[discussion]Rule Change Summary

[Mousebumples]

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 As an author myself, I get that - you don't want to feel that your resolution is being repealed because of "unfair interpretation that I didn't mean."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.

Anyhow, it's been a long day for me, and I'm rambling like nuts, so apologies if this is all over the place and semi-non nonsensical. I'll try to check in tomorrow and follow up on additional queries, but - unfortunately - with my work schedule (and my current commute, which cuts down on my NS time significantly, unfortunately) I don't know how much I'll be around Friday/this weekend. Not that it's "all about me," but that's a big part of why I haven't been as active as I'd prefer to be.

[Separatist Peoples]

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.

The position of moderator is much like public office. You guys are going to get unhappy people no matter what you do, so I can understand completely why you want to leave this to us. However, in doing so, the moderation team has gutted the ethical core of the GA, because now there is absolutely no oversight on that front. Considering how low-information the voters are, we can't afford to allow what little information they get be false in the first place.

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, 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.

[Sciongrad]

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:

Hey, thank you for taking the time to post this. It's greatly appreciated.

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."

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.

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.

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.

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.

The problem is not over-interpretation or under-interpretation - it is misinterpretation. You guys cite clauses that don't exist, you ignore clauses that do exist and contradict precedent constantly. That is the problem. Reasonable interpretations will not garner backlash like this. The WA and the NSUN got along fine with moderators interpreting repeals and enforcing the honest mistake rule the current players want - the difference is that they made reasonable rulings. The problem is fundamental - the GA moderators are either understaffed or legitimately don't know that much about the GA - and simply eliminating the interpretive role of the moderators altogether is misguided. I know it's not fun getting jumped on all the time, but you should be striving to make better rulings, not fewer. You're just inviting anger for different reasons this way.

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.

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.

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]

Considering how low-information the voters are, we can't afford to allow what little information they get be false in the first place. .

This right here hits the nail on the head (is that a thing in English?)

The new version of the Honest Mistake rule would absolutely be unproblematic if the majority of voters took part (or at least read) the GA Debates. But they don't. That's a fact. They only vote on the outcome of those Debates and I dare say when a repeal comes to vote many of them might not even read the target resolution. They're certainly not going to engage in the same detailed analysis and interpretation that occurred during the Debate. And because of this, they're going to buy any lie brought up in a repeal. Maybe not "NAPA mandates we kill all the kitties", but certainly "NAPA mandates everyone has to possess Nuclear Arms".

@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.

[Araraukar]

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.

Seconded. Not that it came as a huge surprise that Mall would get what Mall wanted.

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.

Thirded.

@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.

Also seconded.

Though I have to say I'm fairly disappointed at the various GA regulars who are currently jumping on the chance to get repeals through with lies. You may think you're forcing the mods to take back the ruling, but some of them have posted opinions to the tune of "more repealed resolutions is good, as it opens up topics again". 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.

[John Turner]

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.

I can't imagine why?

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.

It maybe too late I am afraid. I currently have repeals ready for 31 resolutions, that I am not even going to bother drafting on the forums, as Vancouvia has proved several times that drafting repeals is completely unnecessary for them to pass in a landslide.

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.

When I make a promise, I keep it.

[Kaboomlandia]

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.

Thanks for the heads-up. Guess I've got a time crunch on when I can submit my THM resolution.

[Sedgistan]

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.

There's a vicious circle with mod activity in the GA. Whenever a mod posts here, they often get jumped on with complaints that feel directed at them personally (in some ways they are; mod posting here is low and I can understand taking any chance to get the attention of a mod). That puts the mod off posting, which exacerbates the problem. I'm definitely not throwing the blame back on players here, but some consideration needs to be made on the hostility that mods feel when they do try to participate here. An attempt to hold off on that a bit could encourage mods to post more here.

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?

That depends how you define involvement. I read everything in the SC, so I'm aware of all the bits you've mentioned above. The downside to participation is that it restricts how easily you can rule on a topic.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Will post more replies to later comments as/when necessary. I don't want a wall of text here.

[Araraukar]

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].

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.

This whole hassle is really disheartening.

[Sedgistan]

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].

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.

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.

I would hope it works better for players too, since you're not waiting weeks/months for a mod ruling (even putting aside that most mod rulings seem to leave at least 50% of people unhappy) - you know where you stand; the decision lies with players.

