A nationstates tribunal [suggestion]

[Shazbotdom]

I agree to an extent, except i'd like to say one thing;

The rules are too broad and vague and you can get banned for your opinion if it is 'trolling'.

And when they were too specific, people complained that stuff wasn't being warned for when it clearly fell in the line of something, but not fully. It's a double edged sword, which is why Moderation has said specifically that context is everything.

It all depends on how you express that opinion. If it is done in the wrong manner, then it can be considered trolling. If it is expressed in the right manner, then it isn't trolling.



Now can we just lock this thread already as this suggestion has been shot down multiple times? I remember at least 25 different threads on this in my 11 years, 7 Months and 7 Days here...

[Whitefist America]

I totally agree with your suggestion! It's not fair for anybody to ban or delete a person's nation without any evidence or saying their opinion not in a rude way. This banning of people is quite unjust and also very malicious. Also the smart comments that moderators say is considered cyber bullying and harassment that's very illegal. I'm quite surprised that this game wasn't shut down yet. If I was Max Barry I would've pull the plug a long time ago. This is not how you treat people or deal situations this isn't real life it's a game not the U.N. I want everybody to get along on here and play a game without any injustices and backlash.


That's all got to say!

[Shazbotdom]

I totally agree with your suggestion! It's not fair for anybody to ban or delete a person's nation without any evidence or saying their opinion not in a rude way. This banning of people is quite unjust and also very malicious. Also the smart comments that moderators say is considered cyber bullying and harassment that's very illegal. I'm quite surprised that this game wasn't shut down yet. If I was Max Barry I would've pull the plug a long time ago. This is not how you treat people or deal situations this isn't real life it's a game not the U.N. I want everybody to get along on here and play a game without any injustices and backlash.


That's all got to say!

And this has been suggested more than two dozen times in my nearly 12 years on this game. It has been given a "no" by both Moderation as well as Max, the owner of this website. What yo would have if this was implemented would be "Mob Rule", and people ruling based on popularity rather than the rules.

Also, was there really a reason to grave dig this thread?

[American Imperial State]

I just wish the moderation team was more transparent in their decisions, discussions and appointing of new mods.

That's all, really. A tribunal is stupid because people are really opinionated and have their biases. It couldn't be done fairly. There are some great mods out there doing a good job, i don't think we need a 'tribunal' that would cause more drama than not.

[Reploid Productions]

*** Whitefist America, 1-day ban for spamming. *** Please consult the site rules upon your return.


~Evil Forum Empress Rep Prod the Ninja Mod
~She who wields the Banhammer; master of the mighty moderation no-dachi Kiritateru Teikoku

[Salazarstan]

*** Whitefist America, 1-day ban for spamming. *** Please consult the site rules upon your return.

(Image)
~Evil Forum Empress Rep Prod the Ninja Mod
~She who wields the Banhammer; master of the mighty moderation no-dachi Kiritateru Teikoku

Yea great at silencing people that speak out against them,but hay who's counting the unnecessary bans and warns; not aye. I still think an tribunal would be better then moderation decision and discussion because people have an chance to defend themselves, but hay I've been wrong before what we got to lose besides our nations; I mean come on fokes unjustified and uncalled for bans with little or no defense can happen to anyone and not us.

But lets all go home drink an cup of tea,pretend this thread never happened and live happily ever after with our big brother type of government looking over our shoulders free to do whatever it please.

[Mallorea and Riva]

*** Whitefist America, 1-day ban for spamming. *** Please consult the site rules upon your return.

(Image)
~Evil Forum Empress Rep Prod the Ninja Mod
~She who wields the Banhammer; master of the mighty moderation no-dachi Kiritateru Teikoku

Yea great at silencing people that speak out against them,but hay who's counting the unnecessary bans and warns; not aye. I still think an tribunal would be better then moderation decision and discussion because people have an chance to defend themselves, but hay I've been wrong before what we got to lose besides our nations; I mean come on fokes unjustified and uncalled for bans with little or no defense can happen to anyone and not us.

But lets all go home drink an cup of tea,pretend this thread never happened and live happily ever after with our big brother type of government looking over our shoulders free to do whatever it please.

You clearly did not see the wave of spam that this user posted across the forum that resulted in this ban. For this oversight, I forgive you.

