In that case, I request that a reminder be given

[Muravyets]

In keeping with this moderator post:

Postby Dread Lady Nathicana » Fri Jan 28, 2011 9:28 am

I would consider that particular comment that's being referred to as relatively mild, and generally unactionable unless there's a pattern of behavior associated with it - going with what tends to go on in General, and what has been accepted behavior, and the usual jabs at one another that most participants there tend to utilize, including yourself and others.

While personally, I'd like to see all of it cut down, and folks behave more or less civilly with one another, individual issues must be, by the nature of this site, and in the interest of not crushing open discussion, dealt with on an individual basis. So long as they do not blatantly cross the line, in which case it's a very simple decision to make.

If UT's history is showing a pattern of baiting you, then yes, this warrants a closer look, and appropriate handling on account. As it stands on it's own, I would say he needs a reminder that there is no point in dragging in others in the manner he has, and he ought to take care in his phrasing as it's borderline baiting, and needs to stop.

In other words, a reminder given, but unless there's more to back up this particular off the cuff statement, I wouldn't consider it warn-worthy in and of itself. As others have been told in similar situations iirc, if you feel his comment is in error, you're free to debate it and show him he's wrong in his estimation.

I request that this post by U2:

I am not the topic of this thread. Please return to it.

Oh cute, the Murv defense to magically deflect any and all criticism.

be reviewed as flamebait and a personal attack.

I would like him to be clued that, perhaps, he should not make a habit of using other people's screen names as jokes or insults in the public forums. A reminder to him of the principle of "attack the post, not the poster" would seem to be in order.

It seems to me that, in that post, U2 is not only mocking me as a person, however mildly, he is doing so in the process of defending a choice to attack Neo Art as a person rather than Neo Art's arguments, whatever they may have been. Further, I find his use of my name as a kind of put-down personally insulting, especially as I was not participating in that thread, nor have I debated with U2 in a very long time, so there is no way I could have provoked him to snark at or about me.

In reference to Dread Lady Nathicana's allusion to "a pattern," I have a long history of not being able to debate with U2 (under two nation names) without ending up being personally attacked and insulted by him persistently. I believe he follows that same pattern with other posters as well (as suggested by the example above). Because of my own history with him, I have had him on my foes/ignore list for a very long time, to avoid being drawn into personal arguments with him. However, that does not mean that I am okay with him mocking me in public.

I make this request in direct response to the spoilered post and other assurances given me in another moderation thread. However, the linked post and the other remarks do not clarify the consensus of moderation to me, but that thread was locked before I could ask any follow-up question. Therefore, if this request for review and reminder is a non-starter, I would appreciate an explanation of why. Also, for the record, in regard to the spoilered post, I have never done what I am complaining about U2 doing, and I personally know of very few other people who have.

[Melkor Unchained]

Mura, it was reviewed. Since that post was reported in the original complaint, it received due attention in considering the final ruling, which has already been posted. If you would like to report a campaign of harassment, we're going to need examples. In order to be actionable, that post would have to be a component of said campaign. However, judged strictly on its own that post has already been found to not be actionable and the decision is no longer open to appeal.

I'll leave this thread open if you intend to make a substantive case that UH is harassing/griefing you. Otherwise, this matter has already been ruled on.

[Muravyets]

Considering that I did not accuse him in this official request of griefing me, that I never said anything about a "campaign" by him, that no one before now addressed my original question at all before I asked it a second time, that, then, DLN did not say the specific instance had been reviewed, I really do not know what you are trying to achieve by your response other than to tell me, yet again, to piss off.

I also find it intriguing that you seem to be the only moderator I can ever hear from on any subject, you being the one moderator who is on record as being personally biased against me and as saying on more than one occasion that I, individually, should be given less protection under the rules because of what you think my personality is.

So, since you seem to be the leading, or indeed only, voice of moderation, I will take this as the consensus of moderation: It is perfectly okay for a players to mock and ridicule each other in these forums.

Thank you for that clarification. You may lock this thread now. I have nothing more to say.

