[Discussion] Concern over recent moderator action

[Dread Lady Nathicana]

-snip-

It is hugely inappropriate to publicly post a moderator's private Facebook account. I'm extremely disappointed you did that. To date, the rules have focused on how mods will not share players' personally identifying information, but we will be updating them to clarify that doxing people is a DEATable offense.

Once again, it is not private. It is very much public, and she used it to post as such on the NationStates Facebook page - as far back as 2010 identifying herself under that account as being Reppy, right here. I checked prior to linking. I'm not that goram stupid. Were it not for that fact, it would never have happened, and I'd have just mentioned it.

Once more, good to know the bias is still strong on your end. At least here, everyone can see it clearly. Well done.

To those who thought I was complaining that no one takes me seriously - that is not the case, nor was I fishing for compliments with the 'clearly not to be listened to' comment. It was a tongue-in-cheek reference to the fact that I am very much persona non grata with the powers that be here on the site, and quite likely, a player they'd just as soon disappear quietly into the night so they can be done with me. You folks can do what you like with the opinions I offer - they don't stand any higher than any other player's opinions, after all. I don't expect any more respect or weight to be given them than anyone else, so no worries. Believe it or not, I've got plenty of self-deprecating humor, and to spare.

That said, sticking to my statements. It's clear I've been given the 'review' even though it wasn't an official request, and ain't nothing going to be done about that warning. The one prior, involving Infected Mushroom, held even less weight, but again, it's clear that any handle given to them to delete this account will be grabbed onto and used to its fullest.

In the meantime, bragging about record-breaking mod actions on Facebook goes unaddressed, the concerns brought up her by players goes unaddressed, folks with a history of harassment and bullying are preaching to others to 'chilly down', and the only thing [violet] chooses to chime in on is that damn Nathi. Y'all can draw your own conclusions, neh?

[The Remnants a Flaming Dawn]

I just thought about the DEN incident... why wasn't that stickies? I'm pretty sure invasive programs that could simulate a DDOS are a bit more important than a few smutty TGs : P

[Ever-Wandering Souls]

I just thought about the DEN incident... why wasn't that stickies? I'm pretty sure invasive programs that could simulate a DDOS are a bit more important than a few smutty TGs : P

Was stickied in Gameplay, where it was relevant. The given reasoning here was that these players were not so simply members of one section, but contains a wide spread of users across many roleplay sections, so a wider pin was appropriate. To note, this has also need unpinned after "it's served its purpose" while Predator is still pinned in GP.

[The Remnants a Flaming Dawn]

I just thought about the DEN incident... why wasn't that stickies? I'm pretty sure invasive programs that could simulate a DDOS are a bit more important than a few smutty TGs : P

Was stickied in Gameplay, where it was relevant. The given reasoning here was that these players were not so simply members of one section, but contains a wide spread of users across many roleplay sections, so a wider pin was appropriate. To note, this has also need unpinned after "it's served its purpose" while Predator is still pinned in GP.

Fair enough, but on that note it was mainly relevant to F7, P2TM, and II where most character roleplaying takes place, and by extension most of the deleted users.

[Esternial]

It is hugely inappropriate to publicly post a moderator's private Facebook account. I'm extremely disappointed you did that. To date, the rules have focused on how mods will not share players' personally identifying information, but we will be updating them to clarify that doxing people is a DEATable offense.

Once again, it is not private. It is very much public, and she used it to post as such on the NationStates Facebook page - as far back as 2010 identifying herself under that account as being Reppy, right here. I checked prior to linking. I'm not that goram stupid. Were it not for that fact, it would never have happened, and I'd have just mentioned it.

Well, still. You do have to understand that posting any kind of information about other people, regardless of whether or not it can be found with some effort, isn't really cool. Someone posted my RL name once and I wasn't really comfortable with it because I wasn't the one sharing it, even though I'm also part of the group. It wasn't shared on my own terms.

Even if something is common knowledge to some, sharing someone else's details is never okey, imo. I don't think anyone is being vindictive when they have a problem with that.

[Ymir ridge]

Was stickied in Gameplay, where it was relevant. The given reasoning here was that these players were not so simply members of one section, but contains a wide spread of users across many roleplay sections, so a wider pin was appropriate. To note, this has also need unpinned after "it's served its purpose" while Predator is still pinned in GP.

Fair enough, but on that note it was mainly relevant to F7, P2TM, and II where most character roleplaying takes place, and by extension most of the deleted users.