[Drasnia]

Can confirm. There was quite a bit of spam.

As for the topic at hand - is this still going to be discussed or will we allow this gravedig to slowly evaporate into the aether of the night?

[Asesari]

Can confirm. There was quite a bit of spam.

As for the topic at hand - is this still going to be discussed or will we allow this gravedig to slowly evaporate into the aether of the night?

Gravedig
viewtopic.php?f=23&t=199422&p=28747024#p28747024

Gravedig
viewtopic.php?f=23&t=201420&p=28745427#p28745427

Gravedig
viewtopic.php?f=23&t=90210&p=28745186#p28745186

Gravedig
viewtopic.php?f=23&t=72035&p=28706464#p28706464

Gravedig
viewtopic.php?f=23&t=186465&p=28661741#p28661741

Gravedig
viewtopic.php?f=23&t=192051&p=28653245#p28653245

Many More.

[Salazarstan]

Yea great at silencing people that speak out against them,but hay who's counting the unnecessary bans and warns; not aye. I still think an tribunal would be better then moderation decision and discussion because people have an chance to defend themselves, but hay I've been wrong before what we got to lose besides our nations; I mean come on fokes unjustified and uncalled for bans with little or no defense can happen to anyone and not us.

But lets all go home drink an cup of tea,pretend this thread never happened and live happily ever after with our big brother type of government looking over our shoulders free to do whatever it please.

You clearly did not see the wave of spam that this user posted across the forum that resulted in this ban. For this oversight, I forgive you.

you literately have no choice because sarcasm isn't against the rules. but long story short thread old idea axed to death by people who enjoy an flawed system, so i am going back to rping for now and continue to play the system and maybe take a few popshots at mods in a non rule breaking way.

[Infected Mushroom]

I oppose the idea, unless I am myself permanently appointed as a member on this tribunal with strong voting power

otherwise, I don't trust a randomly selected group of peers... it will turn into mob rule

[Luna Amore]

You clearly did not see the wave of spam that this user posted across the forum that resulted in this ban. For this oversight, I forgive you.

you literately have no choice because sarcasm isn't against the rules. but long story short thread old idea axed to death by people who enjoy an flawed system, so i am going back to rping for now and continue to play the system and maybe take a few popshots at mods in a non rule breaking way.

What you described is textbook bad faith posting and against the rules. Long but good reference, bolded for emphasis:

Moderation Forum: Some Whys and Wherefores

Lately there has been a troubling rise in the number of moderator/player interactions here that I would characterize as deeply dysfunctional. They have engendered a toxic atmosphere in which neither side completely trusts the motivations of the other, which has derailed a great deal of what would otherwise be good, productive discussion.

Many people have noticed this and requested change. Here is the result. Firstly, as detailed above, Moderation is now the place for discussion threads about site policy and moderation practices. Previously, discussion threads were banned, in order to preserve the original intent of the forum as a place for open, impartial viewing of moderation actions: it is difficult to follow a formal procedure for reports if anyone can chime in with related questions, comment, and suggestions.

I hope that the two types of thread--report and discussion--can live side-by-side in the same forum. If necessary, though, we will split into two subforms, one for reports and one for discussion. I would like to avoid this, since additional fragmentation is generally not good for the community.

A second important change is a new requirement that posts in Moderation must be good faith.

To explain. Moderators are good people. The job is tough, but the people are good. They are funny, they disagree a lot, they want what's best for the site. And posters are the same. We share a common goal of wanting this place to be better. Good faith posts aim at that goal, making a genuine attempt to help us improve the site.

Bad faith is when a poster becomes grumpy with moderators and stops trying to work with them, instead beginning to work against them. They may be "point-scoring" posts that denigrate a moderator but contribute nothing useful, or may be deceitful, asking questions where the poster doesn't care about the answer except that it may catch out a mod in a contradiction, or provide ammunition for the future. Fundamentally, they aren't motivated by a genuine interest in improving the site, but rather by a desire to punish a moderator for something they did in the past.

We don't want to hide from our mistakes, or defend a bad policy. Instead, we have an exhaustive process for reporting rule breaches, including misbehavior by moderators. This entire Moderation forum exists to provide what I believe is an unprecedented level of transparency and openness for an internet forum of this size. This forum is an exercise in good faith, exposing what moderators do and how they make decisions, so that everyone can see.

