[Discussion] Concern over recent moderator action

[MERIZoC]

I'm referring of course to the mass DEATS/DOS's that just occurred.

Firstly, I'd just like to say that I am not in any way opposed to the punishments that were handed out. Rules were broken and the punishments were both fair and consistent with what had happened in the past.

What I am concerned about (as are many others) is the way in which the sharing of the news was handled. Firstly, Reppy gave the names of all of those who'd been DEAT'd. That in itself should be raising red flags, given that there have been many times when Moderation has declined to comment on deletions. Since this is such a sensitive matter (there's not exactly any shame associated in being deleted for flaming), I find it really inappropriate to post the names of those involved. It's already cutting it really close to shaming, but then you consider what else was said in Reppy's statement.

Thanks to this investigation, I now have far more insight and information than I ever needed or wanted to know regarding, among other things: My Little Pony cybersex, various non-heteronormative kinks and fetishes, Tokyo Ghoul cybersex, a colorful assortment of incest fetishes, furry porn, and scaly porn. Probably other flavors of badly-written cybersexing as well; I have had to read a lot of erotic RP telegrams in the past four months and it does all start to run together into one giant mass of penises, vaginas, breasts, tentacles, dildos, bodily fluids and so on.

This was certainly not necessary, as there's no reason to give an explanation as to what went on in the TG's. As one poster pointed out, a mere "They were deleted for sharing adult material via telegrams" would have sufficed. However, Reppy felt the need to go more in depth.

I will note that this investigation was the first and only time in more than ten years of modding that I seriously, absolutely NEEDED a drink. Achievement bloody unlocked, Nationstates, drove a mod to drink. (Only one cider, though.)

It was like wading through fanfiction.net back before they tried to kick all the NC-17 rated stuff off of it.

I'm quite sure it wasn't necessary to detail out how disgusting this process was. It only contributes to the atmosphere of shame.

Following on this, many posters in the thread echoed feelings like this, saying how this was "disgusting", "creepy" and "abnormal." The mods have never (or very rarely) entertained mass discussions on a ruling before (or at least discussions that have nothing productive to offer), so why now?

To illustrate how the thread is basically just a platform to shame those who were DEAT'd, I'd like to provide some quotes from those in question.

Huh? How do you mean?

yeah, you don't fucking know. You weren't called a pedophile on a thread stickied to every sub-forum and had every deviancy you took part in posted.

Well, a little piece of me died today...

I'll be back to normal eventually, but I'm never going to be the same person again

Well, a little piece of me died today...

I'll be back to normal eventually, but I'm never going to be the same person again

Likewise. Perhaps an appeal might work, though I doubt it.
For a bit, I was seriously contemplating using one of the assorted bladed weapons around in my house. Not on anyone else, of course.

Now, I understand there are two sides to this argument. The first being the idea that moderation would be spammed with requests for information, people would want to know why others are gone. Thing is, more often than not, it isn't there business. If they were close to the DEATd or DOSd individual, they can reach out to them off site. If they weren't, its usually just people looking for some juicy forum gossip, something I, and I would presume most other people, don't think the Mod team should be facilitating. And again, there's always the simple "They were deleted for sharing adult material via telegrams", though we're a bit past that.

Another argument is that this is an example for those who would do it again. I'd say just make the rules more clear. Write it out in bright red letters, so that nobody can miss it again. I'm not defending those who thought their actions were permissible, but it's clear that the rules could have been communicated better. I think doing that would prove a better dissuader than posting the names of everyone involved.

As a last note, I do hope this thread won't be locked, as the complaints that were brought up in the initial thread were largely ignored or glossed over. I think this issue does need to be addressed by the mods and this complaint warrants a second thread.

In conclusion, all I'd like to see is the original thread quietly taken down, and for the moderation team to put more thought and concern in the way they go about rulings and the atmosphere that creates. Thank you for reading.

edit: Thanks for sorting this out quickly and cleanly. Much appreciated.

[Esternial]

I don't think we should be chastising Moderation for any sign of transparency, because it'll only discourage them from being more transparent in the future and then the cycle will just begin anew.

The way this information was shared could have been phrased better.

[Souseiseki]

That in itself should be raising red flags, given that there have been many times when Moderation has declined to comment on deletions.

There is a difference between individual cases and large actions against a group of players, no?

Since this is such a sensitive matter (there's not exactly any shame associated in being deleted for flaming), I find it really inappropriate to post the names of those involved. It's already cutting it really close to shaming, but then you consider what else was said in Reppy's statement.

It resembles what happened in both of the illegal script usage judgements.

