[report] BoSS

[Ever-Wandering Souls]

viewtopic.php?f=12&t=362331&p=27821865&sid=d0531db889782ca9e32a8348d8635250#p27820532

I believe this post to be in violation of the recent clarification of policy found here: viewtopic.php?f=16&t=368704&p=27779566#p27778390

Furthermore, with the admission to/confirmation of the first post by the person it concerns found here: viewtopic.php?f=12&t=362331&p=27821865&sid=d0531db889782ca9e32a8348d8635250#p27820883 I question whether any the actions mentioned *do* now fall under your realm, and warrant action along the lines of making threats against another player.

[Ever-Wandering Souls]

Add: viewtopic.php?f=12&t=362331&p=27823627#p27823627 Flaming, at the least.

YOU are garbage

[Sentinel Optik]

https://forum.nationstates.net/viewtopic.php?f=12&t=362331&p=27821865&sid=d0531db889782ca9e32a8348d8635250#p27820532

I believe this post to be in violation of the recent clarification of policy found here: https://forum.nationstates.net/viewtopi ... #p27778390

Too Long; Didn't Read:

Don't make accusations of offsite criminality.
Don't make accusations of offsite bad behavior that's irrelevant to the game.
Accusations of legit gameplay-related actions are kosher.
Don't go poking around at the edge cases; you might fall off those edges.

I did not accuse Sci of criminality and it was relevant to the game as Sci is the leader of BoSS, allied to DEN, and it related to his plot against DEN and its leader.

[Ever-Wandering Souls]

Preeeeetty sure claiming intent to spread false accusations of sexual harassment with the intention to defame, along with the implication of physical violence, are far too close to criminal for comfort.

[Sentinel Optik]

Preeeeetty sure claiming intent to spread false accusations of sexual harassment with the intention to defame, along with the implication of physical violence, are far too close to criminal for comfort.

I really don't think the cops care if someone falsely accuses someone else of sexual harassment on Nationstates. You're reaching pretty hard.

[In Gentem Et De Libris Scientiam]

https://forum.nationstates.net/viewtopic.php?f=12&t=362331&p=27821865&sid=d0531db889782ca9e32a8348d8635250#p27820532

I believe this post to be in violation of the recent clarification of policy found here: https://forum.nationstates.net/viewtopi ... #p27778390

Furthermore, with the admission to/confirmation of the first post by the person it concerns found here: https://forum.nationstates.net/viewtopi ... #p27820883 I question whether any the actions mentioned *do* now fall under your realm, and warrant action along the lines of making threats against another player.

In response to these most serious allegations, which are borne out of nothing more than the most spiteful betrayal imaginable, I will attempt to look past their deliberately onerous and misleading nature.

Firstly, I have never and will never condone an iRL crime. The veracity of this statement cannot be contested, and it will not be undone by the mere desires of those who would be so dominated by their lustful passions as to wish me incapacitated. Therefore, to take a private joke so severely out of context as to portray me as condoning murder, is to put it mildly, a farce, a sham and an utter disgrace. There is no jurisdiction that would take this offhand joke in an online chatroom as a serious one, there is no jurisdiction which would risk the ignominy of dragging before it an innocent man, who did nothing more than engage in a moment of humour with his supposed comrades. I note again that the quotes in question are severely out of context – a context of humor and general frivolity, one in which it is clear that no crime is being contemplated.

Furthermore, these actions occurred offsite, outside of moderator jurisdiction. It cannot be the policy of moderation to be the thought-police of offsite banter, especially when said banter is produced as evidence in a manner unbecoming when it comes to the gravity of the alleged crime. Photoshopped, noncontextual nonsense need not masquerade as anything else.
I will defend my honor and my integrity against any and all who would so callously impugn it.

[Sentinel Optik]

https://forum.nationstates.net/viewtopic.php?f=12&t=362331&p=27821865&sid=d0531db889782ca9e32a8348d8635250#p27820532

I believe this post to be in violation of the recent clarification of policy found here: https://forum.nationstates.net/viewtopi ... #p27778390

Furthermore, with the admission to/confirmation of the first post by the person it concerns found here: https://forum.nationstates.net/viewtopi ... #p27820883 I question whether any the actions mentioned *do* now fall under your realm, and warrant action along the lines of making threats against another player.

