Discussion: Have the mods gone far enough?

[Dakini]

I think one of the problems that moderation has which drives away certain posters is that some of the mods want to say that all opinions are equal, valid and worthy of argument. The problem with that is that they're really not. Some opinions are horrifically offensive and dehumanizing, but are allowed to persist in the name of "balance" or some nonsense.

If you allow people to argue "black people will be criminals/irresponsibly stupid if left to their own devices because that is their very nature, therefore slavery was good for them", then odds are some black members are going to be a touch offended and when moderation acts like this is a reasonable, non-trolling thing to say, they might not want to stay around a place where such opinions are considered worthwhile debate topics. If you allow people to argue that trans* people are mentally ill or worse and you treat that as a topic worth debating, you're going to see fewer trans* people hanging around a place where they feel dehumanized or unwelcome. If you're going to allow posters to go on tirades about how women are the absolute worst ever, you're going to see fewer women hanging around here.

Not all opinions are worth debate. Some opinions are just hateful bullshit (even if you've heard worse things at work) and should not be considered valid topics for debate. Unless you want a community full of trolls because they're the only ones left, that is.

[Grenartia]

1. Actually, I'm still in contact with many of those former posters, and the consensus seems to be that the issue wasn't solely around "libertarians" (I've actually never heard them being specifically singled out),

1. Well, there was even a catchphrase, which would suggest that their recollections are somewhat off. At least in the sense that young libertarians were singled out.

or "fascists", or "teenagers".

2. The fascists was just from your post now. 3. Aside from the whole eternal summer thing, fascism never really gets discussed as an issue with NSG in my opinion. 4. As to teenagers, are you being serious? Even the post The Corporation quoted earlier...

"Edgy" certainly was a key part of it (because you can't be a troll without being edgy, at least not a good one), but not the only one. It was a combination of edgy teenagers posing as either fascists or as libertarians (and in one case, which I won't name names, a person who claimed to be the latter while actually saying things that were closer to the former), in order to troll (and admittedly, some trolls who legitimately were fascists or libertarians, but were still trolls).

5. Edginess was probably one of the central complaints. I would argue that people got so worked up about a specific combination those who possessed characteristics that were part of the combination got lumped in with the combination.

2. I would disagree with that assertion, and say that where there's smoke (edginess), there's often fire (trolling).

I wasn't trying to say that it was exclusively a reason, but I see how that isn't made clear by what I wrote.

3. I'll certainly concede that probably played some sort of role.

6. Comments like this are why I wrote, at the start of the post you replied to, "The problem is, I don't think you personally are/were what I've described as, "bitter, angry and personal" or, indeed, one of the posters whose arguments don't match with their actions (i.e. how you say we should post is how you do post)." If the poster awards are still around next year, I think I'm going to have to nominate you. Back to your post...

4. Just semantics, but I'd say its more than a little unfair for an outsider to call The Cavern a "splinter forum". That implies that the mentality was purely "I'm gonna go build my own NSG, with blackjack! And hookers!". Which it wasn't. TC was established for members of a community that had flourished to keep in touch with each other.

7. Isn't it called the Batcavern?

8. From the perspective of someone who applied and failed to join, I think splinter forum is an appropriate description because it looks like it arose because a strong contingent of Generalites developed a forum philosophy that broke away from that of NSG and went to go make it a reality.

5. I suppose that's fair.

It should be: with most of the vocal posters who frequented mod threads having a different stance to myself I needed to develop an idea that could cross the border (as it were). That's something I think the mods used to consider more than they do now... i.e. see if a poster's view changes to try and fit in with the thread's wider opinion, when it remains consistently troublesome, it's probably trollish. I think one of the posters who left for the aforementioned forum said something along these lines... but more framed in terms of "when all their posts are like this".

The last time we tried that, everyone yelled at us for being too strict.

Surely it's worth a shot, right? I mean, new posters won't know the difference (hmm, I'm saying this a lot) and a lot of the ones that older posters complain about (and so, theoretically, more likely to get banned) aren't going to stick around for the long term anyway, and older posters will adjust their behaviour. Obviously, though, if you were to do this you'd have to say something like:

"We've recently reviewed our moderation standards and we'd like to apologise for some previous rulings which have been too lenient. From this point forwards, we'll be working to address these issues."

I'm not sure what exactly should be said, but it needs to make clear that there was something off in the past and that's why there's a change now... which should go some distance to eliminating posts like, "Why'd you ban me for saying that Nation X is a tit when Nation Y said the same thing three months ago and it was ruled fine!? Lrn2consistency mods."

1. Again, the combination.

2. I know where you got it from. And, again, its not any single one trait, but the combination of them.

3. Well, most of the problem is that its a rising trend.

4. Yes. And the issue is that its a rise in immaturity more than a lowering of the average age. Nobody at TC inherently hates teenagers (we have several teen members, who are just as valued as our other members), we're just wary of the immaturity that comes with too many teens.