We often complain we are not told about who is DOS and who is DEATed. Now we complain when we are told? I am aware that "we" is a massive broad category of people but still. Would you have prefered a period of "wow why was X deleted?" and people ultimately creating their own version of events with lists of people deleted and why? It's not like there was any realistic chance this could have been a low brow thing with one or two deletions for reasons unknown.

You yourself admit that we would have had roughly the same scenario unfold with the main difference being anyone that talked about it would be warned.

This was certainly not necessary, as there's no reason to give an explanation as to what went on in the TG's. As one poster pointed out, a mere "They were deleted for sharing adult material via telegrams" would have sufficed.

Do you not think the gulf between "deleted for sharing adult material" and "deleted for sharing adult material involving children with children" is large enough to be worthy of notation? Obviously not everyone involved was doing that, but considering our... previous collective experience with such things would it not be morally dubious to overshadow the serious of their offences and hide what happened? It also, more cynically, reduces the amount of people that will complain about the result.

[Esternial]

Do you not think the gulf between "deleted for sharing adult material" and "deleted for sharing adult material involving children with children" is large enough to be worthy of notation? Obviously not everyone involved was doing that, but considering our... previous collective experience with such things would it not be morally dubious to overshadow the serious of their offences and hide what happened? It also, more cynically, reduces the amount of people that will complain about the result.

That's actually a good point, because "deleted for sharing adult material" would likely illicit more outrage regarding the severity of the punishment not fitting the crime.

[Targovia]

I think Repoy's comments were all tounge-in-cheek. Most Mods wouldn't shame other players for doing something against the rules.

[The Corparation]

Honestly I'd have been disappointed if there wasn't a joke about brain bleach. Comments like that have been par for the course when reppy lays down the hammer (And not just reppy, most of the other mods have a similar sense of humor) and not having any comments like that wouldn't have felt like it came from the forum admin and moderation team we all know, love, hate, despise, and cower in fear from.

[MERIZoC]

I think Repoy's comments were all tounge-in-cheek. Most Mods wouldn't shame other players for doing something against the rules.

What it does, however, is create an environment where shaming becomes acceptable. Just trawl through a couple of pages of the thread and you'll see it.

[Esternial]

Honestly I'd have been disappointed if there wasn't a joke about brain bleach. Comments like that have been par for the course when reppy lays down the hammer (And not just reppy, most of the other mods have a similar sense of humor) and not having any comments like that wouldn't have felt like it came from the forum admin and moderation team we all know, love, hate, despise, and cower in fear from.

True, but from the perspective as some of the punished people it can certainly come across as a slap in the face.

[Goddess Hestia]

Some of the information was necessary. Telling about the kinks people have is not. With the phrasing and expressing his/her own disgust, Reppy was already setting up a precedent for shaming and hatred. Also in the manner the mods put it, it seems that these players will be treated with disgust and become persona non grata in places. They already have enough of a punishment as is, no need to have them put on the level of some of the other people that are hated around NS (The only example i can think of is Govindia...).
I haven't read the whole discussion, but i don't think much red text is going around for the people that are shaming and putting down these people in the thread.

Even if what Reppy said was tongue in cheek, it still has set up a precedent that has been followed.

They've already been beaten down, no need to kick them when they are down.

[Washington Resistance Army]

Yeah, saying rules were broken and whatnot is fine but going in depth about it was just uncalled for.

[RiderSyl]

I saw transparency when someone was using two different puppets and claiming to be two different people. When that player broke the rules using those puppets, the moderator confirmed to the rest of us they were the same player.

However, listing the names of a bunch of people who are in trouble for cybering on NS, for the sake of "transparency" or whatever else... Why? You're basically throwing them to the dogs after they've already been punished. This is some wild west style moderating, and I can see why people are having an issue with it.

[Ethel mermania]

I don't think we should be chastising Moderation for any sign of transparency, because it'll only discourage them from being more transparent in the future and then the cycle will just begin anew.

The way this information was shared could have been phrased better.

^ this.

[Socio Polor]

Yeah, saying rules were broken and whatnot is fine but going in depth about it was just uncalled for.

I agree With this comment
But the drink one was the most unnecessary I would say. That's my opinion

[Dread Lady Nathicana]

It no doubt could have been handled with a great deal more tact, and a good many less details.

This is a problem that has existed, and will no doubt continue to exist, for as long as people have the inclination and opportunity to engage in anything from a bit of relatively harmless sexting all the way on up to grooming and potential danger, or abuse. Given internet anonymity, it's a little difficult to make judgement calls based on age and the like - we are who we represent ourselves to be, in the absence of absolute proof, after all. Still.