I think most of those involved thought the fact that this was stickied widely a secondary concern to the actual content of the initial post, which went beyond simply listing nations deleted and why into pretty much an attack on some people's tastes, which are not relevant to the breach of the rules and was very much about things discussed in private conversations. reploid has now apologized and adjusted that post, which is something I am very grateful for, I just hope that like us, the mods have learned something from this. To think a bit before posting names and information about deletes openly across every forum page about how you are phrasing it and the consequences that can have for people involved.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

Once again, it is not private. It is very much public, and she used it to post as such on the NationStates Facebook page - as far back as 2010 identifying herself under that account as being Reppy, right here. I checked prior to linking. I'm not that goram stupid. Were it not for that fact, it would never have happened, and I'd have just mentioned it.

Well, still. You do have to understand that posting any kind of information about other people, regardless of whether or not it can be found with some effort, isn't really cool. Someone posted my RL name once and I wasn't really comfortable with it because I wasn't the one sharing it, even though I'm also part of the group. It wasn't shared on my own terms.

Even if something is common knowledge to some, sharing someone else's details is never okey, imo. I don't think anyone is being vindictive when they have a problem with that.

There's a lot of impertinence going on in moderation as of late though, Nathi's warning put aside.

[Esternial]

I just thought about the DEN incident... why wasn't that stickies? I'm pretty sure invasive programs that could simulate a DDOS are a bit more important than a few smutty TGs : P

The Mods thought they could discourage any future smutty TGs by publicly shaming the punished users ("name-and-shame", which is an effective though not very honourable tactic.

Like using white phosphorous.

Might've seemed like a good idea, and I think they probably expected the backlash. It's somewhat concerning that there might be such a general disregard for any players that are punished.

Well, still. You do have to understand that posting any kind of information about other people, regardless of whether or not it can be found with some effort, isn't really cool. Someone posted my RL name once and I wasn't really comfortable with it because I wasn't the one sharing it, even though I'm also part of the group. It wasn't shared on my own terms.

Even if something is common knowledge to some, sharing someone else's details is never okey, imo. I don't think anyone is being vindictive when they have a problem with that.

There's a lot of impertinence going on in moderation as of late though, Nathi's warning put aside.

Luna's "we don't owe them any favours" comment still kinda worries me. It wasn't about this subject, but I'm just hoping it's not the default mentality regarding all rule-breakers.

[The Remnants a Flaming Dawn]

I just thought about the DEN incident... why wasn't that stickies? I'm pretty sure invasive programs that could simulate a DDOS are a bit more important than a few smutty TGs : P

The Mods thought they could discourage any future smutty TGs by publicly shaming the punished users ("name-and-shame", which is an effective though not very honourable tactic.

Like using white phosphorous.

Might've seemed like a good idea, and I think they probably expected the backlash. It's somewhat concerning that there might be such a general disregard for any players that are punished.

And the mods also thought posting a thread about not using invasive programs in gameplay was what they needed to scare people into not using them...

[Kelinfort]

I just thought about the DEN incident... why wasn't that stickies? I'm pretty sure invasive programs that could simulate a DDOS are a bit more important than a few smutty TGs : P

The Mods thought they could discourage any future smutty TGs by publicly shaming the punished users ("name-and-shame", which is an effective though not very honourable tactic.

Like using white phosphorous.

Might've seemed like a good idea, and I think they probably expected the backlash. It's somewhat concerning that there might be such a general disregard for any players that are punished.

There's a lot of impertinence going on in moderation as of late though, Nathi's warning put aside.

Luna's "we don't owe them any favours" comment still kinda worries me. It wasn't about this subject, but I'm just hoping it's not the default mentality regarding all rule-breakers.

Or send them a warning TG telling the respective individuals to stop immediately or they will be punished and named.

[Esternial]

The Mods thought they could discourage any future smutty TGs by publicly shaming the punished users ("name-and-shame", which is an effective though not very honourable tactic.

Like using white phosphorous.

Might've seemed like a good idea, and I think they probably expected the backlash. It's somewhat concerning that there might be such a general disregard for any players that are punished.


Luna's "we don't owe them any favours" comment still kinda worries me. It wasn't about this subject, but I'm just hoping it's not the default mentality regarding all rule-breakers.

Or send them a warning TG telling the respective individuals to stop immediately or they will be punished and named.

You'd still need some kind of "Public Service announcement" to make sure those that they didn't catch would also be reminded to take things offsite.

I reckon saying a bunch of people got banned and shit for cybering would've sufficed. The initial post seemed to have more..."Carthagian" proportions. Demolish the city, salt the earth.