5. I suppose that's fair.

6. I'm flattered.

7. It was, but its not any more, for reasons I don't think would be appropriate to go into here.

8. Were I in your place, I imagine I'd say the same things. But the invite/approval process is such that if any one person feels that a potential applicant isn't a good fit to join the community, they're out. Mostly to prioritize the existence of the community that's already there over growth and new membership. But I digress.

I think one of the problems that moderation has which drives away certain posters is that some of the mods want to say that all opinions are equal, valid and worthy of argument. The problem with that is that they're really not. Some opinions are horrifically offensive and dehumanizing, but are allowed to persist in the name of "balance" or some nonsense.

If you allow people to argue "black people will be criminals/irresponsibly stupid if left to their own devices because that is their very nature, therefore slavery was good for them", then odds are some black members are going to be a touch offended and when moderation acts like this is a reasonable, non-trolling thing to say, they might not want to stay around a place where such opinions are considered worthwhile debate topics. If you allow people to argue that trans* people are mentally ill or worse and you treat that as a topic worth debating, you're going to see fewer trans* people hanging around a place where they feel dehumanized or unwelcome. If you're going to allow posters to go on tirades about how women are the absolute worst ever, you're going to see fewer women hanging around here.

Not all opinions are worth debate. Some opinions are just hateful bullshit (even if you've heard worse things at work) and should not be considered valid topics for debate. Unless you want a community full of trolls because they're the only ones left, that is.

Exactly.

[Ever-Wandering Souls]

There is a line between having horrible, crappy, dehumanizing opinions that are near impossible to change, and trolling. One is explicitly intentional, meant to get a rise. The other is just something some view as very wrong, and others as very right - and I think that that's the Mod's issue here. Your radical dehumanizer who insults the existence of a group by describing them as mentally ill is another's perfectly rational fellow, whereas to them you're perhaps a believer in unholy, unnatural abominations. Now, I know where my own opinions fall, and you likely do too. It's also likely that you'll have a very hard time changing most of the views of someone else. What I seem them trying to encourage is exactly that, trying to change someone's views, the very point of debate. They try to encourage "arguing against the post" because what you might consider as pure drivel, not even worth the time to refute, is someone else's holy opinion. They try to encourage fighting opinions we disagree with using facts and sources, over moderation reports. That said, being a poor debater/user of flawed logic shouldn't be a punishable offence either. Don't think they're worth listening to? Block them. It doesn't mean they're a troll. DOesn;t mean they're out to get a rise. There's still a line, and one that's often redefined, and up to interpretation of that trick devil, intent. You've got, what, over a dozen mods total? Each looking at different people, from different backgrounds, in different moods and at different times of day, in different contexts and with different poster histories, all on top of often vague root rules. You've got a situation where interpretation of intent can vary wildly, which is why we have the appeals process, and why having only un-involved mods follow up on that is a thing. Even then, maybe they see a different intent than the poster meant, but there comes a point where you say "the average, reasonable poster would read this an attempt to get a rise, so that's what it's being ruled as."

While it's not always entirely "fair" or exactly equitable, it's pretty damn good for an often subjective state of affairs - because ultimately the line between trolling and poor opinions (in one's view) is a simple mixture of do they stick around to argue it, and moreso, do they do so merely to get a rise, or to try and convince you to change? THat's the line, IMO.

Also, as shown by the calls of some for stricter rulings, and others for looser, someone's always going to be unhappy. It's either an unfairly strict crackdown or too loose, with little to no middle ground for our lovely benevolent overlord to relax in

Just remember too, for every one questionable call you see, 100 or so other normal ones are made...

[Grenartia]

There is a line between having horrible, crappy, dehumanizing opinions that are near impossible to change, and trolling. One is explicitly intentional, meant to get a rise. The other is just something some view as very wrong, and others as very right - and I think that that's the Mod's issue here. Your radical dehumanizer who insults the existence of a group by describing them as mentally ill is another's perfectly rational fellow, whereas to them you're perhaps a believer in unholy, unnatural abominations. Now, I know where my own opinions fall, and you likely do too. It's also likely that you'll have a very hard time changing most of the views of someone else. What I seem them trying to encourage is exactly that, trying to change someone's views, the very point of debate. They try to encourage "arguing against the post" because what you might consider as pure drivel, not even worth the time to refute, is someone else's holy opinion. They try to encourage fighting opinions we disagree with using facts and sources, over moderation reports. That said, being a poor debater/user of flawed logic shouldn't be a punishable offence either. Don't think they're worth listening to? Block them. It doesn't mean they're a troll. DOesn;t mean they're out to get a rise. There's still a line, and one that's often redefined, and up to interpretation of that trick devil, intent. You've got, what, over a dozen mods total? Each looking at different people, from different backgrounds, in different moods and at different times of day, in different contexts and with different poster histories, all on top of often vague root rules. You've got a situation where interpretation of intent can vary wildly, which is why we have the appeals process, and why having only un-involved mods follow up on that is a thing. Even then, maybe they see a different intent than the poster meant, but there comes a point where you say "the average, reasonable poster would read this an attempt to get a rise, so that's what it's being ruled as."