In response to these most serious allegations, which are borne out of nothing more than the most spiteful betrayal imaginable, I will attempt to look past their deliberately onerous and misleading nature.

Firstly, I have never and will never condone an iRL crime. The veracity of this statement cannot be contested, and it will not be undone by the mere desires of those who would be so dominated by their lustful passions as to wish me incapacitated. Therefore, to take a private joke so severely out of context as to portray me as condoning murder, is to put it mildly, a farce, a sham and an utter disgrace. There is no jurisdiction that would take this offhand joke in an online chatroom as a serious one, there is no jurisdiction which would risk the ignominy of dragging before it an innocent man, who did nothing more than engage in a moment of humour with his supposed comrades. I note again that the quotes in question are severely out of context – a context of humor and general frivolity, one in which it is clear that no crime is being contemplated.

Furthermore, these actions occurred offsite, outside of moderator jurisdiction. It cannot be the policy of moderation to be the thought-police of offsite banter, especially when said banter is produced as evidence in a manner unbecoming when it comes to the gravity of the alleged crime. Photoshopped, noncontextual nonsense need not masquerade as anything else.
I will defend my honor and my integrity against any and all who would so callously impugn it.

I have attempted to discern what Sci is saying despite not having a thesaurus handy, and I believe it to be that he did not intend for there to be an actual threat. I concur, as the leaker of the logs, that I likewise did not interpret any statement by him as legitimately criminal in nature in any kind of RL criminal context. I was not at any time accusing him of any OOC crime, only an IC one, and as such the moderation policy regarding the accusation of criminal behavior does not apply.

[In Gentem Et De Libris Scientiam]

In response to these most serious allegations, which are borne out of nothing more than the most spiteful betrayal imaginable, I will attempt to look past their deliberately onerous and misleading nature.

Firstly, I have never and will never condone an iRL crime. The veracity of this statement cannot be contested, and it will not be undone by the mere desires of those who would be so dominated by their lustful passions as to wish me incapacitated. Therefore, to take a private joke so severely out of context as to portray me as condoning murder, is to put it mildly, a farce, a sham and an utter disgrace. There is no jurisdiction that would take this offhand joke in an online chatroom as a serious one, there is no jurisdiction which would risk the ignominy of dragging before it an innocent man, who did nothing more than engage in a moment of humour with his supposed comrades. I note again that the quotes in question are severely out of context – a context of humor and general frivolity, one in which it is clear that no crime is being contemplated.

Furthermore, these actions occurred offsite, outside of moderator jurisdiction. It cannot be the policy of moderation to be the thought-police of offsite banter, especially when said banter is produced as evidence in a manner unbecoming when it comes to the gravity of the alleged crime. Photoshopped, noncontextual nonsense need not masquerade as anything else.
I will defend my honor and my integrity against any and all who would so callously impugn it.

I have attempted to discern what Sci is saying despite not having a thesaurus handy, and I believe it to be that he did not intend for there to be an actual threat. I concur, as the leaker of the logs, that I likewise did not interpret any statement by him as legitimately criminal in nature in any kind of RL criminal context. I was not at any time accusing him of any OOC crime, only an IC one, and as such the moderation policy regarding the accusation of criminal behavior does not apply.

Thank you for your concurrence. What you say is true, no crime was either encouraged or implied.

[Ever-Wandering Souls]

I have attempted to discern what Sci is saying despite not having a thesaurus handy, and I believe it to be that he did not intend for there to be an actual threat. I concur, as the leaker of the logs, that I likewise did not interpret any statement by him as legitimately criminal in nature in any kind of RL criminal context. I was not at any time accusing him of any OOC crime, only an IC one, and as such the moderation policy regarding the accusation of criminal behavior does not apply.

Thank you for your concurrence. What you say is true, no crime was either encouraged or implied.

>>"getting a sexual harassment thing on him....would hurt his reputation"

>>"It's so much easier in RL. We could just shoot Gest"

I find it hard not to read this as Optik's post claiming you intend to commit illegal activities, and, as noted in the OP, am also curious as to whether, with your admission that these are real (if, as you claim, mis-phrased) comments appearing on-site, they are now actionable. Let's let the mods rule on it, eh?

[Sentinel Optik]

Thank you for your concurrence. What you say is true, no crime was either encouraged or implied.

