Advertisement
by Mousebumples » Wed Apr 27, 2016 6:15 pm
by Separatist Peoples » Wed Apr 27, 2016 6:43 pm
As moderators, we've been lambasted for "over-interpretation" (see: child pornography) and "under-interpretation" (see: recent repeal of suicide seeds). Our "interpretation" seems to always be called into question by a vocal group of GA players, so the new iteration of the Honest Mistake rule is meant to mostly eliminate that interpretation, at least as much as we can. I believe we are open to further discussion on the precise wording of the Honest Mistake rule; however, I don't think that moderation is ever going to move where players want us to go entirely.
by Sciongrad » Wed Apr 27, 2016 6:45 pm
Mousebumples wrote:Just a quick note that this remark is from my point of view and isn't meant as an official ruling since I seem to be the only GA mod online right now, and I don't have anyone around to consult with before I probably turn in for the night:
We've debated (internally) a few different variations on the Honest Mistake rule, and while this one isn't set in stone, I don't know that the enforcement will ever be quite what players want. As an author myself, I get that - you don't want to feel that your resolution is being repealed because of "unfair interpretation that I didn't mean." But - and I know I've told the story before of how I thought an inability to use a calculator would get me a GA warning - having a repeal pulled when the bulk of the repeal arguments are totally on-target except for one instance of poor wording, phrasing, or bad math .... that seems "unfair in the opposite direction."
And, generally speaking, that's how we've been interpreting the previous version of the Honest Mistake rule, despite all of the fire and brimstone we've had rained upon us by the player base.
As moderators, we've been lambasted for "over-interpretation" (see: child pornography) and "under-interpretation" (see: recent repeal of suicide seeds). Our "interpretation" seems to always be called into question by a vocal group of GA players, so the new iteration of the Honest Mistake rule is meant to mostly eliminate that interpretation, at least as much as we can. I believe we are open to further discussion on the precise wording of the Honest Mistake rule; however, I don't think that moderation is ever going to move where players want us to go entirely.
In my mind, the Rules Discussion was meant to get input from players and seek new ideas and approaches. It was not meant to put the rules up to popular vote - because that's never been how things have worked around here. We read all the posts, we took all of the feedback under consideration, and we (as moderators) made the changes that we felt would be best for NationStates in general. Perhaps that isn't what you expected, and - to my disappointment when I checked earlier today - that arrangement or intent was never made clear in any of the posts that I browsed through. However, other than saying "this is a place to discuss possible changes to the rules," I didn't see anything that said "everything will be up for popular vote" either.
Separatist Peoples wrote:I, for one, would rather see factual inaccuracies policed, even if there is no penalty for such an error. This prevents actual lying while allowing room for political rhetoric. Will that create some subjective reasoning on the part of moderators that will upset players? Yeah, probably. Its the lesser of two evils [...]
by Louisistan » Wed Apr 27, 2016 11:38 pm
Separatist Peoples wrote:Considering how low-information the voters are, we can't afford to allow what little information they get be false in the first place. .
by Araraukar » Wed Apr 27, 2016 11:39 pm
Sciongrad wrote:Perhaps the next time you guys invite the players to contribute, you can have the decency to tell us that our opinions, ultimately, will not matter. Because the current ruleset is almost exactly what Mall and Sedge wanted from the very beginning.
Separatist Peoples wrote:I, for one, would rather see factual inaccuracies policed, even if there is no penalty for such an error. This prevents actual lying while allowing room for political rhetoric. Will that create some subjective reasoning on the part of moderators that will upset players? Yeah, probably. Its the lesser of two evils [...]
I support this.
Louisistan wrote:@Mods: Opening up the possibility of lying in repeals is not some cool new politics-like feature you've opened up. It's a horrible, horrible mistake and you'll realise this after two or three good resolutions have been repealed by stamp-campaigned dishonest repeals. This will happen. And since repeals cannot be repealed, the effects of this rule change will be branded into WA law forever. Since we cannot seem to convince you now, I sincerely hope you will come to your senses when this happens.