It's been interesting to see the less than universal execution of and adherence to rules, guidelines, and prior discussions on the handling of this sort of incident. But then, it's been a while since I was privy to behind-the-scenes info. For all I know, they've changed their stance entirely on how to handle it all.

What concerns me is the lack of conformity I was seeing then, and appear to see degenerating further, the leaps from lack of involvement to full-on smite mode in some circumstances, the chastisement of some for actions taken, which seem to be subsequently taken by others with full blessing, and so forth.

I'll stand by my statements that we have some stellar mods on the team, but as a whole, the quality has been lacking for some time now, and there has been some changes that have not been, I think, in the best interest of the site overall that have resulted in some of the discussions we've seen, and continue to see from concerned players.

No, I can't discuss bits from back then, and I won't. Didn't then, nothing's changed that way. But it has offered me a more unique insight on it, to whatever degree anyone cares to give it credence. It all boils down to my opinion - something I'm sure few doubt I have a problem in stating by now - and you can take it or leave it, but hey.

I was under the impression that it was a rare instance that the moderation team would give out information on bans and deletions, and certainly not the level of detail that was given out here, and with the rather flippant attitude - tongue in cheek or not - along with it. It's ... disappointing. And perhaps a tad embittering, all things considered.

[Ever-Wandering Souls]

I agree that expressing personal disgust at people's sexual preferences was unprofessional, but don't at all object to naming the folks punished. Are raiders being shamed for being named for invovlement in illegal scripting?

In all cases, you've got not far enough and too far. For Predator, many including some of those punished have asked for *'more* detail, I.e. Who was punished for which infraction. Here, I've seen calls on both sides- for the same as above, and for no names named at all. Personally, even if punished, I'd prefer transparency over privacy.

[MERIZoC]

I agree that expressing personal disgust at people's sexual preferences was unprofessional, but don't at all object to naming the folks punished. Are raiders being shamed for being named for invovlement in illegal scripting?

In all cases, you've got not far enough and too far. For Predator, many including some of those punished have asked for *'more* detail, I.e. Who was punished for which infraction. Here, I've seen calls on both sides- for the same as above, and for no names named at all. Personally, even if punished, I'd prefer transparency over privacy.

The difference is that there's far less stigma associated with scripting than with the subject matter here.

[Imperial--japan]

I agree that expressing personal disgust at people's sexual preferences was unprofessional, but don't at all object to naming the folks punished. Are raiders being shamed for being named for invovlement in illegal scripting?

In all cases, you've got not far enough and too far. For Predator, many including some of those punished have asked for *'more* detail, I.e. Who was punished for which infraction. Here, I've seen calls on both sides- for the same as above, and for no names named at all. Personally, even if punished, I'd prefer transparency over privacy.

Wouldn't this be more situational though? The predator incident and THIS are two different events that should be done in their own fashion. Illegal scripting and Sexual Roleplay are obviously separate offenses with their own reprecussions

Not only was it all done with the intention for it to remain private, but why is it any regular users business on what anyone was doing in their TG's? Surely moderation can dish out punishment without shaming those involved in this circumstance. If someone who survived wishes to disclose what they did, that's their prerogative.

[Frenline Delpha]

I agree that expressing personal disgust at people's sexual preferences was unprofessional, but don't at all object to naming the folks punished. Are raiders being shamed for being named for invovlement in illegal scripting?

In all cases, you've got not far enough and too far. For Predator, many including some of those punished have asked for *'more* detail, I.e. Who was punished for which infraction. Here, I've seen calls on both sides- for the same as above, and for no names named at all. Personally, even if punished, I'd prefer transparency over privacy.

The difference is that there's far less stigma associated with scripting than with the subject matter here.

Personally, I am fine with what went down. They never said who wrote what RP, but they gave a general overview ofwhat was seen. Also, you lose your right to complain about being punished if you were the one who did the crime in the first place. The saying is: Can't do the time, don't do the time.

[Ever-Wandering Souls]

You're worried people will get kicked out of RP's after being named in this. People have gotten kicked out and banned from interacting with regions over Predator. Massive rule breaking carries a stigma even for non-sexual offenses. Just as we could test for predator Rulebreakers without this announcement merely by asking people to join the wa, OP's could check this by asking people to reply to a tg before joining, so it's ultimately not revealing anything not findable otherwise. This way, everyone knows who's getting punished how much for approximately what, which I much prefer to wild conjecture, witch hunts, and guessing games.

[North Arkana]

Predator is also linked to a singular set of events. With this cybersexing, anyone named is automatically assumed to be linked to ALL the kinks so kindly provided by moderation. I, for one, know that even if into one thing, I'd rather not be linked to some of the examples provided. It piles unnecessary shame upon the shame already delivered by the public report.