>>"getting a sexual harassment thing on him....would hurt his reputation"

>>"It's so much easier in RL. We could just shoot Gest"

I find it hard not to read this as Optik's post claiming you intend to commit illegal activities, and, as noted in the OP, am also curious as to whether, with your admission that these are real (if, as you claim, mis-phrased) comments appearing on-site, they are now actionable. Let's let the mods rule on it, eh?

Not sure if you understand the difference between IC and OOC.

In the context of the quote, my claim is that Sci wanted Gest to be discredited and removed as leader of DEN, more or less. It has NOTHING to do with an actual death threat, or an actual OOC harassment accusation against whoever Gest is in RL. It was ENTIRELY an IC logdump, with no OOC accusation made by me against Sci.

[In Gentem Et De Libris Scientiam]

Thank you for your concurrence. What you say is true, no crime was either encouraged or implied.

>>"getting a sexual harassment thing on him....would hurt his reputation"

>>"It's so much easier in RL. We could just shoot Gest"

I find it hard not to read this as Optik's post claiming you intend to commit illegal activities, and, as noted in the OP, am also curious as to whether, with your admission that these are real (if, as you claim, mis-phrased) comments appearing on-site, they are now actionable. Let's let the mods rule on it, eh?

If you are truly so concerned about my intent to commit an iRL crime, you would then be surely at this moment contacting some actual legal authority, rather than taking to grandstanding in this thread. You will not contact any actual legal authority of course, because you know as well as I that what was said was no more than farce, and you would surely receive nothing but laughter and scorn for reporting it, if not a criminal case against yourself in retribution for your obviously litigious thirst.

Furthermore, I will not allow you to impugn my integrity. Perhaps you would like to air all your private conversations to ensure there is nothing prohibited in them? I think not.

[Ever-Wandering Souls]

>>"getting a sexual harassment thing on him....would hurt his reputation"

>>"It's so much easier in RL. We could just shoot Gest"

I find it hard not to read this as Optik's post claiming you intend to commit illegal activities, and, as noted in the OP, am also curious as to whether, with your admission that these are real (if, as you claim, mis-phrased) comments appearing on-site, they are now actionable. Let's let the mods rule on it, eh?

Not sure if you understand the difference between IC and OOC.

In the context of the quote, my claim is that Sci wanted Gest to be discredited and removed as leader of DEN, more or less. It has NOTHING to do with an actual death threat, or an actual OOC harassment accusation against whoever Gest is in RL. It was ENTIRELY an IC logdump, with no OOC accusation made by me against Sci.

You may have missed the Memo, but GP isn't IC, no one viewing such a thing considers threats of framing for sexual harassement (a "hot topic" around here) to be IC or a joke, and saying something is "IC" is no excuse for rulebreaking behavior on NS. Nice backpedal though.

I shouldn't be arguing with you though - the mods will rule as the mods will rule.

[Ever-Wandering Souls]

>>"getting a sexual harassment thing on him....would hurt his reputation"

>>"It's so much easier in RL. We could just shoot Gest"

I find it hard not to read this as Optik's post claiming you intend to commit illegal activities, and, as noted in the OP, am also curious as to whether, with your admission that these are real (if, as you claim, mis-phrased) comments appearing on-site, they are now actionable. Let's let the mods rule on it, eh?

If you are truly so concerned about my intent to commit an iRL crime, you would then be surely at this moment contacting some actual legal authority, rather than taking to grandstanding in this thread. You will not contact any actual legal authority of course, because you know as well as I that what was said was no more than farce, and you would surely receive nothing but laughter and scorn for reporting it, if not a criminal case against yourself in retribution for your obviously litigious thirst.

Furthermore, I will not allow you to impugn my integrity. Perhaps you would like to air all your private conversations to ensure there is nothing prohibited in them? I think not.

DO I think for a second you'd do the latter? No. The former? Perhaps. That's not the reported issue here, however - the reported issue is that I believe Optik's post to be in violation of the linked rule regard accusations of offsite behavior.

If you think I'm likewise breaking that rule, go ahead, report it, as is your right. If you wish to take anything offsite of mine here as well, do so only at your own risk of running afoul of it as well.

