Self Report

[Parthenon]

viewtopic.php?p=967901#p967901


Do what you will with me. I will not tolerate someone calling my coworker's murder a lie.

[Neo Art]

Oh, I am quite sure she was murdered. I remember hearing about it. I do believe however that your claim to have known her was...a fabrication. A story. A made up circumstance.

In short, a lie. And I think it's been fairly well established QUITE recently that calling someone a liar isn't any violation of the rules.

[Parthenon]

I would never lie about working with Eve. The thought of someone doing that disgusts me as much as your accusation does. I suggest you take a step back and realize how stridulous what you are saying actually is and perhaps grow a conscience.

[Neo Art]

Although, I would like to point out one thing about my "hypocritical bastard"ness.

You go and whine to moderation when I say even the most polite of comments about suicide because you "KNEW SOMEONE"

This is the moderation thread in question that Parthenon was refering to:

viewtopic.php?f=16&t=7999&p=268028

I do not believe I see myself anywhere as a reporter, commentator, or participator in that thread. TCT started it, TCT discussed it in terms of someone he knew. I did not.

Perhaps it's a case of "all you lawyers look alike to me"?

[Neo Art]

I would never lie about working with Eve. The thought of someone doing that disgusts me as much as your accusation does. I suggest you take a step back and realize how stridulous what you are saying actually is and perhaps grow a conscience.

This is not NSG, it is moderation. You made the report on....yourself. I made my comments about my words to defend against potential accusations of rulebreaking (and to later point out the inconsistency of your own reported words). Whether you in fact did or in fact didn't is not the subject of a moderator thread.

[Parthenon]

Although, I would like to point out one thing about my "hypocritical bastard"ness.

This is the moderation thread in question that Parthenon was refering to:

viewtopic.php?f=16&t=7999&p=268028

I do not believe I see myself anywhere as a reporter, commentator, or participator in that thread. TCT started it, TCT discussed it in terms of someone he knew. I did not.

Perhaps it's a case of "all you lawyers look alike to me"?

My mistake. I will edit my comment accordingly.

[Czardas]

Addressed: 1, 2.

[Kryozerkia]

I have brilliant idea: try ignoring each other! It's not that fucking difficult. This is getting old and frankly, as adults, you two ought to be able to figure out that if you're not getting along, the logical thing is to not pay attention to each other.

EDIT

Addressed.

Ignore my ruling. Heh... when mods collide. Czardas' ruling came first. The three day bans stand.

[Poliwanacraca]

Addressed: 1, 2.

I'm not involved here, but I'm confused and would like a clarification on the rules. I get that flamebaiting is flamebaiting, and I can see NA's posts qualifying as that. I do NOT understand how pointing out that a mod (you, in fact) just recently explicitly stated that calling someone a liar is not against the rules is "taking a ruling in bad faith." He didn't say "It's not against the rules, so I'm going to do it as much as possible just to annoy the mods or something." I don't see any "stated intent." All he said was "it's been established that this isn't against the rules." He said it kinda snarkily, but last I checked, there wasn't a rule against being snarky.

So I have to ask, is it now against the rules to make reference to previous moderator decisions when defending oneself in moderation? Because it seems like people do that a lot, and that's all I see that actually happened here. I'm just not sure why that was or should be a violation of the rules, and since I do try to obey the rules, I would like to understand what happened here that made this different.

[Ifreann]

I have brilliant idea: try ignoring each other! It's not that fucking difficult. This is getting old and frankly, as adults, you two ought to be able to figure out that if you're not getting along, the logical thing is to not pay attention to each other.

EDIT

Addressed.

Ignore my ruling. Heh... when mods collide. Czardas' ruling came first. The three day bans stand.

Incidentally, is "First mod, first served" how it works, excepting appeals or what have you?

[Czardas]

Addressed: 1, 2.

I'm not involved here, but I'm confused and would like a clarification on the rules. I get that flamebaiting is flamebaiting, and I can see NA's posts qualifying as that. I do NOT understand how pointing out that a mod (you, in fact) just recently explicitly stated that calling someone a liar is not against the rules is "taking a ruling in bad faith." He didn't say "It's not against the rules, so I'm going to do it as much as possible just to annoy the mods or something." I don't see any "stated intent." All he said was "it's been established that this isn't against the rules." He said it kinda snarkily, but last I checked, there wasn't a rule against being snarky.