[Melkor Unchained]

In order for that post to be actionable it would have to belong to a campaign of harassment from UH. If you believe he is harassing you, present the evidence. Otherwise, this issue is closed: the post by itself was ruled unactionable by consensus--that appeal had input from virtually all active mods and that post was part of the original reported complaint. There is no rule that says only people who like you are allowed to mention you in passing, and there's also (as longstanding precedent has demonstrated) no statute against criticizing other users or their debating tactics. Yes, it was bad form and yes, UH or anyone else would be well advised to avoid making a habit of those kinds of remarks. But like I/we have said, as a singular post it just didn't rate. You don't have to agree, but that's the ruling.

If you'd like to hear from someone else or what-have-you, I'll leave this open: also in case you decide you want to make a case that UH is griefing you, as you make some mention of having an unpleasant history with him in the OP. But I would like to reiterate that that post as a singular personal attack has already been ruled on: unless you make the case that he's harassing/griefing you I would advise the next mod who posts here close this thread.

[Czardas]

Considering that I did not accuse him in this official request of griefing me, that I never said anything about a "campaign" by him, that no one before now addressed my original question at all before I asked it a second time, that, then, DLN did not say the specific instance had been reviewed

If UT's history is showing a pattern of baiting you, then yes, this warrants a closer look, and appropriate handling on account. As it stands on it's own, I would say he needs a reminder that there is no point in dragging in others in the manner he has, and he ought to take care in his phrasing as it's borderline baiting, and needs to stop.

In other words, a reminder given, but unless there's more to back up this particular off the cuff statement, I wouldn't consider it warn-worthy in and of itself.

Forgive me if I'm missing something, but this seems to be precisely that: a review of the specific instance under consideration.

With all due respect, you're being oversensitive. Unhealthy2's post can only be construed as insulting or mocking if you view any criticism of your posting style as insulting or mocking -- which is fine if so, but simply doing something that offends another player isn't against the rules. People can find a lot of things offensive. He is quite possibly derailing the thread by continuing to focus the discussion on NA himself (who is not the topic of the thread), and if this were reported right now and I were first on the scene I'd probably issue a general cooldown and reminder to stay on track, but I really can't see it as flamebait -- and the time for such a reminder is long past, anyway. That post is a few days old.

Simply referring to another poster in a critical context is not flamebait, although it's likely to be threadjacking in some instances. For flamebait there must be sign of an intent to provoke flames; an isolated reference to another poster does not mockery make. (Besides, if he's been on your ignore list for as long as all that, why would one expect him to be still trying to get your attention? <.< Okay, that was a rhetorical question. Don't answer that.)

EDIT: ohai Melkor. I'll wait for a response before closing it, I think.

[Euroslavia]

Considering that I did not accuse him in this official request of griefing me, that I never said anything about a "campaign" by him, that no one before now addressed my original question at all before I asked it a second time, that, then, DLN did not say the specific instance had been reviewed, I really do not know what you are trying to achieve by your response other than to tell me, yet again, to piss off.

Czardas responded to part of the post, so I'll respond to this specifically. Generally when we receive reports of flaming or baiting another player, we take a look at both player's past history. If either of them have previous notations or warnings involving past reported behavior, we consider the possibility of harassment. Most of the time, we direct both players to put each other on ignore so that further interaction between them won't put both players at the risk of receiving further, more serious warnings. In this case, Melkor simply asked if there was the possibility of harassment that wasn't documented in our official and unofficial warnings. As we all know, we can't see every nasty exchange that goes on unless it's reported or a moderator happens to stumble upon it. There have been times where we've received fairly well documented reports on harassment that haven't been in a player's warnings/notations (in other words, not reported to us), so there's always a possibility. In the event that your case was the product of continued harassment by Unhealthy2, the post at hand would've been taken as much more serious, because of the fact that we would've had proof that Unhealthy2 was specifically targeting you and your posts and responding in a bad manner. That explains why Melkor asked if there was anything further you may want to contribute if harassment was a possibility. I don't believe any harm was meant by it.

[Muravyets]

To Czardas: DLN's post read as a hypothetical "in such a case, this is how it would be approached" explanation, not as a statement of a conclusion arrived at by review of a specific case (which I had not asked for at that time), so I'm sure you will forgive me if I was not aware that my question had already been given all the attention it was going to get.

To Euroslavia: So it's okay to mock people and turn their names into a joke if you do it only a few times, now and then. OK, thanks.