[In Gentem Et De Libris Scientiam]

If you are truly so concerned about my intent to commit an iRL crime, you would then be surely at this moment contacting some actual legal authority, rather than taking to grandstanding in this thread. You will not contact any actual legal authority of course, because you know as well as I that what was said was no more than farce, and you would surely receive nothing but laughter and scorn for reporting it, if not a criminal case against yourself in retribution for your obviously litigious thirst.

Furthermore, I will not allow you to impugn my integrity. Perhaps you would like to air all your private conversations to ensure there is nothing prohibited in them? I think not.

DO I think for a second you'd do the latter? No. The former? Perhaps. That's not the reported issue here, however - the reported issue is that I believe Optik's post to be in violation of the linked rule regard accusations of offsite behavior.

If you think I'm likewise breaking that rule, go ahead, report it, as is your right. If you wish to take anything offsite of mine here as well, do so only at your own risk of running afoul of it as well.

I will not take the advice of one who so clearly revels in each and every controversy that occurs before this judicature. The mods will rule fairly, and thus in my favor.

[Sedgistan]

Thread locked pending review. I don't have time to carry out a review just now, but hopefully another mod can sort it. I'd suggest no further posting in this thread until that is concluded.

[Reploid Productions]

Bearing in mind that the actual subject of this report (Sentinel Optik's post accusing In Gentem Et De Libris Scientiam of heinous/NS rules-violating behavior offsite) is being handled by one of my colleagues and should hopefully get a ruling posted tonight or tomorrow, there is another matter that has come to moderation's attention, and this happens to be the best place to address it.

In Gentem Et De Libris Scientiam is receiving a *** warning for posting for a DOSed player in this thread. ***

We would like to remind everyone that DOS users are banned for a reason (and usually several,) and that you are taking enormous risks when dealing with them offsite. DOS users have proven that they do not have the best interests of the site or its players in mind, do not assume that they are tools you can use to your advantage and safely control. You cannot, and trying to do so will likely not end well, whether due to moderation finding out or due to getting screwed over by the DOS. They do not care about you, your region, your community, or the game; they only care about manipulating people for their own shits and giggles. Any offers they make, such as to help set up a website or forum are going to have a price: it puts them in control of your off-site assets, it gives them leverage to use against you. Anyone who's had their offsite forum destroyed due to giving the wrong person admin access can tell you, that's a devastating blow; allowing someone who's been DOSed that level of control over your offsite is just begging for trouble.

And if you've thrown caution to the wind and played with fire anyway? Talk to us. Don't let it develop into a situation where you're so tangled up with a DOSed user that you end up getting DOSed too. Don't be Halc, don't be Bob. We would much rather have people own up to their mistakes and get the opportunity to turn their situation around before it turns into a mess where we are forced to drop the hammer.


~Evil Forum Empress Rep Prod the Ninja Mod
~She who wields the Banhammer; master of the mighty moderation no-dachi Kiritateru Teikoku

[The Silver Sentinel]

Not questioning the decision Reppy, but has it not been established that acting on behalf of a DOS player is grounds for deletion?

[Ever-Wandering Souls]

Not questioning the decision Reppy, but has it not been established that acting on behalf of a DOS player is grounds for deletion?

I'd imagine there's a lot of backend in this case. As seen with Neph at the same time as Halc and Bob's case, and as Reppy seems to hint at there - having a long talk with Moderation seems to help, at least far more than trying to bluff your way out of trouble.

[Reploid Productions]

Not questioning the decision Reppy, but has it not been established that acting on behalf of a DOS player is grounds for deletion?

There's an enormous difference between, say, using an illegal script provided by a DOS and not coming clean about it, and posting a couple of posts a DOS wrote for you and owning up to it.

[Cogitation]

Okay, here's the ruling on the original report that this thread is actually about.

Sedgistan asked the rest of the team if any of us had time to evaluate this, given that he didn't have time for it, himself.

The reported post is allegedly of offsite chat material, and portrays someone as plotting to commit Slander/Libel (a tort - "I'm not sure what getting a sexual harassment thing on him would do in DEN... But I think it would hurt his reputation"), to commit Assault With A Deadly Weapon (a crime - "It's so much easier in RL. We could just shoot Gest"), and/or to commit Moderators As A Weapon (a NationStates violation - "how would you go about getting Gest DoS?").