A valid point. And indeed, he didn't say "I'm using this mod ruling to bait you." Very often, people don't actually say so in those terms. One of the jobs of a moderator is to figure out, as best we can, the implicit intent behind a post.

In this case, the fact that Neo Art brought this ruling up in this very thread -- in which he would otherwise have no concern, since he was not being reported and nor did he bring any new information on Parthenon's case to light -- indicated that he had had it in mind when he initially called Parthenon a liar.

So I have to ask, is it now against the rules to make reference to previous moderator decisions when defending oneself in moderation? Because it seems like people do that a lot, and that's all I see that actually happened here. I'm just not sure why that was or should be a violation of the rules, and since I do try to obey the rules, I would like to understand what happened here that made this different.

Neo Art was not defending himself, however, because he was not accused of anything. Parthenon was accusing himself of flaming. In the normal course of events this thread may have been noticed by a moderator, who would warn or ban Parthenon for his offense and move on. Neo Art's sole purpose of posting in this thread, however, was to bring up that particular mod ruling to preemptively avoid punishment. The very fact that he did this to avoid punishment as well suggests that he believed himself to have done something that would ordinarily be punishable -- indicating a belief that he had done something wrong, but the prior mod ruling should excuse him for it.

Considering that Neo Art complained against the very mod ruling he's referencing, it becomes apparent that what we have is a textbook case of rules lawyering: "I believe it to be actionable, but since it wasn't actionable when X did it, it's not actionable now either."

[Czardas]

I have brilliant idea: try ignoring each other! It's not that fucking difficult. This is getting old and frankly, as adults, you two ought to be able to figure out that if you're not getting along, the logical thing is to not pay attention to each other.

EDIT

Addressed.

Ignore my ruling. Heh... when mods collide. Czardas' ruling came first. The three day bans stand.

Incidentally, is "First mod, first served" how it works, excepting appeals or what have you?

No. When mods collide, we discuss our separate rulings elsewhere (usually on IRC) and decide which one stands.

[Grave_n_idle]

Addressed: 1, 2.

I'm not involved here, but I'm confused and would like a clarification on the rules. I get that flamebaiting is flamebaiting, and I can see NA's posts qualifying as that. I do NOT understand how pointing out that a mod (you, in fact) just recently explicitly stated that calling someone a liar is not against the rules is "taking a ruling in bad faith." He didn't say "It's not against the rules, so I'm going to do it as much as possible just to annoy the mods or something." I don't see any "stated intent." All he said was "it's been established that this isn't against the rules." He said it kinda snarkily, but last I checked, there wasn't a rule against being snarky.

A valid point. And indeed, he didn't say "I'm using this mod ruling to bait you." Very often, people don't actually say so in those terms. One of the jobs of a moderator is to figure out, as best we can, the implicit intent behind a post.

In this case, the fact that Neo Art brought this ruling up in this very thread -- in which he would otherwise have no concern, since he was not being reported and nor did he bring any new information on Parthenon's case to light -- indicated that he had had it in mind when he initially called Parthenon a liar.

So I have to ask, is it now against the rules to make reference to previous moderator decisions when defending oneself in moderation? Because it seems like people do that a lot, and that's all I see that actually happened here. I'm just not sure why that was or should be a violation of the rules, and since I do try to obey the rules, I would like to understand what happened here that made this different.

Neo Art was not defending himself, however, because he was not accused of anything. Parthenon was accusing himself of flaming. In the normal course of events this thread may have been noticed by a moderator, who would warn or ban Parthenon for his offense and move on. Neo Art's sole purpose of posting in this thread, however, was to bring up that particular mod ruling to preemptively avoid punishment. The very fact that he did this to avoid punishment as well suggests that he believed himself to have done something that would ordinarily be punishable -- indicating a belief that he had done something wrong, but the prior mod ruling should excuse him for it.

