NationStates

Funkadelia wrote:You are a morally repugnant crypto-fascist who has no place taking part in this game. You should take some time to reflect on yourself and ask if this is really the way you want to be spending your time, then come back when you've found some answers.

Clear enough.

Yeah, that's pretty straightforward. viewtopic.php?p=30563638#p30563638

These issues are squarely within the remit of gameplay discussion.

More worried about the basis of the warning, really. Crypto-fascist can't be per-se actionable (especially as a matter for discussion), and moral repugnance … surely not.

Guy wrote:These issues are squarely within the remit of gameplay discussion.

More worried about the basis of the warning, really. Crypto-fascist can't be per-se actionable (especially as a matter for discussion), and moral repugnance … surely not.

*** Warned for spamming Moderation. ***

And, as you well know, we do not take third-party appeals.

Oh, so this is my supposedly terrible record. I might as well get a second opinion on this one, considering that my "record" has implications on future warnings. (A rather ridiculous proposition - you could argue that more severe punishment is warranted for repeat offenders, but it doesn't make a "borderline" post into rule-breaking.)

Commentary and third-party appeals on moderation rulings had previously been welcomed.

Not only that, but the OSRS states:

Please be aware, that while mods may choose to honor a third-party request for a second opinion at their discretion, they are not required to do so. Formal appeals must be made by the person who was subject of moderator action, and not by a third party. Third-party appeals will not be considered.

My post above was not a formal appeal, according to the appeals process outlined in the OSRS. Hence, I was allowed to bring it forward under the OSRS, but of course not a right to be heard.

Even if the commentary itself is somehow rule-breaking (I don't really see where in the OSRS, but it's perfectly possible that I'm missing something), I think it's quite unduly harsh to get a redtext warning for it, especially in the face of a similar post being deemed to be an acceptable request for second opinion.

Guy wrote:Oh, so this is my supposedly terrible record. I might as well get a second opinion on this one, considering that my "record" has implications on future warnings. (A rather ridiculous proposition - you could argue that more severe punishment is warranted for repeat offenders, but it doesn't make a "borderline" post into rule-breaking.)

Commentary and third-party appeals on moderation rulings had previously been welcomed.

Not only that, but the OSRS states:

Please be aware, that while mods may choose to honor a third-party request for a second opinion at their discretion, they are not required to do so. Formal appeals must be made by the person who was subject of moderator action, and not by a third party. Third-party appeals will not be considered.

This is not a formal appeal, according to the appeals process outlined in the OSRS.

Even if the commentary itself is somehow rule-breaking (I don't really see where in the OSRS, but it's perfectly possible that I'm missing something), I think it's quite unduly harsh to get a redtext warning for it, especially in the face of a similar post being deemed to be an acceptable request for second opinion.

There is no substantial difference between a second opinion from moderation in a report thread, and an appeal. Are you appealing or not?

Yumyumsuppertime wrote:

Guy wrote:Oh, so this is my supposedly terrible record. I might as well get a second opinion on this one, considering that my "record" has implications on future warnings. (A rather ridiculous proposition - you could argue that more severe punishment is warranted for repeat offenders, but it doesn't make a "borderline" post into rule-breaking.)

Commentary and third-party appeals on moderation rulings had previously been welcomed.

Not only that, but the OSRS states:

This is not a formal appeal, according to the appeals process outlined in the OSRS.

Even if the commentary itself is somehow rule-breaking (I don't really see where in the OSRS, but it's perfectly possible that I'm missing something), I think it's quite unduly harsh to get a redtext warning for it, especially in the face of a similar post being deemed to be an acceptable request for second opinion.

There is no substantial difference between a second opinion from moderation in a report thread, and an appeal. Are you appealing or not?

I think the "this is not a formal appeal" part means the post he originally got warned for wasn't supposed to be a 3rd party appeal.

I am not going to make an official ruling on this, since he was responding to me when he got warned, and I don't think I should have the last word to settle the case in that context.

USS Monitor wrote:

Yumyumsuppertime wrote:
There is no substantial difference between a second opinion from moderation in a report thread, and an appeal. Are you appealing or not?

I think the "this is not a formal appeal" part means the post he originally got warned for wasn't supposed to be a 3rd party appeal.

Correct.

I have edited my post above, hopefully that clarifies it.

My second opinion request boils down to (1) The request for second-opinion above is allowed under the OSRS, contrary to Farnhamia's assertion; (2) Even if my response was extraneous to the report and thus constituted spamming, the red-text warning was an overreaction.

I can see why you were warned. The intent of your post may have been to request a second opinion, but the way you worded it (without making clear the request for another look) made it look like an "in my opinion" post, which are not allowed in Report threads, and which we routinely warn for.

You don't have a history of spamming in Moderation, so on this occasion I think it's better handled with a reminder to be clearer on your wording, rather than a warning. I'm therefore granting the appeal of your warning.

In future when requesting a second opinion, or appealing a decision, please clearly label it as such.

---

With regards to the request for a second opinion, I don't believe the warning should be overturned. In another context, perhaps some of the language could just about have been acceptable, but it was an out of the blue attack on T E Lawrence with no relevance at all to the ongoing discussion. The intent looks to have been to flame.

Sedgistan wrote:I can see why you were warned. The intent of your post may have been to request a second opinion, but the way you worded it (without making clear the request for another look) made it look like an "in my opinion" post, which are not allowed in Report threads, and which we routinely warn for.

You don't have a history of spamming in Moderation, so on this occasion I think it's better handled with a reminder to be clearer on your wording, rather than a warning. I'm therefore granting the appeal of your warning.

In future when requesting a second opinion, or appealing a decision, please clearly label it as such.

---

With regards to the request for a second opinion, I don't believe the warning should be overturned. In another context, perhaps some of the language could just about have been acceptable, but it was an out of the blue attack on T E Lawrence with no relevance at all to the ongoing discussion. The intent looks to have been to flame.

I agree that it can definitely be read as an "in my opinion" post. My post reflected a misunderstanding of the reasoning for USS Monitor's decision, being worried that the subject-matter is being ruled out, rather than the post in context.

In any case, I'll be mindful to keep commentary away from Moderation, unless I'm directly asking for a Second Opinion. If my post broke the rule in not doing so, I appreciate the downgrade.