Flaming/trolling

[Neutraligon]

Sorry, I was just wondering what was happening with this?

[NERVUN]

Sorry, I was just wondering what was happening with this?

Still plugging along. The problem with issuing a sweeping rule is that we keep running up against unintended consequences. And, again, see busy Mods with limited online time.

[Regnum Dominae]

It's now been four days since we were told we would have a judgement within 48 hours at most. Just making sure that no one has forgotten about this.

Seriously, calling trans* people (or anyone, actually) "it" is just blatant trolling.

[Individuality-ness]

Mods, are we not going to get a final ruling? It's been over fifteen days since the initial report.

[Regnum Dominae]

Mods, are we not going to get a final ruling? It's been over fifteen days since the initial report.

It's actually been twelve, I miscounted on the other thread.

But the point still stands. It's been 12 days and these instances of blatant trolling have still not been addressed.

[Jenrak]

I took a quick look at the ongoing discussion, and from what I'm seeing, we should have a clear statement out shortly. My apologies, I haven't been very active in the discussion myself, so I can't speak for the rest of the mod team.

My only suggestion is to wait a little longer; we're trying our best to iron out potential concerns that could come up. It is definitely still a topic of discussion for us.

[West Faristan2]

The Moderators don't care.

[Sedgistan]

The Moderators don't care.

*** Warned *** for spamming in Moderation. Begone.

[Regnum Dominae]

This is getting pretty fucking pathetic.

[Shazbotdom]

This is getting pretty fucking pathetic.

Did you forget when the Mods said that this wasn't an easy decision? Plus, they are not getting paid for this, they are volunteers. I suggest a bit of calmness.

[Grenartia]

This is getting pretty fucking pathetic.

Did you forget when the Mods said that this wasn't an easy decision? Plus, they are not getting paid for this, they are volunteers. I suggest a bit of calmness.

Thing is, we've been waiting on this ruling for the better part of 2 weeks. We've had the request for new mods fulfilled in a comparable amount of time. And I'm not familiar with there being ANY ruling being debated for this long (the veteran Moderation lurkers/Mods could probably correct me if I'm wrong, and I request them to do so if I am).

I, for one, fail to see what there is to debate. It seems rather open and shut. Whenever this post/update comes out, I would like to see an explanation of what exactly the issues being debated are.

[Sedgistan]

The ruling will be posted when we've finished debating it and come to a consensus. The discussion is ongoing, and we don't need reminders of that fact. I'm locking this until such time as we post the ruling, to prevent more people from getting warned for spamming in Moderation.

[Ardchoille]

We'd like to thank everyone for their patience while we take the time to draw up better guidelines on this important issue. If nothing else, the Chelsea/Bradley Manning thread and another recent thread on relevant California state law have highlighted the extent to which we needed to establish much better guidelines and precedents over issues relating to transsexual and genderqueer individuals, both in terms of transsexual members of these forums and discussion of transsexual individuals in the news.

Before going into specific guidelines, we would note that there are two important principles here:

1) We absolutely want everyone - very much including our transgender and genderqueer members - to feel reasonably safe in our forums. However, we cannot guarantee, nor would we seek to ensure, that no one will ever be offended by the content of a post. Safety and offence are two separate issues. Causing offence is not inherently trolling; deliberately angering our members over their core identity is a more serious issue.

2) On the specific issue of the terminology used to describe transgender and genderqueer individuals, there is a considerable amount of ignorance among the general public about the preferred use of terminology; we therefore often need to decide if someone is acting out of malice or mere ignorance.

Both points 1) & 2) often involve subjective judgments; it is likely that no matter what decision we make when balancing these various factors, we will be unable to please everyone. But we hope that outlining these factors may help to explain how moderators and posters can look to move forward from here.

With that in place, here are the guidelines we will use from this point on when ruling on issues involving transgender and genderqueer individuals (whether posters in the forums, or individuals in the news). We stress that these are only guidelines designed to help us apply the existing rules in these cases, and not hard and fast new rules that should be considered a formal part of the OSRS.