[Ymir ridge]

Or send them a warning TG telling the respective individuals to stop immediately or they will be punished and named.

You'd still need some kind of "Public Service announcement" to make sure those that they didn't catch would also be reminded to take things offsite.

I reckon saying a bunch of people got banned and shit for cybering would've sufficed. The initial post seemed to have more..."Carthagian" proportions. Demolish the city, salt the earth.

[humour]lets hope it doesn't take a 100 years before we're allowed to rebuild then.[/humour]
I do consider the matter closed and will leave it at this. last two days have not been fun. again, gratefull to reploid for apologizing. and I am gratefull to be given a chance to pick up the pieces somewhat.

[Kelinfort]

Or send them a warning TG telling the respective individuals to stop immediately or they will be punished and named.

You'd still need some kind of "Public Service announcement" to make sure those that they didn't catch would also be reminded to take things offsite.

Well that goes without saying.

[Esternial]

You'd still need some kind of "Public Service announcement" to make sure those that they didn't catch would also be reminded to take things offsite.

I reckon saying a bunch of people got banned and shit for cybering would've sufficed. The initial post seemed to have more..."Carthagian" proportions. Demolish the city, salt the earth.

[humour]lets hope it doesn't take a 100 years before we're allowed to rebuild then.[/humour]

To stick to the metaphor, it's some people's faith in Moderation that'll need a lot of time to rebuild.

I can't possibly know Moderation's policy, but maintaining the goodwill of the community is a point that could use some improvement. Being extra careful when releasing public statements is one of them.

I would have expected at least one of the Mods to say "hold on, is it really okey for us to be so explicit? I know we're trying to discourage further rulebreaking but we don't want people to get upset over something we didn't necessarily have to include in our statement", and that this concern would be considered and taken into account when drafting that post.

The Mods are free to correct any misconceptions I'm having. In fact I'd appreciate it if they did. I don't want to be overly critical and be on their case all the time, but that's the impression I'm getting and I feel it's better to share it than to keep it to myself and just assume that's how it is.

[CoraSpia]

Once again, it is not private. It is very much public, and she used it to post as such on the NationStates Facebook page - as far back as 2010 identifying herself under that account as being Reppy, right here. I checked prior to linking. I'm not that goram stupid. Were it not for that fact, it would never have happened, and I'd have just mentioned it.

Well, still. You do have to understand that posting any kind of information about other people, regardless of whether or not it can be found with some effort, isn't really cool. Someone posted my RL name once and I wasn't really comfortable with it because I wasn't the one sharing it, even though I'm also part of the group. It wasn't shared on my own terms.

Even if something is common knowledge to some, sharing someone else's details is never okey, imo. I don't think anyone is being vindictive when they have a problem with that.

But it wasn't a personal facebook that was shared.
It was one dedecated to NS matters, without Reppy's own name. It's as private as those Skype negotiations that were shared over in gameplay.

[Esternial]

Well, still. You do have to understand that posting any kind of information about other people, regardless of whether or not it can be found with some effort, isn't really cool. Someone posted my RL name once and I wasn't really comfortable with it because I wasn't the one sharing it, even though I'm also part of the group. It wasn't shared on my own terms.

Even if something is common knowledge to some, sharing someone else's details is never okey, imo. I don't think anyone is being vindictive when they have a problem with that.

But it wasn't a personal facebook that was shared.
It was one dedecated to NS matters, without Reppy's own name. It's as private as those Skype negotiations that were shared over in gameplay.

Hmm, perhaps. If it is then I suppose I can see the argument from both sides of the table. It's not private, maybe, but I'm still not sure if it's okey to just share other people's account details/name/link/whatevs. My Steam account doesn't contain any RL info but I don't want it being thrown around either without my consent, even if just because I don't want people trying to add me.

[Dread Lady Nathicana]

But it wasn't a personal facebook that was shared.
It was one dedecated to NS matters, without Reppy's own name. It's as private as those Skype negotiations that were shared over in gameplay.

Hmm, perhaps. If it is then I suppose I can see the argument from both sides of the table. It's not private, maybe, but I'm still not sure if it's okey to just share other people's account details/name/link/whatevs. My Steam account doesn't contain any RL info but I don't want it being thrown around either without my consent, even if just because I don't want people trying to add me.