But this requires reciprocation. It requires posters who disagree with a moderator ruling to express that dissatisfaction in a constructive way, and not allowing it to become an ongoing campaign. No-one, not posters nor moderators, should carry a grudge into this forum. That kind of thing derails genuine threads, discourages well-meaning posters, and punishes moderators for being open and informal with their thoughts. That's not why we're here.

As a reminder, Moderators are volunteers. They aren't lawyers, they're not professional forum moderators; they're just good people from all walks of life giving their time and energy to the site for free, because they want to help make it a fun and fair place. Similarly, the rules are written to the spirit of how we want NationStates to be, not as a hard legal code. They are applied in good faith by the best efforts of volunteers. Consistency is a goal, but it cannot be guaranteed. If you like to play the game of finding loopholes in rules, please do so with the aim of suggesting improvements, not scoring "gotcha" moments against mods.

Since this is Moderation, I know people will be interested in a hard and fast definition of good faith vs bad faith, including examples. I was going to include this, in the interests of clarity, but decided against it, despite there being quite a number to choose from, so that we can make a fresh start, not point fingers at past misbehavior.

So I have simply instructed moderators to remove posts from discussion threads that are bad faith. Hopefully there will be none, or very few.

Finally I would like to welcome and thank anyone who comes to this forum with the aim of helping us make the site better. That is why we're here.

[The Brand New Salvatagard Republic]

"Anyone who agrees, say 'I'."
"I."
"Anyone who oppose, say 'Nay'."
I thinks you idea is a very great one, but, there's only one problem: what if the accused doesn't wanna post?

[American Imperial State]

you literately have no choice because sarcasm isn't against the rules. but long story short thread old idea axed to death by people who enjoy an flawed system, so i am going back to rping for now and continue to play the system and maybe take a few popshots at mods in a non rule breaking way.

What you described is textbook bad faith posting and against the rules. Long but good reference, bolded for emphasis:

Moderation Forum: Some Whys and Wherefores

Lately there has been a troubling rise in the number of moderator/player interactions here that I would characterize as deeply dysfunctional. They have engendered a toxic atmosphere in which neither side completely trusts the motivations of the other, which has derailed a great deal of what would otherwise be good, productive discussion.

Many people have noticed this and requested change. Here is the result. Firstly, as detailed above, Moderation is now the place for discussion threads about site policy and moderation practices. Previously, discussion threads were banned, in order to preserve the original intent of the forum as a place for open, impartial viewing of moderation actions: it is difficult to follow a formal procedure for reports if anyone can chime in with related questions, comment, and suggestions.

I hope that the two types of thread--report and discussion--can live side-by-side in the same forum. If necessary, though, we will split into two subforms, one for reports and one for discussion. I would like to avoid this, since additional fragmentation is generally not good for the community.

A second important change is a new requirement that posts in Moderation must be good faith.

To explain. Moderators are good people. The job is tough, but the people are good. They are funny, they disagree a lot, they want what's best for the site. And posters are the same. We share a common goal of wanting this place to be better. Good faith posts aim at that goal, making a genuine attempt to help us improve the site.

Bad faith is when a poster becomes grumpy with moderators and stops trying to work with them, instead beginning to work against them. They may be "point-scoring" posts that denigrate a moderator but contribute nothing useful, or may be deceitful, asking questions where the poster doesn't care about the answer except that it may catch out a mod in a contradiction, or provide ammunition for the future. Fundamentally, they aren't motivated by a genuine interest in improving the site, but rather by a desire to punish a moderator for something they did in the past.

We don't want to hide from our mistakes, or defend a bad policy. Instead, we have an exhaustive process for reporting rule breaches, including misbehavior by moderators. This entire Moderation forum exists to provide what I believe is an unprecedented level of transparency and openness for an internet forum of this size. This forum is an exercise in good faith, exposing what moderators do and how they make decisions, so that everyone can see.

But this requires reciprocation. It requires posters who disagree with a moderator ruling to express that dissatisfaction in a constructive way, and not allowing it to become an ongoing campaign. No-one, not posters nor moderators, should carry a grudge into this forum. That kind of thing derails genuine threads, discourages well-meaning posters, and punishes moderators for being open and informal with their thoughts. That's not why we're here.