• Transgender individuals in the news should be referred to by the term the individual prefers. Thus, "Chelsea Manning/she", though "Chelsea, formerly Bradley, Manning" would be OK.
  
• Transgender NS players should be referred to in OOC threads by the term the individual prefers.
  
• Note, however, that failing to use the preferred pronoun, while considered rude, is not a rule violation in itself.
  
• Misgendering remains legitimate in appropriate RP provided those RPs don't break existing site rules.
  
• No action will be taken against a player who innocently uses "@@individual@@/she" or"@@player@@/he" incorrectly out of ignorance, any more than we take action against players who write "Ardchoille/he" or "Tsaraine/she" (see below re "innocent").
  
• Misgendered individuals, or other players who know @@player@@'s preference, are free to politely inform the individual making the mistake of the error, whether in the thread or via TG.
  
• If the user persists in misgendering after having been politely told - whether in forums or via TG - that this is counter to an individual's preference, mods should then be informed via the usual appropriate channels. When reporting, please link to any posts or refer to any TGs previously sent to inform the reported player of the relevant preference.
  
• Whether the first use of an incorrect pronoun is "innocent" is at a moderator's discretion.
  
• Arguing for the use of pronouns other than those preferred by transgender individuals is not inherently trolling provided these guidelines are otherwise adhered to; persistently misgendering specific individuals when it's clear those individuals are angered and upset by the misgendering is the issue here, not making a broader argument in favour of specific terminology (regardless of the political perspective of that argument).
  
• When countering an argument you consider bigoted, attack the argument, not the poster. "That's a bigoted argument" remains legitimate (though is hardly designed to calm discussion); "you're a bigot" is flaming, and will be acted on accordingly.
  
• Referring to another person as "it" is permissible only if that individual has specifically requested the term and that request or news report can be linked to.
  
• While the above will be our guiding principles from this point on, final decisions will be taken on a case by case basis; to paraphrase George Orwell, we can override any of these guidelines sooner than do anything outright barbarous.

In terms of the specific moderation issues raised in this thread, we recognise that the lack of previous firm guidelines before this post will make it impossible to act fairly should we restrospectively go back and apply ex post facto standards to these specific moderation reports. In the interests of fairness, we will move the thread about Ms. Manning to the moderator evidence archive, placing a link to this ruling post in that thread for our own reference. No further warnings will be issued. Since some people who likely would have been warned are therefore getting off without a warning, in the interests of fairness we are also rescinding the warning handed out to The Steel Magnolia.

In essence, we are drawing a line under this report given the lack of any previously existing guidelines we could apply consistently and fairly to this important issue, while also explicitly outlining the guidelines that we'll use for this issue from this point on.

[Regnum Dominae]

Does this mean that referring to a person as "it" is a warnable/bannable offense?

And is the original set of reports (which dealt with referring to people as it which has been ruled actionable in the past, as well as rape jokes and other unsavory things) going to be addressed?

[Euroslavia]

Does this mean that referring to a person as "it" is a warnable/bannable offense?

And is the original set of reports (which dealt with referring to people as it which has been ruled actionable in the past, as well as rape jokes and other unsavory things) going to be addressed?

Referring to another person as "it" is permissible only if that individual has specifically requested the term and that request or news report can be linked to.

Pretty much.

[Liriena]

We'd like to thank everyone for their patience while we take the time to draw up better guidelines on this important issue. If nothing else, the Chelsea/Bradley Manning thread and another recent thread on relevant California state law have highlighted the extent to which we needed to establish much better guidelines and precedents over issues relating to transsexual and genderqueer individuals, both in terms of transsexual members of these forums and discussion of transsexual individuals in the news.

Before going into specific guidelines, we would note that there are two important principles here:

1) We absolutely want everyone - very much including our transgender and genderqueer members - to feel reasonably safe in our forums. However, we cannot guarantee, nor would we seek to ensure, that no one will ever be offended by the content of a post. Safety and offence are two separate issues. Causing offence is not inherently trolling; deliberately angering our members over their core identity is a more serious issue.