While it's not always entirely "fair" or exactly equitable, it's pretty damn good for an often subjective state of affairs - because ultimately the line between trolling and poor opinions (in one's view) is a simple mixture of do they stick around to argue it, and moreso, do they do so merely to get a rise, or to try and convince you to change? THat's the line, IMO.

Also, as shown by the calls of some for stricter rulings, and others for looser, someone's always going to be unhappy. It's either an unfairly strict crackdown or too loose, with little to no middle ground for our lovely benevolent overlord to relax in

Just remember too, for every one questionable call you see, 100 or so other normal ones are made...

However, certain opinions are not allowed here, and rightfully so. Like "all jews should be gassed or shoved into ovens", or "all women and children should be gangraped", for instance. Even if the person saying those things honestly believes them, and tries to convince others to change. And again, rightfully so.

[Ever-Wandering Souls]

Always exceptions. For example, both of those were referring to the mass harming of people, a general no-no on this site. It's got it's own debate going on, about where the line is drawn there, but there's clearly a line drawn somewhere there.

[Grenartia]

Always exceptions. For example, both of those were referring to the mass harming of people, a general no-no on this site. It's got it's own debate going on, about where the line is drawn there, but there's clearly a line drawn somewhere there.

I'd rather that line be too strict than too lenient (after all, nobody who wasn't themself a troll ever complained that there weren't enough trolls, on ANY forum). And I'm absolutely confident that Moderation can make the standards a little stricter without having to also DEAT/DOS the worthwhile posters. That would require them to be utterly, hopelessly incompetent.

[United Marxist Nations]

May I open a separate discussion thread about advocating hypothetical acts of violence and terrorism?

EDIT: As for the "online" tags, are you sure? Euro is the only one I've ever seen with one; this really bugs me. I have to know, DLN.

I'm the only one, as far as I know, that doesn't use the 'stealth mode'.

Damnit, now you took the mystery out of it.

[United Dependencies]

In general it goes Unofficial, official, 1 day ban, 3 day ban, week, DEAT.

But as always, it depends a great deal on what happened, who, etc.

My suggestion is to rid ourselves of the unofficial ban. The only difference between an unofficial ban and an official one is some red text and a number changes somewhere. If an action is worthy of a mod response, then we should warn players not to perform that action again.While we can hope that a warning would deter flamers and spammers, I would imagine that trolls and flame-baiters (by their very nature) are less concerned. Context would matter here, of course, and posters who are close to the line should perhaps be given a knock it off rather than a ban.

The last time we tried that, everyone yelled at us for being too strict.

Well this is the problem that communities and community authorities everywhere face. The correct level of imposition on people's lives and livelihoods can't be divined so sometimes have to just move the line around a bit to figure where the appropriate place is. Add on to this that changing times and people mean that different levels of rules or restrictions may be appropriate at one time but not another. This is why town councils and legislatures exist.

While the last attempt to modify the rules met with poor results, I'd like to offer a different, but somewhat similar idea to address this issue:

I think what we may need is more clarification on the rules that have more nuance or are more difficult to enforce. Perhaps we could have more definite examples of trolling or flame-baiting. Or maybe instead of examples we could have a certain elements (or a rubric for our friends in the education system) that breaks down the actions that make up trolling or other such rules.

Site users could use some sort of public comment area or suggestion box to say that some specific behavior (say posts that deny the holocaust) should or shouldn't be considered as a rule violation. Then perhaps the site occasionally empanels a rules committee that looks over the number and quality of suggestions, the site policies set down by Max, and the mods own view of where the community should be going and decides whether or not to add or subtract to the above elements/guidelines/rubric.

I say this because I think this discussion desperately needs to get out of the theoretical of mods need to do more/less (without any idea what this is) and into specific actions that mods can take. I think the above suggestion will work because it allows us to be more specific without having to bring up/rehash old mod decisions.

If making such a guideline/list of examples/rubric/whatever is too much of an imposition on the mods, I'm definitely willing to donate my time to that effort.

[United Dependencies]

May I open a separate discussion thread about advocating hypothetical acts of violence and terrorism?

EDIT: As for the "online" tags, are you sure? Euro is the only one I've ever seen with one; this really bugs me. I have to know, DLN.