Considering that Neo Art complained against the very mod ruling he's referencing, it becomes apparent that what we have is a textbook case of rules lawyering: "I believe it to be actionable, but since it wasn't actionable when X did it, it's not actionable now either."

Another example of everything that's wrong with moderation.

The idea that only the person reported (even self-reporting) would get moderator attention is nonsensical and transparently untrue.

As mentioned before - the second formal warning I received was for posting in a troll's thread. The troll was reported, and 5 or 6 non-troll players also got official warnings - so forgive us if we do not take you seriously when you say there was no need for Neo to pre-emptively defend himself.

You attribute intent to Neo, and give a three-day ban based on it. Not only is that a ridiculous response for rules lawyering, but it's your OPINION that it was lawyering in the first place. How about, instead of calling it intent, you just assume that NS players aren't actually stupid - and if moderators declare it okay to call someone a liar if you think they're lying, then players are going to consider it as akin to a ruling?

What Parthenon did was invoke an emotional anecdote in a debate thread. There is NO requirement for him to be believed. That's how anecdotal evidence works (and appeals to emotion). Not believing him shouldn't be a moderation affair AT ALL, much less involving a three day ban.

This is why I don't post in NSG anymore.

[Poliwanacraca]

Addressed: 1, 2.

I'm not involved here, but I'm confused and would like a clarification on the rules. I get that flamebaiting is flamebaiting, and I can see NA's posts qualifying as that. I do NOT understand how pointing out that a mod (you, in fact) just recently explicitly stated that calling someone a liar is not against the rules is "taking a ruling in bad faith." He didn't say "It's not against the rules, so I'm going to do it as much as possible just to annoy the mods or something." I don't see any "stated intent." All he said was "it's been established that this isn't against the rules." He said it kinda snarkily, but last I checked, there wasn't a rule against being snarky.

A valid point. And indeed, he didn't say "I'm using this mod ruling to bait you." Very often, people don't actually say so in those terms. One of the jobs of a moderator is to figure out, as best we can, the implicit intent behind a post.

In this case, the fact that Neo Art brought this ruling up in this very thread -- in which he would otherwise have no concern, since he was not being reported and nor did he bring any new information on Parthenon's case to light -- indicated that he had had it in mind when he initially called Parthenon a liar.

Um...are you seriously under the impression that Parthenon wasn't explicitly trying to get Neo Art in trouble too when he posted this thread? Because, quite honestly, the thought that he was just helpfully and self-sacrificingly reporting himself and only just HAPPENED to mention that it was all Neo Art's fault that he had to flame him never even crossed my mind, and I seriously doubt it crossed Neo Art's, although I suppose we'd have to ask him. I think it was pretty obvious that Parthenon knew he was going to get punished and wanted to make sure NA was as well, whatever the thread may be titled. I cannot imagine that NA did not think he was being reported and needed to defend himself.

So I have to ask, is it now against the rules to make reference to previous moderator decisions when defending oneself in moderation? Because it seems like people do that a lot, and that's all I see that actually happened here. I'm just not sure why that was or should be a violation of the rules, and since I do try to obey the rules, I would like to understand what happened here that made this different.

Neo Art was not defending himself, however, because he was not accused of anything. Parthenon was accusing himself of flaming. In the normal course of events this thread may have been noticed by a moderator, who would warn or ban Parthenon for his offense and move on. Neo Art's sole purpose of posting in this thread, however, was to bring up that particular mod ruling to preemptively avoid punishment. The very fact that he did this to avoid punishment as well suggests that he believed himself to have done something that would ordinarily be punishable -- indicating a belief that he had done something wrong, but the prior mod ruling should excuse him for it.

Considering that Neo Art complained against the very mod ruling he's referencing, it becomes apparent that what we have is a textbook case of rules lawyering: "I believe it to be actionable, but since it wasn't actionable when X did it, it's not actionable now either."