Used in the NS community, only shared with the NS community. One would think that would be pretty clear in how different that is from sharing someone's Skype, or Steam, or Sony account info here. It isn't at all relevant. This however, was. Directly. For at least 6 years, if not more. Thus ... not 'private', especially when announced initially as 'Hi, this is me' to the general NS populace who've had access to it. Not secret, not 'here are their personal details, have fun'. But why let logic get in the way of agenda? In any case, stated clearly enough on my part, and it won't make a damn bit of difference either way, so I figure that's enough of that, unless someone has additional questions - which they can ask via some other method, no doubt.

[Kryozerkia]

Or send them a warning TG telling the respective individuals to stop immediately or they will be punished and named.

An optimistic point of view. Warnings to a point are a valuable mod tool, however, there are instances where a warning's merit is diminished.

[Ethel mermania]

Or send them a warning TG telling the respective individuals to stop immediately or they will be punished and named.

You'd still need some kind of "Public Service announcement" to make sure those that they didn't catch would also be reminded to take things offsite.

I reckon saying a bunch of people got banned and shit for cybering would've sufficed. The initial post seemed to have more..."Carthagian" proportions. Demolish the city, salt the earth.

Again, they have to come down hard, if a kid wound up cybering with one of the offenders, and the parents sued nationstated for enabling child porn. The lawsuit is going to hang on what actions did the site take to keep it clear of child porn. They have to be loud and clear.

[Kelinfort]

Or send them a warning TG telling the respective individuals to stop immediately or they will be punished and named.

An optimistic point of view. Warnings to a point are a valuable mod tool, however, there are instances where a warning's merit is diminished.

I understand. Though I think it would have been possible in the early days of the investigation to distribute warnings to one time offenders. Obviously I don't know exactly how this went down, but it could've stemmed the tide quickly.

[New Babylonia]

You'd still need some kind of "Public Service announcement" to make sure those that they didn't catch would also be reminded to take things offsite.

I reckon saying a bunch of people got banned and shit for cybering would've sufficed. The initial post seemed to have more..."Carthagian" proportions. Demolish the city, salt the earth.

Again, they have to come down hard, if a kid wound up cybering with one of the offenders, and the parents sued nationstated for enabling child porn. The lawsuit is going to hang on what actions did the site take to keep it clear of child porn. They have to be loud and clear.

And also shame and downright bully people, many of whom i know aren't exactly anymore stable than a jenga tower, and have a history of depression and even self harm, some of which I KNOW can be found in their TGs.
Right.
That'll look good in a courtroom!
Instead of enabling child porn, we'll be cyber bullies! Surely we can't gt sued for that! I mean, it's better than child porn at least!
Knowing America, of course, i'm pretty sure they can. Funny thing is, the evidence they'd have to prove that i harmed them would actually be substantive and support the lawsuit, whereas - as the mods even said - they didn't report anything to the law because there wasn't enough evidence to warrant it.

Great thinking. Let's do that. Let's instead give other people a reason to flip out and sue if they wanted. Remember; this is America, people will sue over ANYTHING, and even win. If you don't want to get sued, the bets course is to not do anything potentially worthy of it. Like, cyber bullying a group of teenagers known to have depression. Might not get looked upon so well?

What do i know though? I'm just a teenager too, whose depression is more hairline and severe than what i've subscribed. Replace jenga tower with nitroglycerin and you done got it right. So i'm probably just being crazy, i'm sure it didn't hurt any of them at all. Not like i would know anything about being extremely unstable and vulnerable to stuff like this, to the point of severe self harm beyond my ability to combat or control.

All information about lawsuits is based on my weak memory thinking it remembers the NS servers being in the US. I was thinking US or Australia, so someone for the love of whatever deity you believe give me the definitive answer.

[Esternial]

You'd still need some kind of "Public Service announcement" to make sure those that they didn't catch would also be reminded to take things offsite.

I reckon saying a bunch of people got banned and shit for cybering would've sufficed. The initial post seemed to have more..."Carthagian" proportions. Demolish the city, salt the earth.

Again, they have to come down hard, if a kid wound up cybering with one of the offenders, and the parents sued nationstated for enabling child porn. The lawsuit is going to hang on what actions did the site take to keep it clear of child porn. They have to be loud and clear.

I can certainly understand that side of the argument, but from the viewpoint of the people being punished it's incredibly harsh.

It's a very sensitive subject for all parties involved and it could've been treated more like one. Naming and shaming was not necessary to get that point across. Naming, sure. Shaming goes too far. It displays a lack of forethought/concern in regard to the offending party's situation.