As a reminder, Moderators are volunteers. They aren't lawyers, they're not professional forum moderators; they're just good people from all walks of life giving their time and energy to the site for free, because they want to help make it a fun and fair place. Similarly, the rules are written to the spirit of how we want NationStates to be, not as a hard legal code. They are applied in good faith by the best efforts of volunteers. Consistency is a goal, but it cannot be guaranteed. If you like to play the game of finding loopholes in rules, please do so with the aim of suggesting improvements, not scoring "gotcha" moments against mods.

Since this is Moderation, I know people will be interested in a hard and fast definition of good faith vs bad faith, including examples. I was going to include this, in the interests of clarity, but decided against it, despite there being quite a number to choose from, so that we can make a fresh start, not point fingers at past misbehavior.

So I have simply instructed moderators to remove posts from discussion threads that are bad faith. Hopefully there will be none, or very few.

Finally I would like to welcome and thank anyone who comes to this forum with the aim of helping us make the site better. That is why we're here.

I think there is a rule against rule lawyering, too. and a whole bunch of other crazy rules.

[Common Territories]

You clearly did not see the wave of spam that this user posted across the forum that resulted in this ban. For this oversight, I forgive you.

you literately have no choice because sarcasm isn't against the rules. but long story short thread old idea axed to death by people who enjoy an flawed system, so i am going back to rping for now and continue to play the system and maybe take a few popshots at mods in a non rule breaking way.

Flawed? Do explain how the current rules, and the Mod Team who enforces them, are flawed. I'd like to see you try and explain it other then it being "unfair". Because I don't think you honestly can. Right now I can go on any given thread on any given forum and not see a single flame war packed full of F-bombs, or trolling of someone because of their identity or viewpoint; I rarely get to see spambots that frequently attack here or the other spammers coming here to fill the board with advertisements and garbage; or how about those annoying people who just come here to start fights that are stopped from disturbing the community? The fact you're here posting your opinion proves your argument wrong - I don't see the Mod Team coming in here and silencing you or anyone else because you have an opinion; if you were right about how flawed this system is then a Mod could have easily hid this topic or locked it by now. As you can see, they're not interested in doing that since they too would be breaking the very rules to enforce. Not to mention Mods are special picked cases - a non-level headed person would never become a Mod. As someone who's seen Mods come and go with scandal, if you think the Mod Team is some flawed system that uses their power to abuse us, you've not been paying any attention since Mods in the past have not only been warned but fairly punished for abuse when caught doing so. Just because they have a red tag it doesn't mean they don't play by the same rules we do. Im frankly tired of this discussion about "we need a court!" or "unfair!" and the other nonsense that's paraded around behind drapes; at least you're brave enough to state you hate the Moderation Team and want them gone, most people who try this runaround don't have the guts to just admit they dislike the Mod Team and that's all their argument relies on. Because anyone who's been here long enough to see knows that a "court of your peers" or the number of other Mod inhibiting proposals is clearly inefficient (according to the very people who've been here longest and the Mod Team themselves who've been here before Moderation was a thing). We all know it's just a runaround for getting at the Mod Team because some people will always have grudges against them for whatever reasons. This court idea will never be used, period, nor will the Mod Team be going away anytime soon. Either get over that or don't play here - no one is forcing you to spend time in a place you think is terrible or tyrannically ran.

Oh. And a little advice from someone who's been around a while. If you're going to be smart about shooting shit at people, namely people who are essentially interpret and hand out rulings for rule breaking, you mite want to avoid admitting you're going to possibly do rules lawyering to get away with insulting Moderation staff. Doing that in a baiting fashion isn't going to make your case any better pal. Just saying.

EDIT: Seems people who didn't rant like me beat me to the punch

[The Burke Islands]

Didn't you hear? NS is a "Father Knows Best" state according to the FAQ.

[Luna Amore]

Didn't you hear? NS is a "Father Knows Best" state according to the FAQ.

Our Father which art in Australia, hallowed be thy name. Thy website come. Thy will be done, as in Australia, so in NationStates.

Or something to that effect...