I...just don't see it. Your interpretation seems to rest on the idea that NA could not possibly have thought there was any reason to defend himself based on what was posted in this thread, and that is, quite simply, nonsensical. If you can read intent to abuse the rules into "someone recently stated this was the rule," surely you can read intent to report NA (but uncertainty as to what, if any, rule he had broken) into "I'm reporting myself because what NA did was intolerable and he has no conscience." NA isn't an idiot. When someone says, "I just wanted to let the mods know that I HAD to flame him because of what he said," I think he would have to have figured that that would almost certainly be taken as a report against him for flamebaiting (which also seems to be exactly what Kryo thought). So he defended himself against that accusation by pointing to a recent ruling.

Like I said, I do think his post can certainly be argued to have crossed the line into flamebaiting - it was at the very least borderline - and I understand Kryo's ruling. I just don't see how yours makes sense here, and I'm still not understanding where the line is. If people start making moderation posts that read "I'm not accusing anyone of anything, even though Bob deserves it" and then link to Bob's post, will that mean that Bob cannot point out why the post in question does not seem to him to break any rules, because the person reporting it didn't outright SAY he was reporting Bob? I think such a rule would lead to a lot more abuse than it prevents, as people start "not reporting" people here just to prevent them from defending themselves.

[Neesika]

Czardas, I have a major quibble with this ruling. You've used Neo-Art’s self-defence as evidence that he believed himself to be guilty. I think it’s a faulty premise, and one not supported by the facts here.

Yes, this was a self-report, in the vein of “I lost my cool, I admit it, but look at WHY I lost my cool and maybe you’ll see something actionable there, hmmm?” If you’re going to rely on inferences as much as you have in your ruling, this one should not be excluded.

Being as how the self-report directly referenced the post Parthenon seems to feel set him off, it most certainly makes sense that this would be seen as an accusation, direct, indirect or by implication. As such, this thread is not just about Parthenon, it is most certainly about Neo Art as well, despite your assertion that this thread did not concern NA. Therefore, his post in defence of himself makes sense, not as an admission of guilt, but rather as an answer to the direct/indirect/implied accusation.

The accusation of rules lawyering is also perplexing. Parthenon was clearly pissed off that Neo Art accused him of lying. Neo Art pointed out that accusing someone of lying is not actionable, something that has recently been affirmed in Moderation. Once again, this is part of his defence, a defence that became necessary when Parthenon attempted to explain his outburst in reference to a post he clearly felt was skirting the lines if not tapdancing all over them.

The entire basis of your decision seems based on an assumed admission of guilt on the part of Neo Art, and frankly, that does not seem to be the case at all here.

[Jocabia]

Incidentally, he didn't call him a liar. He said he didn't believe something he was using to attack another posters arguments and used examples of why it's so easy to just say anything on the internet. The ruling he disagreed with was when someone called someone else a "goddamned liar" in a thread that had nothing to do with what they were calling them a liar about. In fact, the "lie" didn't even happen on NSG. One was worse than the other by several degrees of magnitude. One has a long established precedent of being acceptable.

Basically, NA pointed to a ruling where something FAR more direct and personal was done and said, if it's not against the rules to call someone a goddamned liar, Parthenon, then I don't think it's against the rules to say I don't believe your anecdote, no matter how much you think I'm obligated to believe it.

If you think he was over the line say so, but "rules lawyering", come on. All of us, ALL OF US, have been pointing out we don't believe internet claims pretty much as long as there's been a forum. Certainly long before that other decision was made. Perhaps you're expecting a backlash related to that ruling, but trying to find one just because you think there will be one isn't helping anyone. If he was being to caustic rule on that. Don't insert stuff that wasn't there.

[Czardas]

Another example of everything that's wrong with moderation.

The idea that only the person reported (even self-reporting) would get moderator attention is nonsensical and transparently untrue.

As mentioned before - the second formal warning I received was for posting in a troll's thread. The troll was reported, and 5 or 6 non-troll players also got official warnings - so forgive us if we do not take you seriously when you say there was no need for Neo to pre-emptively defend himself.

You attribute intent to Neo, and give a three-day ban based on it. Not only is that a ridiculous response for rules lawyering, but it's your OPINION that it was lawyering in the first place. How about, instead of calling it intent, you just assume that NS players aren't actually stupid - and if moderators declare it okay to call someone a liar if you think they're lying, then players are going to consider it as akin to a ruling?