Apologies for absences, non-COVID health issues leave me with very little energy at times.Giovenith wrote:And sorry hun, if you were looking for a forum site where nobody argued, you've come to wrong one.
by John Turner » Thu Apr 28, 2016 1:30 am
Sciongrad wrote:Sandaoguo wrote:Ardchoille, Kyrozerkia, Flibbleites, Frisbeeteria, certainly. Hell, even Mall's and Mouse's activity took a nose dive after becoming mods, not that Mall was ever that active before becoming a mod. (That same thing can be said about Flib, too.)
Actually, Kryozerkia is, by all accounts, very active behind the scenes. She just chooses not interact with players on the forum for some reason.
Separatist Peoples wrote:Yeah, probably. Its the lesser of two evils, though, as the alternative promises to be much worse with, just for example, IA's recent track record of flimsy repeals or JT's promise to wreck the place up like Robot Nixon.
Sorry, JT, I appreciate the sentiment, but I really don't want to see you pull out the detcord just yet.
John Turner wrote:Oh.... And it wasn't drafted on the forums. That makes it automatically illegal, doesn't it?
by Kaboomlandia » Thu Apr 28, 2016 5:47 am
John Turner wrote:I would highly suggest any authors that want to get their resolutions in, do so soon, as we will be seeing nothing but my repeals for the next 90 or so days straight.
by Sedgistan » Thu Apr 28, 2016 6:07 am
Bananaistan wrote:Anyway, it is really superfluous to main point which has been admitted several times over the last year or so that there is an insufficient number of GA moderators, and that those that are in place are "cold and standoffish". Atm, the only moderator who interacts at all with the GA in general on a regular basis is Wrapper who is highly respected by all of us. I don't think it is unreasonable to ask that there would be few more moderators posting regularly and discussing proposals with us and being there on the ground when legality concerns arise. Whether they do so as players or as mods is irrelevant IMO. Plus a few more active mods would speed up ruling request which you have admitted are dealt with too slowly atm.
Railana wrote:Sedgistan wrote:I haven't authored an SC proposal in years, and only comment on proposals as a player very infrequently. I don't believe that gets in the way of me moderating that area to a high standard.
Doesn't it, though? If you're not actively involved in a community, how can you moderate it effectively?
I think it would be a great deal easier to produce high-quality rulings on the legality of a proposal if you've actually watched it grow and develop. You would understand and be able to take into account why certain clauses were added, why certain changes were made, how the regulars are interpreting its effects and how it interacts with other resolutions, and the like.
You would also have a closer relationship with the player who wrote the proposal; the player would be more likely to respect your ruling, since it's coming from an active member of the community rather than someone who doesn't seem to care. After all, how interested in a game can you be if you're not actually willing to play it?
Sciongrad wrote:Sedgistan wrote:Quite simply: we don't need to provide rulings on that matter any more.
Why though. No one has explained why this change is necessary. We have provided a multitude of reasons why this is bad and we don't like it. No one has provided any substantive arguments defending it.
Sciongrad wrote:Sedgistan wrote:By "part of the game", you're referring to their activities as players or as mods? Mods aren't required to to remain "players" after they're moderated. A good example is Reploid Productions, who was a "player" for a matter of months before being modded, and subsequently has "played" very little. That doesn't stop her being an outstanding mod. I haven't authored an SC proposal in years, and only comment on proposals as a player very infrequently. I don't believe that gets in the way of me moderating that area to a high standard. Any further response to that really depends on whether you're asking for mod activity from mods as players, or from mods posting as mods.
Moderator participation is the sine qua non of a functioning GA. If you truly, honestly believe that moderator participation is not necessary (which would be a 180 reversal of the position of literally all the GA moderators in the rule summit), then this aspect of the game is not only unplayable, but unrevivable. Moderators don't necessarily need to play - Ard roleplayed a little but was more present in her capacity as a moderator - but they absolutely need to participate.
by Araraukar » Thu Apr 28, 2016 7:12 am
Sedgistan wrote:The first is that "politicking", including dishonesty, is a desirable aspect of what is essentially a UN-esque body.