I'm the only one, as far as I know, that doesn't use the 'stealth mode'.

It definitely helps to have someone "on the beat" as it were.

[NERVUN]

In general it goes Unofficial, official, 1 day ban, 3 day ban, week, DEAT.

But as always, it depends a great deal on what happened, who, etc.

My suggestion is to rid ourselves of the unofficial ban. The only difference between an unofficial ban and an official one is some red text and a number changes somewhere. If an action is worthy of a mod response, then we should warn players not to perform that action again.While we can hope that a warning would deter flamers and spammers, I would imagine that trolls and flame-baiters (by their very nature) are less concerned. Context would matter here, of course, and posters who are close to the line should perhaps be given a knock it off rather than a ban.

Er, knock it offs ARE unofficials. It's just a different terminology, but when I say that I've delivered a knock it off, or applied the rolled up newspaper, it is recorded as Unofficial, whatever (link). I like them because there are times when going for red text is overkill, or when I have someone so squeaky new that chances of them being aware of the rules is slim.

There are of course exceptions.

The last time we tried that, everyone yelled at us for being too strict.

Well this is the problem that communities and community authorities everywhere face. The correct level of imposition on people's lives and livelihoods can't be divined so sometimes have to just move the line around a bit to figure where the appropriate place is. Add on to this that changing times and people mean that different levels of rules or restrictions may be appropriate at one time but not another. This is why town councils and legislatures exist.

While I am being somewhat tongue in cheek, I'm also seriously noting be careful what you wish for. Us going RAR! is great until we start going RAR on you, then it becomes Mod abuse and jackboots.

While the last attempt to modify the rules met with poor results, I'd like to offer a different, but somewhat similar idea to address this issue:

I think what we may need is more clarification on the rules that have more nuance or are more difficult to enforce. Perhaps we could have more definite examples of trolling or flame-baiting. Or maybe instead of examples we could have a certain elements (or a rubric for our friends in the education system) that breaks down the actions that make up trolling or other such rules.

Site users could use some sort of public comment area or suggestion box to say that some specific behavior (say posts that deny the holocaust) should or shouldn't be considered as a rule violation. Then perhaps the site occasionally empanels a rules committee that looks over the number and quality of suggestions, the site policies set down by Max, and the mods own view of where the community should be going and decides whether or not to add or subtract to the above elements/guidelines/rubric.

I say this because I think this discussion desperately needs to get out of the theoretical of mods need to do more/less (without any idea what this is) and into specific actions that mods can take. I think the above suggestion will work because it allows us to be more specific without having to bring up/rehash old mod decisions.

If making such a guideline/list of examples/rubric/whatever is too much of an imposition on the mods, I'm definitely willing to donate my time to that effort.

Couldn't really comment without seeing an example, but I do caution about making the rules too restrictive. What we've found is that when we go TOO detailed most of the playerbase won't read them and thems that do, then tend to attempt to be annoying JUST within the line and when called, yell that we're being unfair.

This isn't to say your suggestion doesn't have merit, but it is a consideration to be aware of.

[The Liberated Territories]

I don't know if they have "gone far enough" but there does seem to be biases against hard right wingers (Archeuland and Turtleshroom both got DEATed on the same day). Conspiracy?

[United Dependencies]

While I am being somewhat tongue in cheek, I'm also seriously noting be careful what you wish for. Us going RAR! is great until we start going RAR on you, then it becomes Mod abuse and jackboots.

I feel like I'm a fairly reasonable person. I know I have disagreed with previous and current moderation policies, and while sometimes the issue can be frustrating, I don't think I've treated or accused the mods as not being interested in a good forum community.

Couldn't really comment without seeing an example,

Let's look at an example (I would like to caution you that it's 1am EST for me and I've only taken a few minutes to cobble this together. This is just the roughest of ideas of what I'm thinking of):

Trolling is defined as posts that are made with the aim of angering people. (like 'ALL JEWS ARE [insert vile comment here]' for example). Someone disagreeing with you does not equate to trolling. Intent is incredibly important and will be judged by the moderators to the best of their abilities. Honest belief does not excuse trolling. Disagreements are expected and conducting yourself in a civil manner is ideal. Trollbaiting is the action of making posts that attract trolls. A prime example of trollbaiting would be gloating over the results of an election.