2) On the specific issue of the terminology used to describe transgender and genderqueer individuals, there is a considerable amount of ignorance among the general public about the preferred use of terminology; we therefore often need to decide if someone is acting out of malice or mere ignorance.

Both points 1) & 2) often involve subjective judgments; it is likely that no matter what decision we make when balancing these various factors, we will be unable to please everyone. But we hope that outlining these factors may help to explain how moderators and posters can look to move forward from here.

With that in place, here are the guidelines we will use from this point on when ruling on issues involving transgender and genderqueer individuals (whether posters in the forums, or individuals in the news). We stress that these are only guidelines designed to help us apply the existing rules in these cases, and not hard and fast new rules that should be considered a formal part of the OSRS.

• Transgender individuals in the news should be referred to by the term the individual prefers. Thus, "Chelsea Manning/she", though "Chelsea, formerly Bradley, Manning" would be OK.
  
• Transgender NS players should be referred to in OOC threads by the term the individual prefers.
  
• Note, however, that failing to use the preferred pronoun, while considered rude, is not a rule violation in itself.
  
• Misgendering remains legitimate in appropriate RP provided those RPs don't break existing site rules.
  
• No action will be taken against a player who innocently uses "@@individual@@/she" or"@@player@@/he" incorrectly out of ignorance, any more than we take action against players who write "Ardchoille/he" or "Tsaraine/she" (see below re "innocent").
  
• Misgendered individuals, or other players who know @@player@@'s preference, are free to politely inform the individual making the mistake of the error, whether in the thread or via TG.
  
• If the user persists in misgendering after having been politely told - whether in forums or via TG - that this is counter to an individual's preference, mods should then be informed via the usual appropriate channels. When reporting, please link to any posts or refer to any TGs previously sent to inform the reported player of the relevant preference.
  
• Whether the first use of an incorrect pronoun is "innocent" is at a moderator's discretion.
  
• Arguing for the use of pronouns other than those preferred by transgender individuals is not inherently trolling provided these guidelines are otherwise adhered to; persistently misgendering specific individuals when it's clear those individuals are angered and upset by the misgendering is the issue here, not making a broader argument in favour of specific terminology (regardless of the political perspective of that argument).
  
• When countering an argument you consider bigoted, attack the argument, not the poster. "That's a bigoted argument" remains legitimate (though is hardly designed to calm discussion); "you're a bigot" is flaming, and will be acted on accordingly.
  
• Referring to another person as "it" is permissible only if that individual has specifically requested the term and that request or news report can be linked to.
  
• While the above will be our guiding principles from this point on, final decisions will be taken on a case by case basis; to paraphrase George Orwell, we can override any of these guidelines sooner than do anything outright barbarous.

In terms of the specific moderation issues raised in this thread, we recognise that the lack of previous firm guidelines before this post will make it impossible to act fairly should we restrospectively go back and apply ex post facto standards to these specific moderation reports. In the interests of fairness, we will move the thread about Ms. Manning to the moderator evidence archive, placing a link to this ruling post in that thread for our own reference. No further warnings will be issued. Since some people who likely would have been warned are therefore getting off without a warning, in the interests of fairness we are also rescinding the warning handed out to The Steel Magnolia.

In essence, we are drawing a line under this report given the lack of any previously existing guidelines we could apply consistently and fairly to this important issue, while also explicitly outlining the guidelines that we'll use for this issue from this point on.

I thank you for delivering a well-constructed ruling on this particular subject. That being said, when can I expect any sort of response to my own inquiry?

[The Archregimancy]

And is the original set of reports (which dealt with referring to people as it which has been ruled actionable in the past, as well as rape jokes and other unsavory things) going to be addressed?

We were quite clear about this. See here:

In terms of the specific moderation issues raised in this thread, we recognise that the lack of previous firm guidelines before this post will make it impossible to act fairly should we restrospectively go back and apply ex post facto standards to these specific moderation reports. In the interests of fairness, we will move the thread about Ms. Manning to the moderator evidence archive, placing a link to this ruling post in that thread for our own reference. No further warnings will be issued. Since some people who likely would have been warned are therefore getting off without a warning, in the interests of fairness we are also rescinding the warning handed out to The Steel Magnolia.