Our rules have shifted slightly towards the former - a more "hands-off", "let the voters decide" approach which also works better with current moderation activity etc.
Apologies for absences, non-COVID health issues leave me with very little energy at times.Giovenith wrote:And sorry hun, if you were looking for a forum site where nobody argued, you've come to wrong one.
by Sedgistan » Thu Apr 28, 2016 7:18 am
Araraukar wrote:Sedgistan wrote:The first is that "politicking", including dishonesty, is a desirable aspect of what is essentially a UN-esque body.
Sedge, please do not take this personally as it's not meant personally, but what the fuck? Seriously? You'd prefer an international body's decisions were based on outright lies? I'm not talking about exaggerating the size of stat changes in whichever IC fluff that's dressed, but saying, for example, that an International Security resolution actually decreases your military spending and thus should be done away with (again, dressed up in IC fluff). Or that it requires you to kill everyone's firstborn and sacrifice them to [violet].
Araraukar wrote:Our rules have shifted slightly towards the former - a more "hands-off", "let the voters decide" approach which also works better with current moderation activity etc.
Works better for the mod team, sure, but not better for the "game" of GA. It's basically shitting on everyone who bothers to be active on the forum, when anyone can get any crap to vote with a catchy title and stamps. I'd like to believe that NationStates is the one corner of the Internet that isn't geared into pushing minitransactions on its players, but my faith in that is quickly eroding.
by Bananaistan » Thu Apr 28, 2016 7:22 am
by Araraukar » Thu Apr 28, 2016 7:23 am
Sedgistan wrote:you know where you stand; the decision lies with players.
Apologies for absences, non-COVID health issues leave me with very little energy at times.Giovenith wrote:And sorry hun, if you were looking for a forum site where nobody argued, you've come to wrong one.
by Sedgistan » Thu Apr 28, 2016 7:29 am
Bananaistan wrote:Does this new hands off regime apply to all proposals, given the new contradiction rule? For example, is my Right to Sexual Privacy proposal now legal?
by Separatist Peoples » Thu Apr 28, 2016 7:43 am
Sedgistan wrote:I know the initial reaction to a loosening of the rules is to assume that the worst will happen (somewhat similar to TG scripts being allowed, which led to claims nations would be drowned under hundreds of TGs). Ultimately, some people will try the most ridiculous things they can get away with to prove a point - but once things have settled down, I doubt those kinds of lies will be common, and we'll be more likely to see more subtle misrepresentations.
by Mousebumples » Thu Apr 28, 2016 7:44 am
Sciongrad wrote:Unfair to whom, exactly? Repeal authors who are incapable of making rational arguments? I didn't know they were a demographic whose opinions the moderators took so seriously.
having a repeal pulled when the bulk of the repeal arguments are totally on-target except for one instance of poor wording, phrasing, or bad math .... that seems "unfair in the opposite direction."
Sciongrad wrote:No matter how relentlessly you guys say that, it will not become true. That's how the moderators have been interpreting it recently - i.e. the last year or so. It was not interpreted like this in the past. To claim precedent is on your side is demonstrably false. I've even cited moderators from the past explicitly stating that moderators do interpret repeals and that they do remove repeals that make incorrect arguments. Ardchoille stated that explicitly nearly 1 year ago too.
Araraukar wrote:If that was really the aim of the Moderation team, they should work at trying to convince Max to allow the WA to be re-started again.
by Sciongrad » Thu Apr 28, 2016 9:05 am
Mousebumples wrote:That's a complete exaggeration of what I said.
I can't speak for other mods - again, we seem to be having a terrible schedule for being online at the same time right now - but in some ways, I've been viewing this similar to the NatSov rule. If I can see where they got what they posted from - even if it's not 100% accurate - and it's a minor part of the repeal (i.e. one argument with a number of additional totally on-target arguments), I don't necessarily view that a an honest mistake.