[Bananaistan]

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?

[Araraukar]

you know where you stand; the decision lies with players.

Lies are the issue here.

Sorry, I couldn't resist...

[Sedgistan]

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?

The current rules apply to all proposals from now on. I don't know what proposal you're asking about, and I think there are other mods better placed to provide a ruling on that.

[Separatist Peoples]

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.

And subtle misrepresentations are better than blatant lies? Intellectual honesty is a huge part of debate and authorship of anything, even political games. Its right on par with the ethics that make plagiarism a bad thing. You can claim that things will settle down and be fine, but we've already had several proposals based on lies before this ruling, which resulted in perfectly fine proposals being repealed and hard work being wasted. Do you honestly expect things to get better now that you've removed the onus for intellectual honesty?

[Mousebumples]

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.

That's a complete exaggeration of what I said.

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."

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.

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.

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.)

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.

From what I've heard from the mods that were around when the WA became a thing, there was a lot of outrage from those that had passed resolutions under the UN that had them "insta-repealed." While I was playing then, I was bogged down with grad school, so I wasn't actively involved on the forums at that time. Would this be "widely accepted as good" ? While that did not even play into my thinking of this rule set, I have half-jokingly suggested that to [violet] in the past, and I've been told that that's not happening again because of the aforementioned reaction. 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?

[Sciongrad]

That's a complete exaggeration of what I said.

Not really. If the rest of a proposal is correct, the only reason someone would include a deliberate misrepresentation is because their argument is too weak to support otherwise.

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.

That's good for you guys. Evidently, nobody else agrees. I'll also note that the new wording doesn't reflect your attitude towards the rule either. A repeal's argument doesn't have to have any basis whatsoever in the original resolution to be legal.

We do remove repeals that make incorrect arguments,

Actually, you don't anymore. The new rule permits a repeal to be based entirely on misrepresentations. Sedgeistan has noted this explicitly.

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.)

Perhaps you should read the rules again, as I also state that inaccurate Proposals will be deleted. I've done so numerous times.
[...]

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.

You can argue the rule has been changed. You cannot argue the rule has always been this way and that we've just been misinterpreting it.

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.

[Araraukar]

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.

Honestly speaking it would be better to enshrine everything the GA has done up to now into an archive, than flushing it down the toilet with the drivel that's being brewed up.

[Floor 448]

No.

Honestly speaking it would be better to enshrine everything the GA has done up to now into an archive, than flushing it down the toilet with the drivel that's being brewed up.

Like what they did with the Beauracracy That Shall Not Be Named?

[New Dukaine]

No.

Honestly speaking it would be better to enshrine everything the GA has done up to now into an archive, than flushing it down the toilet with the drivel that's being brewed up.

Bu...bu....

ALL THOSE DRAFTS ARE GOING TO BE DEAD? NUUUUUUUUUUUU-

But I could copy and paste.

Meh, do what you want with our drafts

[Sedgistan]

That discussion is best continued in a new thread, should anyone want to pursue it.

[Araraukar]

That discussion is best continued in a new thread, should anyone want to pursue it.

Um, in what forum?

[Sciongrad]

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.

It would be more desirable? For whom, exactly? Certainly not to the players of this essentially UN-esque body, who overwhelmingly think this is a horrible idea. Perhaps you can elaborate why your conception of fun is important than ours, the players'?

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.

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.

Well, we'll still need mods to post even if they're not "playing" - lurking is better than nothing, but still not very helpful. We can at least agree the current GA moderation team is understaffed, I suppose.

[Sedgistan]

That discussion is best continued in a new thread, should anyone want to pursue it.

Um, in what forum?

This forum seems best.

[Araraukar]

Um, in what forum?

This forum seems best.

You mean the regular GA forum or the weird Announcement header that this particular thread is in? Any chance you or one of the other mods could create it, for clarity's sake?

[Sedgistan]

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.

I wouldn't say it's covering it up - the problem exists, it's acknowledged, and a solution has been implemented. It's not the solution that you, or many others have posted here, want - but it's still a "solution" of sorts rather than a cover-up. You've also misunderstood what you think is my characterisation of previous enforcement. I was describing two extremes of a scale rather than previous enforcement.