[Liriena]

That being said, when can I expect any sort of response to my own inquiry?

[Dread Lady Nathicana]

That being said, when can I expect any sort of response to my own inquiry?

Perhaps you could be so polite as to either repost or link to said inquiry? Thanks.

[Grenartia]

Perhaps you could be so polite as to either repost or link to said inquiry? Thanks.

I believe this is the inquiry in question.

http://forum.nationstates.net/viewtopic.php?p=16239672#p16239672 Liriena, The Genoese Cromanatum - these posts are almost - but not quite - attacking the poster, in that they're abusing what they're "saying" (their ideas) rather than saying "You're a blind liberal" or "You're a liar". Which is getting close enough you can see it from where you're standing. So both of you should consider yourselves soundly whacked with the rolled-up newspaper.

In addition to that, Liriena - I understand that this is a sensitive subject for you, but things like this and this, in conjunction with the above, do add up. They don't stack quite high enough to earn you an official warning, but a little less snark towards your fellow posters would be appreciated.

With all due respect, Tsar, what is the meaning of this?

No, it is not merely an outraged outburst. It is a legitimate question.

What are you telling me, exactly? Am I being threatened with an official warning if I continue to post in a snarky fashion? Snark is not prohibited if it is not used as a weapon to directly attack our fellow users, as far as I know. Snark is not even frowned upon by most users, and in fact many of your fellow moderators seem quite fond of it. Many veteran users have made snark their trademark, and often pushing the boundaries as far as what constitutes permissible snark.

I could provide you with particular cases, but I believe this to be unnecessary. Either way, snark by itself remains permissible, unless there was some fine printing in the site's rules that I missed.

If you feel that the posts you highlighted amount to flaming or flamebaiting on my part, just give me an unofficial warning for flaming or flamebaiting. As it is right now, your white-colored unofficial warning is both confusing and troubling.

Perhaps it has now become unwritten law among moderators that a series of snarky posts in a single thread by a single user, regardless of content, can amount to flaming or flamebaiting, even if the posts themselves are not explicitly flaming or flamebaiting?

If that were the case, I fail to see how any of the following posts could ever amount to anything other than mild-languaged snark aimed at particular posts.

Do you have anything to say that is not a falsehood?

Cute. Really cute. Irrelevant, false and childish, but still very cute.

Such cowardice.

These are not insults against particular users. They are quite blatantly criticisms of particular posts, and they are not even particularly snarky. As a matter of fact, even by my own standards they are quite mild, both as criticisms and as snark.

Are attacks on posts instead of users now subjected to warnings for foul language, insults directed solely at the post(s), or merely a passive-aggressive or confrontational tone? Does the perceived tone of posts that do not explicitly attack another poster warrant warnings for flaming now? And how is this "stacking" you mention calculated? Is it a "three strikes" rule? Three snarky posts and you're officially warned?

I myself have repeatedly been officially warned by moderators, and justly so, when my posts, snarky or otherwise, directly attacked my fellow users. I am not ashamed to admit I have done such things, and I take it upon myself to apologise for it if possible. I learned my lesson long ago, and I know better than to attack my fellow users, even in the form of sugar-coated backhanded insults.

In this case, I can honestly say that I have no idea what my fault has been here. I see no logical reason why, out of the hundreds of posts in that thread, you found those three of mine to be deserving of any sort of notice.

The second fragment of your ruling, directed only at me, seems unnecessary and frivolous to me, specially in the case of this particular thread. Not only that, but I also find it suspicious that you decided to single me out for those three posts.

I have no right to tell you how to do your job, but I certainly would not post this poorly conceived and overwritten inquiry/complaint if I were not sincerely shocked, confused and preoccupied. I mean no offence, and all I seek is that my concerns are clarified by either Tsar or his/her/their fellow moderators.