[Salazarstan]

you literately have no choice because sarcasm isn't against the rules. but long story short thread old idea axed to death by people who enjoy an flawed system, so i am going back to rping for now and continue to play the system and maybe take a few popshots at mods in a non rule breaking way.

What you described is textbook bad faith posting and is against the rules. Long but good reference, bolded for emphasis:

Moderation Forum: Some Whys and Wherefores

Lately there has been a troubling rise in the number of moderator/player interactions here that I would characterize as deeply dysfunctional. They have engendered a toxic atmosphere in which neither side completely trusts the motivations of the other, which has derailed a great deal of what would otherwise be good, productive discussion.

Many people have noticed this and requested change. Here is the result. Firstly, as detailed above, Moderation is now the place for discussion threads about site policy and moderation practices. Previously, discussion threads were banned, in order to preserve the original intent of the forum as a place for open, impartial viewing of moderation actions: it is difficult to follow a formal procedure for reports if anyone can chime in with related questions, comment, and suggestions.

I hope that the two types of thread--report and discussion--can live side-by-side in the same forum. If necessary, though, we will split into two subforms, one for reports and one for discussion. I would like to avoid this, since additional fragmentation is generally not good for the community.

A second important change is a new requirement that posts in Moderation must be good faith.

To explain. Moderators are good people. The job is tough, but the people are good. They are funny, they disagree a lot, they want what's best for the site. And posters are the same. We share a common goal of wanting this place to be better. Good faith posts aim at that goal, making a genuine attempt to help us improve the site.

Bad faith is when a poster becomes grumpy with moderators and stops trying to work with them, instead beginning to work against them. They may be "point-scoring" posts that denigrate a moderator but contribute nothing useful, or may be deceitful, asking questions where the poster doesn't care about the answer except that it may catch out a mod in a contradiction, or provide ammunition for the future. Fundamentally, they aren't motivated by a genuine interest in improving the site, but rather by a desire to punish a moderator for something they did in the past.

We don't want to hide from our mistakes, or defend a bad policy. Instead, we have an exhaustive process for reporting rule breaches, including misbehavior by moderators. This entire Moderation forum exists to provide what I believe is an unprecedented level of transparency and openness for an internet forum of this size. This forum is an exercise in good faith, exposing what moderators do and how they make decisions, so that everyone can see.

But this requires reciprocation. It requires posters who disagree with a moderator ruling to express that dissatisfaction in a constructive way, and not allowing it to become an ongoing campaign. No-one, not posters nor moderators, should carry a grudge into this forum. That kind of thing derails genuine threads, discourages well-meaning posters, and punishes moderators for being open and informal with their thoughts. That's not why we're here.

As a reminder, Moderators are volunteers. They aren't lawyers, they're not professional forum moderators; they're just good people from all walks of life giving their time and energy to the site for free, because they want to help make it a fun and fair place. Similarly, the rules are written to the spirit of how we want NationStates to be, not as a hard legal code. They are applied in good faith by the best efforts of volunteers. Consistency is a goal, but it cannot be guaranteed. If you like to play the game of finding loopholes in rules, please do so with the aim of suggesting improvements, not scoring "gotcha" moments against mods.

Since this is Moderation, I know people will be interested in a hard and fast definition of good faith vs bad faith, including examples. I was going to include this, in the interests of clarity, but decided against it, despite there being quite a number to choose from, so that we can make a fresh start, not point fingers at past misbehavior.

So I have simply instructed moderators to remove posts from discussion threads that are bad faith. Hopefully there will be none, or very few.

Finally I would like to welcome and thank anyone who comes to this forum with the aim of helping us make the site better. That is why we're here.

Last time i checked malicious, defamatory are against the site rules your policy isn't written in it which i have to admit is bad taste but again sarcasm isn't against the rules and last time i checked if i want to make an political statement."

If you want to make a political point, it's best you use the forum, where other people have the right of reply.

" but this isn't the correct topic nor an proper discussion to do so in so i'll stop myself here and await for appropriate forum to conduct myself in.this topic is dead and should be barred so i will do so.

[American Imperial State]

Didn't you hear? NS is a "Father Knows Best" state according to the FAQ.

Our Father which art in Australia, hallowed be thy name. Thy website come. Thy will be done, as in Australia, so in NationStates.