I look at this rule and I see two separate problems under the same rule so perhaps in the OSRS or in a separate appendix we include the following:

Intent to anger- A player who displays the following behaviors or commits the following actions can be said to be posting with the express purpose of angering other posters:
-consistently takes an opposing view in forum threads regardless of consistency with ideology or the facts presented in each thread
-consistently breaks from a thread's topic to make post about a pet ideology or favored subject
-consistently acts in a derogatory, impolite, or otherwise uncivil manner with posters who contest the original poster's statements
etc. (as necessary)

Harmful opinion- a player who posts behaves in the following way is said to be trolling regardless of the sincerity of their beliefs:
-wishing violence on a group or subset of people
-declaring a group or subset of people to be inherently unequal or inferior to the rest of the population
-Altering the names of political parties or ideologies so as to make those names insulting to their users
etc. (also as necessary)

but I do caution about making the rules too restrictive. What we've found is that when we go TOO detailed most of the playerbase won't read them and thems that do, then tend to attempt to be annoying JUST within the line and when called, yell that we're being unfair.

This isn't to say your suggestion doesn't have merit, but it is a consideration to be aware of.

To the former I will say:
This website isn't open to children. For the growing teenagers and adults here, they need to realize that the places and communities they live and will live in all have rules. If they elect not to read the rules, then they have only themselves to blame when they run afoul of those rules without realizing it.

For the latter: Trolls always try to dance on the line, it's what they do. Right now we have a less well defined line and I don't think it's helping. I think if we push the line towards more strict we can get more trolls and force the less obvious ones to behave in a more acceptable manner. The whole purpose of our rule system is to make a good community, if trolls have to behave in a way that's only somewhat annoying instead of outright antagonistic, then I think we'll be better off.


edit: and let me add onto the example above, if you say that the above is to strict or not strict enough, that's why I proposed a public thread or private suggestion box and occasionally empaneled rules committee. The forum can give comments about how specific behaviors should/shouldn't be against the rules and the mods can take that and everything else they have into consideration and decide whether a rules modification is necessary.

second edit: Now that I think about it, if your complaint is that nobody would read the rules, they wouldn't necessarily have too. The OSRS says posting with the intent to anger people isn't allowed and adds that some opinions are trolling still count even if they're sincere. So people who read that rule will still understand that they shouldn't post with the purpose of angering people. The further breakdown of the rules just makes it so that enforcement policy is part of forum record. It also gives us a chance to discuss the finer points of what is/ isn't trolling without having to rehash old mod decisions.

It follows in the same vein of current criminal law. I don't have to read or know the specifics of the definition or elements of murder link to get the general gist of what's going on.

[Alyakia]

I firmly believe that they are far, far to lenient on posters who intend to spam and troll the site. I've noticed that sometimes trollish posts are referred to as "opinions you should argue", and I think that's malarkey.

Sure, we could enforce more stringent anti-trolling rules, but what makes our opinions on what is trollish versus what is opinion more valuable than yours?

Let's say for instance that I decide all religious posters are by definition trolls. Anyone posting anything faith-based gets warned and/or banned. Then I decide that all Democrats are trolls. Then I decide that anyone posting anything remotely anti-American is trolling. Let's toss in anyone with an opinion, pro or con, regarding LGBT naming conventions ... and while we're at it, both sides of the pony/brony debate. I'm sure we'd all enjoy the white male Republican American non-TV-watching forums that would be the end result of those choices.

Alternately, we could let everyone participate in the debates and determine for themselves who is worth responding to, and who has a valid or invalid opinion. What the hell, we could even try to convince someone to come over to our side of the argument, knowing full well in advance that it's probably futile. Doesn't mean we can't enjoy the debate ... and just maybe we'll open their eyes to some aspect of our version of the truth.

Now if I'm going to defend allowing people to post opinions that I find abhorrent, where do I draw the line? I know Republicans and Democrats, church-goers and atheists, gays and straights and otherqueers, bronies and brony-haters, Americans and furriners ... and for the most part they're nice people with their own sets of views. I even know and like some racists and anti-racists, who have valuable things to say even though I abhor some of their less pleasant opinions. And you can't tell me all gay-haters are trolls, when members of my own family had to hide their step-kids' gay orientation from my own father? I thought he was wrong, and tried to sway him ... but I didn't ban him from my house.

So yeah, those of you who think we aren't tough enough on trolls ... consider for a moment that there are almost certainly people on these forums you think YOU are trolling with at least one of your opinions. Should we ban you, or allow you to speak?

people would probably take you more seriously when you say this if you didn't occasionally make big posts like this defending peoples right to speak and how that isnt trolling only to end it with actually as it turns out while i was writing this post i banned the person in question for trolling.

and if you didn't try to imply that "perhaps the people that were raped/tortured to death deserved it" or "actually the death squads were correct and entirely necessary", all fun opinions we can find on NSG today, and "voting republican" were just the same and we are teetering on a slippery slope.

[Grenartia]

I don't know if they have "gone far enough" but there does seem to be biases against hard right wingers (Archeuland and Turtleshroom both got DEATed on the same day). Conspiracy?