I realize you are trying to be helpful and supportive, but I'm sorry, the thing you are talking about is not getting any better by being so carefully explained. It's not that you are not doing the best job possible or that you're not being as kind and helpful as possible. You are, on both points. The problem is the thing we are talking about, which is not good, no matter how you slice it. I said in the other thread that this point of policy needed to be made clear so that people who wish to use this site will know what kind of a community it is. This tells me something about that which I had not understood before.

Edit: Unfortunately, you also, like Melkor, seem to miss the point of my request. You are explaining why you all chose to do as Melkor deemed fit, but Melkor's understanding of the complaint is completely mistaken. I was not alleging a campaign of targeting me by U2. I was saying that personal attacks against just about everybody is a standard pattern with U2, and that the post of which I was complaining was an example of that. I was asking specifically if personal attacks are allowed or disallowed. "Attack the post, not the poster" has been cited repeatedly over the years as a basic principle in NS. My argument was that U2 was going against that principle and needed to be reminded of it. But what you and Melkor have said, i.e. that you don't have evidence that he is griefing me, is beside that point.

Thank you anyway, though. I really do not believe there is anything further to be said here. The decision is clear, and so is the thinking behind it. It is also clear that it is not open to being revisited.

[Euroslavia]

To Czardas: DLN's post read as a hypothetical "in such a case, this is how it would be approached" explanation, not as a statement of a conclusion arrived at by review of a specific case (which I had not asked for at that time), so I'm sure you will forgive me if I was not aware that my question had already been given all the attention it was going to get.

To Euroslavia: So it's okay to mock people and turn their names into a joke if you do it only a few times, now and then. OK, thanks.

I realize you are trying to be helpful and supportive, but I'm sorry, the thing you are talking about is not getting any better by being so carefully explained. It's not that you are not doing the best job possible or that you're not being as kind and helpful as possible. You are, on both points. The problem is the thing we are talking about, which is not good, no matter how you slice it. I said in the other thread that this point of policy needed to be made clear so that people who wish to use this site will know what kind of a community it is. This tells me something about that which I had not understood before.

Thank you. I really do not believe there is anything further to be said here. The decision is clear, and so is the thinking behind it. It is also clear that it is not open to being revisited.

My response was purely based on why Melkor asked for the possibility of proof of harassment and had nothing to do with the ruling. I'm not sure where you got that in response to my post.

[Czardas]

My argument was that U2 was going against that principle and needed to be reminded of it.

The problem is that such a principle is really unenforceable without either a much more draconian moderation policy or us spending every waking moment reminding people not to attack the poster -- such personal attacks as "you don't know what you're talking about" or "you're a hypocrite" are a dime a dozen in NSG.

That said, the tendency of posters such as UT to engage in poster-attacking behaviour is a contributing factor to their tendency to lose nations and forum access. I guess that's something.

EDIT: Also, btw, you don't have to request a review for us to do it anyway if we see fit.

I'm locking this unless there's something else you'd like addressed -- this complaint seems to have been dealt with in some detail already.

[Ardchoille]

This is a general comment not related to any individual poster, but provided for information because the subject of harassment was referred to tangentially in this thread and I can't resist a chance to underline a point pontificate:

In general, then, I would recommend that anyone who wishes to make a case that a particular player has been harassing them do so via a Getting Help Request, rather than in Moderation. The reasons are:

(1) It prevents the appearance of using mods as weapons -- for example, of making a "harassment" complaint in the hope that fear of being reported will discourage the other player from disagreeing with you at all.
(2) It allows you to refer to TGs or any private matters that should not be made public, such as court orders or details of personal relationships.
(3) Because it is private, you do not alert the other player and give him an opportunity to edit posts to remove evidence of harassment.
(4) Making a charge of harassment in the heat of anger on the forums could have the unwanted result of you being dinged for flaming, thus pleasing your harasser no end.
(5) It's fairer -- it's just possible that you are wrong and the other player's innocent. A quiet GHR keeps things cool between you and may give you a less personal view of your own actions.

Furthermore -- and note that this sentence is my own point of view, and in no way a standing rule or policy -- I personally feel that if the complainant has already tried other measures to end the harassment, such as putting the other player on Ignore on the forums or blocking their TGs gameside, that points to the complaint being genuine. Not proof, mind, just a pointer.

And an even more general comment: if a TG offends you, DO NOT pluck it out. Rather, tick the "save" box at the bottom of the TG inbox so the system will not automatically discard it and you will have proof to offer the game mods.