Or something to that effect...

Our shrimp on the barbie, hallowed by thy skull, thy website sucketh, they willeth be done upon the Website, as in the Book. Give us, oh Shrimpie, our daily trolls. Forgive us our warnings and our bannings, and lead us not into DOSdom, but deliver us from Summer. Amen.

[The Corparation]

Our Father which art in Australia, hallowed be thy name. Thy website come. Thy will be done, as in Australia, so in NationStates.

Or something to that effect...

Our shrimp on the barbie, hallowed by thy skull, thy website sucketh, they willeth be done upon the Website, as in the Book. Give us, oh Shrimpie, our daily trolls. Forgive us our warnings and our bannings, and lead us not into DOSdom, but deliver us from Summer. Amen.

IF you think this website sucks so bad why are you still posting here?

[American Imperial State]

Our shrimp on the barbie, hallowed by thy skull, thy website sucketh, they willeth be done upon the Website, as in the Book. Give us, oh Shrimpie, our daily trolls. Forgive us our warnings and our bannings, and lead us not into DOSdom, but deliver us from Summer. Amen.

IF you think this website sucks so bad why are you still posting here?

Decent community.

But seriously... it's just a joke. not to be taken seriously.

[Shazbotdom]

What you described is textbook bad faith posting and is against the rules. Long but good reference, bolded for emphasis:

Last time i checked malicious, defamatory are against the site rules your policy isn't written in it which i have to admit is bad taste but again sarcasm isn't against the rules and last time i checked if i want to make an political statement."

If you want to make a political point, it's best you use the forum, where other people have the right of reply.

" but this isn't the correct topic nor an proper discussion to do so in so i'll stop myself here and await for appropriate forum to conduct myself in.this topic is dead and should be barred so i will do so.

And yet you do not understand,

This website is privately owned and operated. If you don't like how it is run, there are options for you. One of those is not "demand changes and if those are not met, then begin bad faith posting to see where that leads you". Unless you (god forbid) become a moderator, or somehow talk Max into allowing you to purchase this website from him, what you seem to be demanding happen will never come to fruition.

[The Blaatschapen]

A tribunal is not happening.

There are a few simple reasons for this:

1. It probably will devolve into a popularity contest (for either being a tribunal member and for mob lynches)
2. Alternatively, the tribunal members just become extra mods.

3. Furthermore, to provide effective moderation from the tribunal, they'll need access to data which is currently only accessed by Moderators and Admins. This includes submitted content like telegrams, but also email addresses, etc. mods are under stringent rules regarding these (see http://www.nationstates.net/page=privacy ). So in effect, we (mods) either have to cross-check everything and ensure that the tribunal also follows the privacy rules. Which is what we also do with each other, but now also with a whole new bunch of people.

Which in effect makes them mods (both access to the 'back office', ability to rule on cases and compliance with our privacy and TOS, yeah, that's a mod).

I, for one, would not like my private data being read by the most popular user on the site (you know who you are)

[Holy Marsh]

The idea in the OP is illogical and fundamentally misunderstands the nature and breadth of moderation on this site. It is an irrational idea for a site of this size and activity. More importantly, this isn't a democracy and you don't have rights. You have what freedom is being given to you by the the site owner, those running it, and the rules.

We, as users, don't need or deserve powers over others, punishments, or moderation.

[Salazarstan]

A tribunal is not happening.

There are a few simple reasons for this:

1. It probably will devolve into a popularity contest (for either being a tribunal member and for mob lynches)
2. Alternatively, the tribunal members just become extra mods.

3. Furthermore, to provide effective moderation from the tribunal, they'll need access to data which is currently only accessed by Moderators and Admins. This includes submitted content like telegrams, but also email addresses, etc. mods are under stringent rules regarding these (see http://www.nationstates.net/page=privacy ). So in effect, we (mods) either have to cross-check everything and ensure that the tribunal also follows the privacy rules. Which is what we also do with each other, but now also with a whole new bunch of people.

Which in effect makes them mods (both access to the 'back office', ability to rule on cases and compliance with our privacy and TOS, yeah, that's a mod).

I, for one, would not like my private data being read by the most popular user on the site (you know who you are)

Isn't considered pricey invasion to read other members telegrams then?