[DISCUSSION] Subjective Flaming

[Ambroscus Koth]

Hey guys, I've been consistently baffled about this. "This" being how what the mod team considers flaming to change from thread to thread. I get it, we're all human, but it honestly seems to me that we don't know the line between what's flaming and what's kosher anymore. Here's an example of a post that has been reported in Moderation very recently that has had multiple moderators rule it kosher:

Aren't you the person who literally registered on our forums just to make a single post about how I should be kicked out of TSP?

Anyways, people's (and that's actually just a handful of people) problems with me have always been about what I did as MoFA, whenever I express an opposing opinion in the Assembly, or whenever I defend myself against some ridiculous charge. Never about anything I do *as an admin.* It's always about me not agreeing with their views.

Frankly, this is a game filled with people who argue without mercy and don't bother parsing their words to sound polite. The people who are actually complaining about this -- Cormac and Bel, for example -- made their names in this game by fighting with other people. So I'm really not sympathetic to hypocritical attacks on how I'm *so rude* and *so unpleasant* or a "jerk."

Cormac is a jerk. Belschaft is a jerk. So are you, too, Rach. Raven was on Discord talking about how he hates seeing my name and can't wait until the day I'm driven to quit this game.

Like seriously, shut up about it. We're all jerks.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

And here's a post that got me a 1 day ban, and Ridersyl a 1 day ban for stating "Can confirm" to: (Yes I will always be salty about this)

Everything that increase a level of mobility in R/D is good thing. (speaking these things caused my ban from both DEN and TBH, btw.)

No, you were banned for being a gigantic prick about it.

Literally the only difference between these two posts is the insult used, and they both mean generally the same thing. Oh, and GR insulted a greater number of people in his post. What does the mod team look at differently between these posts? I'm genuinely curious. Feel free to post more examples of subjective flaming, this is just the first thing I thought of.

[Caelapes]

Literally the only difference between these two posts is the insult used

Can confirm.

To actually contribute, I was puppet swept for fabricating two telegrams that read as follows:

"Did I hurt your poor widdle feelings? Too bad. You can't stop me."
and
"Dear Misley, Come get some."

I cannot fathom a world in which any moderator would consider these actionable as flaming had they been real, and yet I was puppetswept for "framing players for flaming/flamebait" with those fabricated telegrams. How it's possible to frame anyone for flaming when you send fabricated telegrams to another player, and not via a GHR, is beyond me in and of itself.

[Araraukar]

Since it's marked as discussion, making this point:

Like seriously, shut up about it. We're all jerks.

He includes himself in the "jerks" category, so it's hardly just "insulting another person".

[Phydios]

It's quite clear to me. As always, context is the key. With quote #1, it's obviously (well, not so obviously, I guess) not attacking any one player. The "We're all jerks" line, as well as (probably) context, made the handling mod come to the conclusion that is was more lighthearted than malicious. But quote #2? A direct attack on a single player is pretty much the definition of flaming. The difference isn't subjective- it's just not overt.
Now, I won't comment on whether moderation policy should be changed. But the current policy is generally fair and unambiguous. No one's perfect.

[RiderSyl]

Since it's marked as discussion, making this point:

Like seriously, shut up about it. We're all jerks.

He includes himself in the "jerks" category, so it's hardly just "insulting another person".

Oh, so if I call everyone on a website an asshole, and say I'm an asshole too, then it's all forgiven?
In that case, all users looking to flame or mass flame have a way out. Just a little self-deprecation.

[Ambroscus Koth]

It's quite clear to me. As always, context is the key. With quote #1, it's obviously (well, not so obviously, I guess) not attacking any one player. The "We're all jerks" line, as well as (probably) context, made the handling mod come to the conclusion that is was more lighthearted than malicious. But quote #2? A direct attack on a single player is pretty much the definition of flaming. The difference isn't subjective- it's just not overt.
Now, I won't comment on whether moderation policy should be changed. But the current policy is generally fair and unambiguous. No one's perfect.

So the problem is with how many people get attacked? The more flaming the merrier then? Somehow I don't see the logic.

Also, this has been discussed to death but I'll say it again: I was stating the exact reason that was given for Cora being banned from the TBH chat, namely that the people there were in agreement that he was acting like the thing I mentioned in that post. He was lying about the reason. But hey, #everycaseisjudgedindividually

[Phydios]

It's quite clear to me. As always, context is the key. With quote #1, it's obviously (well, not so obviously, I guess) not attacking any one player. The "We're all jerks" line, as well as (probably) context, made the handling mod come to the conclusion that is was more lighthearted than malicious. But quote #2? A direct attack on a single player is pretty much the definition of flaming. The difference isn't subjective- it's just not overt.
Now, I won't comment on whether moderation policy should be changed. But the current policy is generally fair and unambiguous. No one's perfect.

So the problem is with how many people get attacked? The more flaming the merrier then? Somehow I don't see the logic.