What Parthenon did was invoke an emotional anecdote in a debate thread. There is NO requirement for him to be believed. That's how anecdotal evidence works (and appeals to emotion). Not believing him shouldn't be a moderation affair AT ALL, much less involving a three day ban.

This is why I don't post in NSG anymore.

You seem to be under the impression that whether or not Neo Art believed Parthenon is an issue at all. It's not.

No action would have been taken if all NA had done was to say "I don't believe you." His first two or three posts in the thread were not actionable at all. His last one, after Parthenon's flame, was actionable, but not severe enough to get more than a stern warning.

However, the fact that he referenced a prior mod ruling he had previously contested -- and did so with no apparent provocation, since there was no reason for him to defend himself in those particular posts, as he had not been accused of any misdemeanors -- cemented the charge of rules lawyering. He appeared to be trying to make the case that his baiting should be excused because "you said calling someone a liar is okay, and that's all I did." The thing is, the whole liar thing is just a giant smoke screen. It's irrelevant. Calling someone a liar is not actionable in most contexts. In this context, it's part of a pattern of baiting; the individual instance wouldn't be actionable on its own, but the pattern is. The baiting got him a warning; the added usage of a prior mod ruling in order to bait got him the ban. (While warnings are the usual punishment for rules lawyering, bans may be given if the user has a history. Hairless Kitten II received one recently, for instance.)

Also, yes, it's my opinion that he was rules lawyering. It's also my opinion that Parthenon was flaming, and my opinion that NA was baiting, et cetera. That's all mod rulings are, really -- opinions. That's why you're entitled to ask for second and third opinions (as opposed to, say, second and third "facts").

[Neesika]

Wait.

You're saying that when Neo Art stated (let me paraphrase) "this isn't a rules violation"...

THAT was a rules violation?

That could only be true (and therefore rules lawyering) if there really was no need for Neo Art to defend himself. Which would only be true if Parthenon's report in no way accused Neo Art of anything which...

is false.

It's also absurd to argue that he had nothing to fear from a Moderator, and that there was no need to defend himself, if a Moderator (Kryo) did in fact end up warning him.

[Czardas]

Addressed: 1, 2.

I'm not involved here, but I'm confused and would like a clarification on the rules. I get that flamebaiting is flamebaiting, and I can see NA's posts qualifying as that. I do NOT understand how pointing out that a mod (you, in fact) just recently explicitly stated that calling someone a liar is not against the rules is "taking a ruling in bad faith." He didn't say "It's not against the rules, so I'm going to do it as much as possible just to annoy the mods or something." I don't see any "stated intent." All he said was "it's been established that this isn't against the rules." He said it kinda snarkily, but last I checked, there wasn't a rule against being snarky.

A valid point. And indeed, he didn't say "I'm using this mod ruling to bait you." Very often, people don't actually say so in those terms. One of the jobs of a moderator is to figure out, as best we can, the implicit intent behind a post.

In this case, the fact that Neo Art brought this ruling up in this very thread -- in which he would otherwise have no concern, since he was not being reported and nor did he bring any new information on Parthenon's case to light -- indicated that he had had it in mind when he initially called Parthenon a liar.

Um...are you seriously under the impression that Parthenon wasn't explicitly trying to get Neo Art in trouble too when he posted this thread? Because, quite honestly, the thought that he was just helpfully and self-sacrificingly reporting himself and only just HAPPENED to mention that it was all Neo Art's fault that he had to flame him never even crossed my mind, and I seriously doubt it crossed Neo Art's, although I suppose we'd have to ask him. I think it was pretty obvious that Parthenon knew he was going to get punished and wanted to make sure NA was as well, whatever the thread may be titled. I cannot imagine that NA did not think he was being reported and needed to defend himself.

Hmm. It seems more likely to me that, if Parthenon had really thought NA was doing something actionable, he would have reported NA's posts in moderation instead of responding in kind. Indeed, he has been very quick to report threads in Moderation before over even more questionable offenses. If he didn't do so, it was evidently because he knew that NA's posts up to that point were fine -- a recent and fairly prominent mod ruling did come to the conclusion that calling someone a liar is not a flame, after all. The actionable posts by NA only start after Parthenon's flame and report.

