarify this matter, especially since a few outspoken people are complaining about vague and inconsistent moderation.

[Mallorea and Riva]

I saw that before I posted, and I disagree with the concept that you can freely insult someone else if your include yourself in the insult. I'm not going to overturn Sedge's ruling in that case, but I also an not going to change my explanation in this instance.

So moderation enforces that you can freely insult someone else if your include yourself in the insult, and at the same time enforces that you cannot?

This is downright confusing.

No. Moderation enforces that in that instance, GR's alleged flame was not severe enough to warrant moderator intervention. Fris may disagree with the ruling but he has elected not to overturn it.