Yes. On the part of the trolls, who constantly take on hard right wing personas in order to troll as many people as possible. And yes, you named at least one user who is a confirmed troll, and I'm not familiar enough with the other to comment. And no, the one who I know for sure is a troll is not a troll purely because of their "hardcore rightwing beliefs".

[Grenartia]

While I am being somewhat tongue in cheek, I'm also seriously noting be careful what you wish for. Us going RAR! is great until we start going RAR on you, then it becomes Mod abuse and jackboots.

I feel like I'm a fairly reasonable person. I know I have disagreed with previous and current moderation policies, and while sometimes the issue can be frustrating, I don't think I've treated or accused the mods as not being interested in a good forum community.

Couldn't really comment without seeing an example,

Let's look at an example (I would like to caution you that it's 1am EST for me and I've only taken a few minutes to cobble this together. This is just the roughest of ideas of what I'm thinking of):

Trolling is defined as posts that are made with the aim of angering people. (like 'ALL JEWS ARE [insert vile comment here]' for example). Someone disagreeing with you does not equate to trolling. Intent is incredibly important and will be judged by the moderators to the best of their abilities. Honest belief does not excuse trolling. Disagreements are expected and conducting yourself in a civil manner is ideal. Trollbaiting is the action of making posts that attract trolls. A prime example of trollbaiting would be gloating over the results of an election.

I look at this rule and I see two separate problems under the same rule so perhaps in the OSRS or in a separate appendix we include the following:

Intent to anger- A player who displays the following behaviors or commits the following actions can be said to be posting with the express purpose of angering other posters:
-consistently takes an opposing view in forum threads regardless of consistency with ideology or the facts presented in each thread
-consistently breaks from a thread's topic to make post about a pet ideology or favored subject
-consistently acts in a derogatory, impolite, or otherwise uncivil manner with posters who contest the original poster's statements
etc. (as necessary)

Harmful opinion- a player who posts behaves in the following way is said to be trolling regardless of the sincerity of their beliefs:
-wishing violence on a group or subset of people
-declaring a group or subset of people to be inherently unequal or inferior to the rest of the population
-Altering the names of political parties or ideologies so as to make those names insulting to their users
etc. (also as necessary)

but I do caution about making the rules too restrictive. What we've found is that when we go TOO detailed most of the playerbase won't read them and thems that do, then tend to attempt to be annoying JUST within the line and when called, yell that we're being unfair.

This isn't to say your suggestion doesn't have merit, but it is a consideration to be aware of.

To the former I will say:
This website isn't open to children. For the growing teenagers and adults here, they need to realize that the places and communities they live and will live in all have rules. If they elect not to read the rules, then they have only themselves to blame when they run afoul of those rules without realizing it.

For the latter: Trolls always try to dance on the line, it's what they do. Right now we have a less well defined line and I don't think it's helping. I think if we push the line towards more strict we can get more trolls and force the less obvious ones to behave in a more acceptable manner. The whole purpose of our rule system is to make a good community, if trolls have to behave in a way that's only somewhat annoying instead of outright antagonistic, then I think we'll be better off.


edit: and let me add onto the example above, if you say that the above is to strict or not strict enough, that's why I proposed a public thread or private suggestion box and occasionally empaneled rules committee. The forum can give comments about how specific behaviors should/shouldn't be against the rules and the mods can take that and everything else they have into consideration and decide whether a rules modification is necessary.

second edit: Now that I think about it, if your complaint is that nobody would read the rules, they wouldn't necessarily have too. The OSRS says posting with the intent to anger people isn't allowed and adds that some opinions are trolling still count even if they're sincere. So people who read that rule will still understand that they shouldn't post with the purpose of angering people. The further breakdown of the rules just makes it so that enforcement policy is part of forum record. It also gives us a chance to discuss the finer points of what is/ isn't trolling without having to rehash old mod decisions.

It follows in the same vein of current criminal law. I don't have to read or know the specifics of the definition or elements of murder link to get the general gist of what's going on.

I really like everything you said here, except for the part I struck out. And I only don't like that because I feel it would be a loophole.

Sure, we could enforce more stringent anti-trolling rules, but what makes our opinions on what is trollish versus what is opinion more valuable than yours?

Let's say for instance that I decide all religious posters are by definition trolls. Anyone posting anything faith-based gets warned and/or banned. Then I decide that all Democrats are trolls. Then I decide that anyone posting anything remotely anti-American is trolling. Let's toss in anyone with an opinion, pro or con, regarding LGBT naming conventions ... and while we're at it, both sides of the pony/brony debate. I'm sure we'd all enjoy the white male Republican American non-TV-watching forums that would be the end result of those choices.

Alternately, we could let everyone participate in the debates and determine for themselves who is worth responding to, and who has a valid or invalid opinion. What the hell, we could even try to convince someone to come over to our side of the argument, knowing full well in advance that it's probably futile. Doesn't mean we can't enjoy the debate ... and just maybe we'll open their eyes to some aspect of our version of the truth.