[Northwest Slobovia]

I agree that expressing personal disgust at people's sexual preferences was unprofessional, but don't at all object to naming the folks punished. Are raiders being shamed for being named for invovlement in illegal scripting?

In all cases, you've got not far enough and too far. For Predator, many including some of those punished have asked for *'more* detail, I.e. Who was punished for which infraction. Here, I've seen calls on both sides- for the same as above, and for no names named at all. Personally, even if punished, I'd prefer transparency over privacy.

The difference is that there's far less stigma associated with scripting than with the subject matter here.

I can see that for the third group: those DEATed and TG-banned for six months. I have sympathy for them because of the (apparently unintentional) implication that they'd done worse things than what Reppy said (one or more naughty TGs).

But, well... people who are DoS are gone from the site. They can only be stigmatized by people who can contact them offsite. I kinda suspect the ones who can contact them already knew what they were doing in TGs.

The same is partially true for people who were puppetswept. Those of them who make the connections to their nuked nations can be stigmatized by NS users. Nothing stops them, though, from making a fresh start with new puppets. Obviously, many will want to keep the good parts of their previous reputations, which puts them in a bind.

[Ostroeuropa]

*Shrug*
I expect people might think i'm being disingenuous, but!

I'd ordinarily agree, but I think it's worth noting that the moderators are not professionals and councilling likely wasn't made available for them, and furthermore, while they did in a way "Sign up for this shit", it's not exactly the sort of thing you expect to be doing. They're private citizens doing us all a favor.

When juries are forced to look at child porn, there typically given an out and offered councilling. So do police officers.

I expect he's pissed, and genuinely disgusted. That's kind of the problem with forcing people to look at pornography they don't like, and why you shouldn't do it here of all places, where mods have to act and will be forced to look at it.
The mods were forcibly included in the sexual preferences of other people just to do their jobs, so I don't particular care if one of them is, justifiably, pissed about it and has a bit of vitriol against the people who put them through it.

That's before you even get to the child porn aspect.

I am NOT anti-pornography, hell i'm not even anti-lolicon. But an important factor in that is consenting adults.

I'm concerned this discussion is holding the moderation staff to a standard that, frankly, should not be expected of them.
Had moderation directly named individuals and their preferences I would have understood but disagreed strongly.
As is, one of their members just mentioned they were disgusted by what they saw and said what they saw.

As others have pointed out, there were ways to have potentially phrased this more professionally.
But these aren't necessarily professionals.

If it was the government doing this shit i'd agree, they should have kept a lid on it.
It's a web forum. I'm not going to condescend to the mods, i'll just say that if they're having issues with it then that's entirely normal and there is help available for this kind of thing. I'm not keen to engage in a pile on of people who might be pretty stressed about this.

More than any of us this was an action against the moderators. It's all well and good to point out mods shouldn't rise to shitposting and such, but they do. People do.
This is a bit bigger than that. I expect they were disgusted. i expect they were pissed off. It's understandable. If you don't want people to out your porn habits, don't forcibly include them in your porn habits against their will, I guess.

[Imperial--japan]

You're worried people will get kicked out of RP's after being named in this. People have gotten kicked out and banned from interacting with regions over Predator. Massive rule breaking carries a stigma even for non-sexual offenses. Just as we could test for predator Rulebreakers without this announcement merely by asking people to join the wa, OP's could check this by asking people to reply to a tg before joining, so it's ultimately not revealing anything not findable otherwise. This way, everyone knows who's getting punished how much for approximately what, which I much prefer to wild conjecture, witch hunts, and guessing games.

But in this instance, is it anyone else's business besides those in Moderation and the punished? Lopping predator in with this seems rather unnecessary given it's a completely separate matter.

[Kelinfort]

I strongly agree. Thank you Merizoc.

[New Neros]

You're worried people will get kicked out of RP's after being named in this. People have gotten kicked out and banned from interacting with regions over Predator. Massive rule breaking carries a stigma even for non-sexual offenses. Just as we could test for predator Rulebreakers without this announcement merely by asking people to join the wa, OP's could check this by asking people to reply to a tg before joining, so it's ultimately not revealing anything not findable otherwise. This way, everyone knows who's getting punished how much for approximately what, which I much prefer to wild conjecture, witch hunts, and guessing games.

But in this instance, is it anyone else's business besides those in Moderation and the punished? Lopping predator in with this seems rather unnecessary given it's a completely separate matter.

They're painting it to be similar to it's execution. Big announcement, naming of offenders, and listing of punishments given out.

What I'm up in arms over is the fact that Mods went through TGs for some ungodly reason. Why not just filter all TGs then and not select a few to dish out punishments?