So I have to ask, is it now against the rules to make reference to previous moderator decisions when defending oneself in moderation? Because it seems like people do that a lot, and that's all I see that actually happened here. I'm just not sure why that was or should be a violation of the rules, and since I do try to obey the rules, I would like to understand what happened here that made this different.

Neo Art was not defending himself, however, because he was not accused of anything. Parthenon was accusing himself of flaming. In the normal course of events this thread may have been noticed by a moderator, who would warn or ban Parthenon for his offense and move on. Neo Art's sole purpose of posting in this thread, however, was to bring up that particular mod ruling to preemptively avoid punishment. The very fact that he did this to avoid punishment as well suggests that he believed himself to have done something that would ordinarily be punishable -- indicating a belief that he had done something wrong, but the prior mod ruling should excuse him for it.

Considering that Neo Art complained against the very mod ruling he's referencing, it becomes apparent that what we have is a textbook case of rules lawyering: "I believe it to be actionable, but since it wasn't actionable when X did it, it's not actionable now either."

I...just don't see it. Your interpretation seems to rest on the idea that NA could not possibly have thought there was any reason to defend himself based on what was posted in this thread, and that is, quite simply, nonsensical. If you can read intent to abuse the rules into "someone recently stated this was the rule," surely you can read intent to report NA (but uncertainty as to what, if any, rule he had broken) into "I'm reporting myself because what NA did was intolerable and he has no conscience." NA isn't an idiot. When someone says, "I just wanted to let the mods know that I HAD to flame him because of what he said," I think he would have to have figured that that would almost certainly be taken as a report against him for flamebaiting (which also seems to be exactly what Kryo thought). So he defended himself against that accusation by pointing to a recent ruling.

Like I said, I do think his post can certainly be argued to have crossed the line into flamebaiting - it was at the very least borderline - and I understand Kryo's ruling. I just don't see how yours makes sense here, and I'm still not understanding where the line is. If people start making moderation posts that read "I'm not accusing anyone of anything, even though Bob deserves it" and then link to Bob's post, will that mean that Bob cannot point out why the post in question does not seem to him to break any rules, because the person reporting it didn't outright SAY he was reporting Bob? I think such a rule would lead to a lot more abuse than it prevents, as people start "not reporting" people here just to prevent them from defending themselves.

Here's the thing: rules lawyering is a subjective offense, just like trolling and griefing and a number of others. Hence, I did ask for backup in IRC before making my ruling. I agree that it's possible we misinterpreted NA's post, but it did seem likely that -- given that he'd complained about the "liar is okay" ruling earlier, and had obviously been baiting Parthenon by calling him a liar -- he was using the ruling to further bait Parthenon and not merely defending himself. (All the OP suggests NA was doing is calling him a liar. Which, as has been previously established, is not actionable.) While he later said he had referenced that ruling only to defend against potential accusations of rulebreaking, we did believe that his claim to have done so for that sole purpose was ... an exaggeration. A fib. A knowingly told untruth. In short, a lie.

[Jocabia]

So I want to be sure I got this right. So something that NA has been doing for a long time before the decision is suddenly something he's doing because of that decision because he objected to that decision. Forgive me if that seems like a bit of a twisted logic (and a run-on sentence to boot).

If I find let's say SIX examples of NA saying he doesn't believe someone's internet claim from before the decision how would you explain that? Pre-emptive rules lawyering.

Or, if I may, I could offer a suggested way of evaluating this. In the initial post, the poster made an excuse for the flame by reference NA's post, i.e. he was baiting into flaming by being told his claim was a lie. What mod decision on the subject might come to mind up someone referencing your saying their post is a lie? Does one pop to mind? It certainly did for NA.

So what is the more logical explanation? NA was doing something he's done for quite some time, something tons of posters throughout the forums do when unfounded internet claims are made, and when he was reported for it, he pointed to the most recent ruling, one we're all familiar with? Or NA was doing something we all do and that he has done for a long time but suddenly he's doing it for a different reason?