We do remove repeals that make incorrect arguments,
but my aforementioned practice fits with how (as I understand it - that exact "practice" or "method of thinking" is not something that I've cleared with my fellow mods) we've been policing the rule since I was made a mod, about 2 years ago. I can't speak for further back than that, but to say that "any incorrect argument will get your repeal nuked" has been patently false. Heck, the example I've given before - when I thought my repeal of Habeas Corpus that had been submitted and campaigned for was going to be nuked because I did bad math ... and I was told that it was not a concern, or something to that effect. (4 years ago, so I don't have those IRC logs anymore.)
The Most Glorious Hack wrote:Perhaps you should read the rules again, as I also state that inaccurate Proposals will be deleted. I've done so numerous times.
[...]Powerhungry Chipmunks wrote:It's simply not the mods mandate to delete based on how "invalid" or "incorrect" they see an argument as.
The Hell it isn't. We do it all the time.
[...]
Honest Mistake includes factual errors. I see I was wrong in assuming people would be able to figure that out from the text in the rules.
We've got enough authors reading this thread, and while I don't want to start a threadjack (so ... this might need it's own thread somewhere) ... thoughts?
by Araraukar » Thu Apr 28, 2016 9:10 am
Sciongrad wrote:We've got enough authors reading this thread, and while I don't want to start a threadjack (so ... this might need it's own thread somewhere) ... thoughts?
No.
Apologies for absences, non-COVID health issues leave me with very little energy at times.Giovenith wrote:And sorry hun, if you were looking for a forum site where nobody argued, you've come to wrong one.
by Floor 448 » Thu Apr 28, 2016 9:13 am
by New Dukaine » Thu Apr 28, 2016 9:13 am
by Araraukar » Thu Apr 28, 2016 9:17 am
Sedgistan wrote:That discussion is best continued in a new thread, should anyone want to pursue it.
Apologies for absences, non-COVID health issues leave me with very little energy at times.Giovenith wrote:And sorry hun, if you were looking for a forum site where nobody argued, you've come to wrong one.
by Sciongrad » Thu Apr 28, 2016 9:19 am
Sedgistan wrote:There's two lines of reasoning for it. The first is that "politicking", including dishonesty, is a desirable aspect of what is essentially a UN-esque body.
The second relates to moderation approach: there's a scale which goes from mods doing absolutely nothing and leaving everything up to WA members to sort, to mods doing heavy-handed policing of every aspect of proposals including quality, wording, etc. The former requires no mod actions at all but risks in rubbish resolutions getting passed, the latter requires extremely vigilant and active moderation but creates a very restrictive environment. Our rules have shifted slightly towards the former - a more "hands-off", "let the voters decide" approach which also works better with current moderation activity etc.
Sciongrad wrote:See above response to Railana re. what you consider participation. It's somewhat of tangent though, as even if you're allowing for keeping up-to-date with threads without necessarily posting, the mod participation here is too low.
by Araraukar » Thu Apr 28, 2016 9:24 am
Apologies for absences, non-COVID health issues leave me with very little energy at times.Giovenith wrote:And sorry hun, if you were looking for a forum site where nobody argued, you've come to wrong one.
by Sedgistan » Thu Apr 28, 2016 9:25 am
Sciongrad wrote:The second relates to moderation approach: there's a scale which goes from mods doing absolutely nothing and leaving everything up to WA members to sort, to mods doing heavy-handed policing of every aspect of proposals including quality, wording, etc. The former requires no mod actions at all but risks in rubbish resolutions getting passed, the latter requires extremely vigilant and active moderation but creates a very restrictive environment. Our rules have shifted slightly towards the former - a more "hands-off", "let the voters decide" approach which also works better with current moderation activity etc.
The WA and the NSUN got along fine for years with an honest mistake rule that was actually enforced. You guys have detected a fundamental problem - bad moderator rulings - and instead of solving that issue, you have chosen to cover it up. Unfortunately, in the process, you've opened up another, equally detrimental problem. I also don't appreciate your obviously biased characterization of enforcement of the honest mistake rule. I don't think anyone would describe the previous way the honest mistake rule was enforced (before you guys changed it about a year or so ago) as "heavy handed." Moderators actually moderating and an even-handed approach are not mutually exclusive.
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: Enternal Void
Advertisement