Now if I'm going to defend allowing people to post opinions that I find abhorrent, where do I draw the line? I know Republicans and Democrats, church-goers and atheists, gays and straights and otherqueers, bronies and brony-haters, Americans and furriners ... and for the most part they're nice people with their own sets of views. I even know and like some racists and anti-racists, who have valuable things to say even though I abhor some of their less pleasant opinions. And you can't tell me all gay-haters are trolls, when members of my own family had to hide their step-kids' gay orientation from my own father? I thought he was wrong, and tried to sway him ... but I didn't ban him from my house.

So yeah, those of you who think we aren't tough enough on trolls ... consider for a moment that there are almost certainly people on these forums you think YOU are trolling with at least one of your opinions. Should we ban you, or allow you to speak?

people would probably take you more seriously when you say this if you didn't occasionally make big posts like this defending peoples right to speak and how that isnt trolling only to end it with actually as it turns out while i was writing this post i banned the person in question for trolling.

and if you didn't try to imply that "perhaps the people that were raped/tortured to death deserved it" or "actually the death squads were correct and entirely necessary", all fun opinions we can find on NSG today, and "voting republican" were just the same and we are teetering on a slippery slope.

Indeed. Or saying that people like you and me need to be branded/tattooed with "THE INFAMOUS T". That's totally comparable with voting for Jeb/Christie/Romney/McCain(?) in 2016.

[Mostrov]

‎

[Manisdog]

They're pretty good most of the time.
I think the most irritated I've ever been at them is when Manisdog went on a anti-Euro streak for a good 2-3 days and one of the mods just let it slide as "he's from another culture" or something.

You have specifically targeted me so I am going to answer you

Ok I don't remember this but if your talking about the Britain , than I am a person who is against Britain's imperialist agenda and I believe in south-south cooperation, this is off the point but you brought this point up and you want to silence me so I am going to tell you this, what Britain did in my country and many other countries deserves to be condemned. Heck I have messaged the moderators saying that I would leave them to there ways but what they do outside and to any of my countrymen would be criticized by me,

After this point, I don't think this would be worthy of any further serious comment

[Imperializt Russia]

This may have slipped you by, but British posters on this board, literally none of whom were involved in the Empire or even alive when it existed, and few of whom are descendants of those who were directly involved in the Empire, are nothing to do with what you see wrong with Britain's imperial past.

[Manisdog]

Also to claim that the moderators are biased towards people from other ethnicity would be a lie, I can bet most moderators are white or Europeans/Americans, I highly doubt we would have a moderator who is Chinese, Vietnamese,Arab or Indian. So arguing that the moderators would support my view would be wrong

I have a made this into a separate post because this could be on the topic that is the moderators

One could argue that moderators would not understand other cultures, I don't think they need to or want to like for example If I say xyz about the Britain or Pakistan offline, many people will agree with me but if I say it here than I will be in trouble, your understanding me, I was at first shocked about it but now I understand that people from those countries also linger the internet and don't view history in the same way as I do, at first it seems very very weird but than you get used to it

there are rules, if you break them your going to get into trouble, after being like warned so many times I have understood those, If I am going to enter a forum and the people in that forum will flame me than I don't go there, If someone does something wrong in there country than you don't tell them they are wrong because they will 100% deny it. It is like a very weird eye opening experience for me


So, I am telling the moderators this, if you want to get rid of the flames and not have such questions asked than you can just stop preemptively two people from hostile countries from talking

[The Batorys]

I disagree that the mods have gotten much more lenient. I can think of lots of things the mods allowed 4 years ago that they wouldn't allow now. We used to have pedophilia and zoophilia threads regularly, as well as much more leeway granted to Nazis.

I'm not entirely sure why there has been a shift toward a younger demographic and fewer women. Shutting down the rape thread and limiting discussions of mental illness probably didn't help. Those topics lent themselves to intelligent conversation. There may also be a cascade effect where a couple of good posters leave, and then their friends leave because so and so isn't here anymore and it's just not the same without them, and then their friends' friends leave, and so on. It's not necessarily something the mods did.

Well, there were a few bans which were, shall we say, not popular, and they precipitated some of the mass departures.

I lament the loss of so many veterans, but I don't think it's entirely due to insufficient modly whack-a-troll but -- I'm thinking of some of said bans -- inconsistent use of the banhammer. IMAO, a few posters got used to having posting styles that either went up to the "actionable" line or that routinely crept across it. For a long time, they got away with it, and people coped with that one way or another. And then, for various reasons, the mods started enforcing the rules, and those posters got hit hard, fast, and often, and they and the rest of us were surprised and angry when they got banned. (Again, IMAO.)