[Dread Lady Nathicana]

It's baiting, Lirena. You honestly can't see that in those referenced posts? And that's just my 'click and look' response, as I've stayed out of this as promised save for this effort at clarification here.

[Liriena]

It's baiting, Lirenia. You honestly can't see that in those referenced posts? And that's just my 'click and look' response, as I've stayed out of this as promised save for this effort at clarification here.

I honestly fail to see how any of those posts could have been in any way interpretated as baiting.

Also, it's Liriena, not Lirenia. Though I understand that very few people may actually care about such minor details, I do believe that a veteran mod who has known me for a while could at least refer to me by my correct user name, if only for the sake of accuracy.

[Edlichbury]

It's baiting, Lirenia. You honestly can't see that in those referenced posts? And that's just my 'click and look' response, as I've stayed out of this as promised save for this effort at clarification here.

So when you make an official ruling in a thread accusing all the posters of being "childish," will you be kind enough to punish or at the very least warn yourself for baiting? Or perhaps when you claim something is false, will you forum ban yourself? If not, then why the hell is Liri being punished other than a purposeful, spiteful, and targeted misapplication of the rules?

[Dread Lady Nathicana]

It's baiting, Lirenia. You honestly can't see that in those referenced posts? And that's just my 'click and look' response, as I've stayed out of this as promised save for this effort at clarification here.

I honestly fail to see how any of those posts could have been in any way interpretated as baiting.

Also, it's Liriena, not Lirenia. Though I understand that very few people may actually care about such minor details, I do believe that a veteran mod who has known me for a while could at least refer to me by my correct user name, if only for the sake of accuracy.

Noted and corrected - you may not have noticed, but there were a number of threads I was attempting to address, and even 'veteran mods' make mistakes now and then, yes with people we know. Such as misspelling Blaat's name just the other day. Which he teased me good-naturedly over rather than get his wool all in a twist. Just sayin'.

As for failing to see, that may be the problem. However you'll have to take it up with those who collaborated on the ruling - which I was not a part of. Hence leaving this open, and waiting for them to be available for a more meaningful answer. Thanks.

[Liriena]

Noted and corrected - you may not have noticed, but there were a number of threads I was attempting to address, and even 'veteran mods' make mistakes now and then, yes with people we know. Such as misspelling Blaat's name just the other day. Which he teased me good-naturedly over rather than get his wool all in a twist. Just sayin'.

I understand you are busy, which is why I did not go on a snark-filled rant over it. I only pointed it out, in my customary overwritten fashion, understanding that I cannot really expect anyone to spell my user name correctly when, really, it's just a user name. I only mentioned it because it happened before, and I honestly would rather clear it out here and now, rather than doing so later, if you ever have do gave me an official warning or ban. I'm the sort of guy who dreads the idea of an official document of any sort mispelling my own name. It has happened to me in real life, and though NS may not be the American Embassy or the National Register of People, I do still take this sort of bureaucratic details seriously.

Also, I take offense to the underlined. In fact, I personally find it unnecessary, disingenuous and a tad bit inflammatory. Not something really worthy of further discussion, but I believe it needs to be pointed out.

As for failing to see, that may be the problem. However you'll have to take it up with those who collaborated on the ruling - which I was not a part of. Hence leaving this open, and waiting for them to be available for a more meaningful answer. Thanks.

What is the underlined supposed to mean? And while we are at it, since you promised not to get yourself involved in this thread, what am I supposed to think about you suddenly deciding to comment on another mod's ruling, a ruling in which you admitted you had no input, a ruling on which you made a comment that you yourself admitted to have been a 'click and look'?

You politely asked me to link/repost my inquiry, and I was happy to do so if it meant making the job of the mods relevant to this particular case easier (although another user ninja'd me to it). I did not specifically ask for your input, and since you recused yourself from this thread I am now confused as to whether I should respond at all.

P.S. If you find anything about this post offensive, keep in mind that it is not my intent, and I did try to make this post as pure as possible, as it should be since this is to me an important issue, and this is a thread in Moderation.