It's not an either/or situation. There wasn't a choice between "silently banning and not speaking a word" and all out "name and shame, strip the flesh, salt the wound". There was a golden path in between both and it would've been nice if they considered and went with that.

[Azervia]

I am very confused,

If you do or do not know, I am Kazarstan, one of the offender's that was deleted and I have a few questions over my deletion. First off, I would like to actually thank for mods for not initiating a Delete-on-Sight for my account, but here is my concern. The moderators have the right to prowl through my telegrams, is that not a blatant violation of user privacy? The telegrams were not being mass-circulated, furthermore they were barely telegrams sent which actually involved graphic content, which brings me to my next point. The telegram(s) that I have sent that involve graphic content were sent over 5 months ago prior to this investigation and I had stopped sending graphic telegrams after begin warned by a peer to do so, thus I am actively confused as to why am being punished for something I clearly stopped? I clearly stopped it and they were WAY old, so given the situation, would this not warrant a warning and not a deletion? And what really annoys me is that i did not instigate/start the tg sexting and the person who started and actively continued it, and kept asking me to continue even on forums has not even been warned, yet alone deleted.

What sort of half-hearted mod action is this?

[Kelinfort]

I am very confused,

If you do or do not know, I am Kazarstan, one of the offender's that was deleted and I have a few questions over my deletion. First off, I would like to actually thank for mods for not initiating a Delete-on-Sight for my account, but here is my concern. The moderators have the right to prowl through my telegrams, is that not a blatant violation of user privacy? The telegrams were not being mass-circulated, furthermore they were barely telegrams sent which actually involved graphic content, which brings me to my next point. The telegram(s) that I have sent that involve graphic content were sent over 5 months ago prior to this investigation and I had stopped sending graphic telegrams after begin warned by a peer to do so, thus I am actively confused as to why am being punished for something I clearly stopped? I clearly stopped it and they were WAY old, so given the situation, would this not warrant a warning and not a deletion? And what really annoys me is that i did not instigate/start the tg sexting and the person who started and actively continued it, and kept asking me to continue even on forums has not even been warned, yet alone deleted.

What sort of half-hearted mod action is this?

It's common knowledge that telegrams are not private and the mods can view what you send at any time.

The fact you ceased to send them, though, may help your case. Perhaps the best course of action would be to file a GHR.

[New Babylonia]

Again, they have to come down hard, if a kid wound up cybering with one of the offenders, and the parents sued nationstated for enabling child porn. The lawsuit is going to hang on what actions did the site take to keep it clear of child porn. They have to be loud and clear.

I can certainly understand that side of the argument, but from the viewpoint of the people being punished it's incredibly harsh.

It's a very sensitive subject for all parties involved and it could've been treated more like one. Naming and shaming was not necessary to get that point across. Naming, sure. Shaming goes too far. It displays a lack of forethought/concern in regard to the offending party's situation.

It's not an either/or situation. There wasn't a choice between "silently banning and not speaking a word" and all out "name and shame, strip the flesh, salt the wound". There was a golden path in between both and it would've been nice if they considered and went with that.

Hell, it would've been easy for them. How many people now have literally summed up basically everything in the OP in one sentence that isn't going to make anyone feel like they're being targeted to have the public assail them with tomatoes.
Must be at least half a dozen right? Probably pulled out their ass in less than 5 minutes?
It just makes me wonder WHY that path wasn't used, since it could have been as easy as that.

Though, i'm sure lots of people would be bitching if it was only one sentence too.

I am very confused,

If you do or do not know, I am Kazarstan, one of the offender's that was deleted and I have a few questions over my deletion. First off, I would like to actually thank for mods for not initiating a Delete-on-Sight for my account, but here is my concern. The moderators have the right to prowl through my telegrams, is that not a blatant violation of user privacy? The telegrams were not being mass-circulated, furthermore they were barely telegrams sent which actually involved graphic content, which brings me to my next point. The telegram(s) that I have sent that involve graphic content were sent over 5 months ago prior to this investigation and I had stopped sending graphic telegrams after begin warned by a peer to do so, thus I am actively confused as to why am being punished for something I clearly stopped? I clearly stopped it and they were WAY old, so given the situation, would this not warrant a warning and not a deletion? And what really annoys me is that i did not instigate/start the tg sexting and the person who started and actively continued it, and kept asking me to continue even on forums has not even been warned, yet alone deleted.

What sort of half-hearted mod action is this?

They've said something about not investigating EVERY SINGLE LEAD, because it would just bring them to more endlessly, so i assume that.