Remember that many posts on NationStates.net are judged according to how a hypothetical Reasonable Person™ (who isn't involved in any particular part of the NationStates community) would view the material but might not have noticed the rest of the posts in that thread (or read the thread before any of the following posts had even been posted), so anything posted out-of-context can also be easily read or interpreted out-of-context. So, elaborating posts after the fact here in Moderation saying "Oh, I don't think he's ACTUALLY plotting to use the Mods as a weapon" do not alleviate the reported offense.

I was not at any time accusing him of any OOC crime, only an IC one, and as such the moderation policy regarding the accusation of criminal behavior does not apply.

There's nothing in the posted offsite material (or the rest of the specific post) to indicate that the contents are In-Character. In fact, the logs specifically talk about "DoS" for Delete-On-Sight, which strongly suggests that it's Out-Of-Character.

Too Long; Didn't Read:

Don't make accusations of offsite criminality.
Don't make accusations of offsite bad behavior that's irrelevant to the game.
Accusations of legit gameplay-related actions are kosher.
Don't go poking around at the edge cases; you might fall off those edges.

I did not accuse Sci of criminality and it was relevant to the game as Sci is the leader of BoSS, allied to DEN, and it related to his plot against DEN and its leader.

Yes, you did accuse him of criminality. It wasn't explicitly stated; it was implicit in the logs you posted and you didn't bother to clarify in the rest of that particular post. Had you included in your post the line "Note that I think the talk about sexual harassment, shooting, and getting Gest DOSed are just jokes; I don't think Sci would actually frame or shoot Gest. The salient point, here, is that he's plotting against his own ally at all.", then that might have saved you from the forumban I'm about to issue against you. (It might have downgraded this to an Official Warning.)

Also, in the segment of my post that you quoted, it says "Don't go poking around at the edge cases; you might fall off those edges." This was an edge case, you poked at it, and now you're falling off.

*** Sentinel Optik: Three-Day Forumban for Egregious Flamebait. ***

...

You all are trash. <snip> Actually YOU are garbage without trying to find out the full story.

Quit it with the namecalling. Now.

--The Modified Democratic States of Cogitation
"Think about it for a moment."
NationStates Game Moderator

[In Gentem Et De Libris Scientiam]

Thank you for the ruling.
*leaves a tray of cookies and kittens*

please don't eat the kittens. They are for cuddling

[Knot II]

Egregious flamebait?

I'd like to kindly ask for a second opinion and/or clarification regarding the above ruling.

Since it's apparent in Reploid's post that behind-the-scenes and offsite information was used in the making of that particular decision, why is "not bothering to clarify" onsite the only thing between a three-day forumban and an official warning?

[Reploid Productions]

Egregious flamebait?

I'd like to kindly ask for a second opinion and/or clarification regarding the above ruling.

Since it's apparent in Reploid's post that behind-the-scenes and offsite information was used in the making of that particular decision, why is "not bothering to clarify" onsite the only thing between a three-day forumban and an official warning?

You are unfortunately mistaken: offsite information was not involved in my earlier post. Although offsite material was brought to our attention, the ruling (both mine about the posts and Cog's about the subject of the report) have been based entirely and only on the material available on-site.

EDIT TO ADD: And if Sentinel Optik wishes to appeal the decision, they know where to go.

[Knot II]

Egregious flamebait?

I'd like to kindly ask for a second opinion and/or clarification regarding the above ruling.

Since it's apparent in Reploid's post that behind-the-scenes and offsite information was used in the making of that particular decision, why is "not bothering to clarify" onsite the only thing between a three-day forumban and an official warning?

You are unfortunately mistaken: offsite information was not involved in my earlier post. Although offsite material was brought to our attention, the ruling (both mine about the posts and Cog's about the subject of the report) have been based entirely and only on the material available on-site.

Going off of the fact that the only piece of onsite evidence we have is the posted screenshot, can I ask where "posting for a DoS player" came from?

[Reploid Productions]

You are unfortunately mistaken: offsite information was not involved in my earlier post. Although offsite material was brought to our attention, the ruling (both mine about the posts and Cog's about the subject of the report) have been based entirely and only on the material available on-site.

Going off of the fact that the only piece of onsite evidence we have is the posted screenshot, can I ask where "posting for a DoS player" came from?

That little thing called the Getting Help page.