Quite a few of those veterans have said outright that it was due to lack of modly whack-a-troll, actually.

Most of the ones I'm still in contact with who no longer post here outright say that it's because trolls are not dealt with.

[The Batorys]

I've always thought unofficial warnings were rather silly.

A warning isn't a punishment for anything, it's a warning. I think the mods could stand to throw out more warnings. I also think that actual punishment should escalate more quickly. Bans should be given out to posters after a single warning (so long as the two actions are within a reasonable amount of time relatively). I've also seen bans for less than a day given out previously, so if a ban is needed but a whole day is too much, then perhaps smaller times would be appropriate.

Also, I've said in the past and I'll say it again:

I believe that whatever the mods are using as a measuring stick to determine what is and is not trolling is letting to many trollish or just terrible posters through. Perhaps in the past such a lenient standard was necessary, but now I think we've got too many posters who have no interest in building a community around intelligent discussion of current issues and ideas. I think we've got too many posters who want every thread to be about their pet ideologies, or are just interested in getting a rise out of other posters here. I think the mods should adjust their standards so that we get more warnings, bans, and deletions for trolling.

Agreed wholeheartedly.

I'd prefer, honestly, for there to be no unofficial warnings. Only official ones. Personally I think it'd be easier to keep track of exactly how often someone is playing a bit fast and loose with the rules if all warnings were official.

But that's just my two cents, I guess.

[The Batorys]

The last time we tried that, everyone yelled at us for being too strict.

Assholes yelled at you for being too strict and in doing so, keeping them from being assholes to everyone.

[The Batorys]

There is a line between having horrible, crappy, dehumanizing opinions that are near impossible to change, and trolling. One is explicitly intentional, meant to get a rise. The other is just something some view as very wrong, and others as very right - and I think that that's the Mod's issue here. Your radical dehumanizer who insults the existence of a group by describing them as mentally ill is another's perfectly rational fellow, whereas to them you're perhaps a believer in unholy, unnatural abominations. Now, I know where my own opinions fall, and you likely do too. It's also likely that you'll have a very hard time changing most of the views of someone else. What I seem them trying to encourage is exactly that, trying to change someone's views, the very point of debate. They try to encourage "arguing against the post" because what you might consider as pure drivel, not even worth the time to refute, is someone else's holy opinion. They try to encourage fighting opinions we disagree with using facts and sources, over moderation reports. That said, being a poor debater/user of flawed logic shouldn't be a punishable offence either. Don't think they're worth listening to? Block them. It doesn't mean they're a troll. DOesn;t mean they're out to get a rise. There's still a line, and one that's often redefined, and up to interpretation of that trick devil, intent. You've got, what, over a dozen mods total? Each looking at different people, from different backgrounds, in different moods and at different times of day, in different contexts and with different poster histories, all on top of often vague root rules. You've got a situation where interpretation of intent can vary wildly, which is why we have the appeals process, and why having only un-involved mods follow up on that is a thing. Even then, maybe they see a different intent than the poster meant, but there comes a point where you say "the average, reasonable poster would read this an attempt to get a rise, so that's what it's being ruled as."

While it's not always entirely "fair" or exactly equitable, it's pretty damn good for an often subjective state of affairs - because ultimately the line between trolling and poor opinions (in one's view) is a simple mixture of do they stick around to argue it, and moreso, do they do so merely to get a rise, or to try and convince you to change? THat's the line, IMO.

Also, as shown by the calls of some for stricter rulings, and others for looser, someone's always going to be unhappy. It's either an unfairly strict crackdown or too loose, with little to no middle ground for our lovely benevolent overlord to relax in

Just remember too, for every one questionable call you see, 100 or so other normal ones are made...

However, certain opinions are not allowed here, and rightfully so. Like "all jews should be gassed or shoved into ovens", or "all women and children should be gangraped", for instance. Even if the person saying those things honestly believes them, and tries to convince others to change. And again, rightfully so.

Exactly. If it's someone's honest opinion that all jewish people are subhumans who should be killed in terrible ways, well, that's too bad for them, because this here's a private website and that kind of bullshit isn't allowed, even if someone truly believes in such insanity.

[The Batorys]

Always exceptions. For example, both of those were referring to the mass harming of people, a general no-no on this site. It's got it's own debate going on, about where the line is drawn there, but there's clearly a line drawn somewhere there.

nobody who wasn't themself a troll ever complained that there weren't enough trolls, on ANY forum

Exactly.

[Imperializt Russia]

So, I am telling the moderators this, if you want to get rid of the flames and not have such questions asked than you can just stop preemptively two people from hostile countries from talking

Of course they could.

Doing so or even attempting to do so is incredibly difficult and peculiar and wholly not in the interests of the site creator.