[Grave_n_idle]

You seem to be under the impression that whether or not Neo Art believed Parthenon is an issue at all. It's not.

No action would have been taken if all NA had done was to say "I don't believe you." His first two or three posts in the thread were not actionable at all. His last one, after Parthenon's flame, was actionable, but not severe enough to get more than a stern warning.

However, the fact that he referenced a prior mod ruling he had previously contested -- and did so with no apparent provocation, since there was no reason for him to defend himself in those particular posts, as he had not been accused of any misdemeanors -- cemented the charge of rules lawyering. He appeared to be trying to make the case that his baiting should be excused because "you said calling someone a liar is okay, and that's all I did." The thing is, the whole liar thing is just a giant smoke screen. It's irrelevant. Calling someone a liar is not actionable in most contexts. In this context, it's part of a pattern of baiting; the individual instance wouldn't be actionable on its own, but the pattern is. The baiting got him a warning; the added usage of a prior mod ruling in order to bait got him the ban. (While warnings are the usual punishment for rules lawyering, bans may be given if the user has a history. Hairless Kitten II received one recently, for instance.)

Also, yes, it's my opinion that he was rules lawyering. It's also my opinion that Parthenon was flaming, and my opinion that NA was baiting, et cetera. That's all mod rulings are, really -- opinions. That's why you're entitled to ask for second and third opinions (as opposed to, say, second and third "facts").

Again, nonsense.

My first (ever ) warning was for saying I didn't believe someone. In allmost exactly those terms (I believe the wording was "does anyone actually believe..."), so the idea that he WOULDN'T get moderated for just saying "I don't believe you" isn't even believable.

On the other hand - you've just shot a hole in the idea that there is anything fair or evenhanded about your moderation. If you really believe that it's only opinion that Parthenon flamed, you should have refused the moderation position when it was offered. What you're doing is claiming a false equivalency - Parthenon DID flame. That's not disputable. It is entirely your opinion that Neo was lawyering.

I think this whole 'rules lawyering' concept needs a serious rethink if it's this problematic. I can see how you don't want people calling everyone niggers just because x moderator excused it in such-and-such a context (yes, I'm using a real historical ruling) - but that is not anything like the same as ruling that you can never appeal to a prior moderation precedent. Especially when that prior response has been unequivocal - it IS alright to call a liar a liar, straight from the moderator's mouth.

That's not 'rules lawyering' - that's expecting even the moderators to hold to what is allegedly the consensus of moderation.

[Jocabia]

I'm going to throw up my hands and back out now. I think everything to be said has been said. I think there is a trend lately of arguing mod decisions. I think it's easy to decide it's the same people just stirring shit. That's the easy evaluation, but is it the right one?

I've personally taken part in three objections to a mod's decision all involving the same mod whom I really like as a player. To be fair, Czardas is new and we could cut him some slack. However, I hope the mods will take a look at this not just from the "NSG is full of jackasses perspective" or even the "what to do about NSG" perspective and maybe take this as an opportunity to look at how these were handled and why people were outraged. We love NSG and we want it to be a place we can play without all this drama. We know you're trying to help. Many of us aren't seeking to demonize the mods. Don't take the easy road and just decide it's some inherent flaw in the players. You have a means for correcting us. We don't enjoy the same and those of us who have invested years into something we love are not content with simply patting our hands and moving on.

[Czardas]

You seem to be under the impression that whether or not Neo Art believed Parthenon is an issue at all. It's not.

No action would have been taken if all NA had done was to say "I don't believe you." His first two or three posts in the thread were not actionable at all. His last one, after Parthenon's flame, was actionable, but not severe enough to get more than a stern warning.

However, the fact that he referenced a prior mod ruling he had previously contested -- and did so with no apparent provocation, since there was no reason for him to defend himself in those particular posts, as he had not been accused of any misdemeanors -- cemented the charge of rules lawyering. He appeared to be trying to make the case that his baiting should be excused because "you said calling someone a liar is okay, and that's all I did." The thing is, the whole liar thing is just a giant smoke screen. It's irrelevant. Calling someone a liar is not actionable in most contexts. In this context, it's part of a pattern of baiting; the individual instance wouldn't be actionable on its own, but the pattern is. The baiting got him a warning; the added usage of a prior mod ruling in order to bait got him the ban. (While warnings are the usual punishment for rules lawyering, bans may be given if the user has a history. Hairless Kitten II received one recently, for instance.)

Also, yes, it's my opinion that he was rules lawyering. It's also my opinion that Parthenon was flaming, and my opinion that NA was baiting, et cetera. That's all mod rulings are, really -- opinions. That's why you're entitled to ask for second and third opinions (as opposed to, say, second and third "facts").

Again, nonsense.

My first (ever ) warning was for saying I didn't believe someone. In allmost exactly those terms (I believe the wording was "does anyone actually believe..."), so the idea that he WOULDN'T get moderated for just saying "I don't believe you" isn't even believable.

Your first warning was for insulting Hiddenrun in an offensive and inflammatory manner by calling him a highschooler. I don't see how the "does anyone actually believe...." part comes into it.

Your second warning might be more applicable here, since you were warned for calling CH a troll (which is, on its own, not an actionable offense); however, the fact that you had done it numerous times before in that and prior threads indicated a pattern of going around calling him a troll. Such patterns can be actionable depending on context.

On the other hand - you've just shot a hole in the idea that there is anything fair or evenhanded about your moderation. If you really believe that it's only opinion that Parthenon flamed, you should have refused the moderation position when it was offered. What you're doing is claiming a false equivalency - Parthenon DID flame. That's not disputable. It is entirely your opinion that Neo was lawyering.

I keep trying to respond to this part of your post, but the best I've been able to do is, "Um, what?"

First of all: All offenses are more or less subjective. Even an apparently cut-and-dried case of flaming will not be addressed as such until a mod has made a ruling (or "opinion", since you seem to like that word).

Second of all: It's just my opinion that Neo was lawyering.... and? If it's a mod's opinion that you're breaking the rules, shouldn't you suffer some kind of punishment? Isn't that what mods are for -- to deliver rulings (or "opinions") on whether or not people were over the line? If not, I may have misunderstood a fundamental part of the job description.

(Similarly, would you say it's entirely just a jury's opinion that someone committed a crime?)

You're not making much sense.

I think this whole 'rules lawyering' concept needs a serious rethink if it's this problematic. I can see how you don't want people calling everyone niggers just because x moderator excused it in such-and-such a context (yes, I'm using a real historical ruling) - but that is not anything like the same as ruling that you can never appeal to a prior moderation precedent. Especially when that prior response has been unequivocal - it IS alright to call a liar a liar, straight from the moderator's mouth.

That's not 'rules lawyering' - that's expecting even the moderators to hold to what is allegedly the consensus of moderation.

Again, this. Is. Not. About. The. Liar. Thing.

Really. It's not.

Neo was banned for baiting. He was not banned for calling someone a liar or referencing a mod ruling. Without the baiting, those actions would have been absolutely fine. With the baiting, they're presented in a new light suggesting them to be part of a pattern of baiting, but without it, we couldn't care less.

Clear?

[Kryozerkia]

Asking for clarification on a ruling is acceptable; continually dogpiling the mod who gave the ruling is bad form. You've raised your objections and Czardas answered your questions, concerns and objections. As Czardas already explained, the change was discussed on IRC between the mods who were online and we feel that the judgment exercised by Czardas fits the situation.

[Scolopendra]

Since people are missing the point and I'm the one responsible for the "you're allowed to call someone a liar" ruling, let me clarify:

*** TELLING THE TRUTH ABOUT SOMEONE IS NOT FLAMING. *** This is a very basic tenet of free societies in that the truth is (generally) a perfect defense against libel and slander.

Calling someone who has lied a liar is a statement of fact, just like saying someone who has killed is a killer or saying someone who believes that all modes of production must be owned collectively by the proletariat is a communist.

THIS DOES NOT MEAN THAT YOU CAN CALL SOMEONE SOMETHING THEY ARE NOT.

*** "I don't believe you" is ALWAYS VALID: it is a statement of opinion. ***

*** "You are a liar" is VALID IF AND ONLY IF it can be proven to be true. ***