Also, this has been discussed to death but I'll say it again: I was stating the exact reason that was given for Cora being banned from the TBH chat, namely that the people there were in agreement that he was acting like the thing I mentioned in that post. He was lying about the reason. But hey, #everycaseisjudgedindividually

Your argument, while it may have flaws, does have merit. As I said, I am not defending the current policy. But it is not subjective, and does treat everyone equally.

[The Silver Sentinel]

But hey, #everycaseisjudgedindividually

Exactly as it should be. Each case's context is looked at and judged accordingly. It's a case of someone calling another person "X" (a mild schoolyard insult) as opposed to "Y" (being name that make even your mother cry). Should they be punished the same?

[USS Monitor]

Since it's marked as discussion, making this point:
He includes himself in the "jerks" category, so it's hardly just "insulting another person".

Oh, so if I call everyone on a website an asshole, and say I'm an asshole too, then it's all forgiven?
In that case, all users looking to flame or mass flame have a way out. Just a little self-deprecation.

Self-deprecation is probably why I never got busted for trolling when I was promoting National Socialism and advocating the extermination of inferior races. It's a useful tool to sort of take the edge off if you post potentially controversial things.

[RiderSyl]

Oh, so if I call everyone on a website an asshole, and say I'm an asshole too, then it's all forgiven?
In that case, all users looking to flame or mass flame have a way out. Just a little self-deprecation.

Self-deprecation is probably why I never got busted for trolling when I was promoting National Socialism and advocating the extermination of inferior races. It's a useful tool to sort of take the edge off if you post potentially controversial things.

Except the only controversial thing about the post in the OP's first example was the name-calling. It's not promoting or advocating anything except the very plain concept that "users are mean on message boards".

You say self-deprecation is probably why you never got busted? I believe it. It's about to probably be why another user doesn't get busted either. Too bad the OP in their second example didn't have the foresight to throw in self-deprecation in their apparent flaming, so they wouldn't have gotten busted like you guys.

You know, speaking of busted... I think the use of self-deprecation as a "get-out-of-jail free card" when breaking the rules is pretty busted. I think the moderators should try to fix that.

[USS Monitor]

Self-deprecation is probably why I never got busted for trolling when I was promoting National Socialism and advocating the extermination of inferior races. It's a useful tool to sort of take the edge off if you post potentially controversial things.

Except the only controversial thing about the post in the OP's first example was the name-calling. It's not promoting or advocating anything except the very plain concept that "users are mean on message boards".

You say self-deprecation is probably why you never got busted? I believe it. It's about to probably be why another user doesn't get busted either. Too bad the OP in their second example didn't have the foresight to throw in self-deprecation in their apparent flaming, so they wouldn't have gotten busted like you guys.

You know, speaking of busted... I think the use of self-deprecation as a "get-out-of-jail free card" when breaking the rules is pretty busted. I think the moderators should try to fix that.

It's not a "get out of jail free" card. It's just that depending on how it's used, it can change the tone of a post.

Sometimes "jerk" is an insult, but other times it just means someone with a bit of an attitude. If someone is calling themselves a jerk, they probably mean the latter.

I'm not sure if this is a regional thing where some dialects of English treat it as a more serious insult or if you just have a bee in your bonnet.

I would guess the first post quoted in the OP is pretty close to the line anyway, even with the "we're all jerks."

[RiderSyl]

EDIT: Short, quick reply to USS Monitor - The word "jerk" isn't normally used to change the tone of discussion in American English dialect. It's almost exclusively used as an insult.



In my opinion, the phrase "Every case is judged individually" only exists so the moderation team isn't flooded with precedent arguments like they're a court of justice. It prevents the sort of backlogging that real courts have to deal with, as well as the worry of setting a future precedent each time they rule on something.

That being said, the fact moderation is willing to set a precedent with the "casual reader test" but seems unwilling to listen to other things regarding case precedent doesn't sit well with me. It's especially bothersome when the results of two very similar cases have vastly different results, and because the precedent isn't clear on what should happen, people are left confused.

So, this is all directed towards the moderation team, for clarity's sake. I'd love answers to all of the below.

Saying someone's behavior is [mild insult] is a 1-day ban, and replying to that with robotic confirmation is a 1-day ban, but calling out multiple people as [mild insult] and everyone including yourself as [mild insult] is nothing.

In the relevant report thread, the context in the third case supplied that the user was making a point about message board users being mean was cited while declaring a lack of actionable content.
- Does that context reduce actionable content from a 1-day ban to no action taken? If so, for what reason?

The first case described a user's behavior with [mild insult]. The third described at least one user with [mild insult]. The first case was declared actionable, while the third was not.
- What effect does describing a user's behavior with a mild insult have on the outcome of a ruling, versus describing the user themselves with a mild insult? If the latter has a greater negative effect, why did the latter receive a lesser penalty?

The second case flatly confirmed the first case's description of a user's behavior being [mild insult], using the words 'Can confirm'.
- If a user confirms the third case's description of multiple users being [mild insult], would they also be considered actionable?

What difference did the self-deprecation make, if any?

That's it.

Also, now that the OP has reminded me of my own involvement (my post is the second case), I'd like to take a moment and wonder if anyone thinks that replying with "Can confirm." to a post describing another user's actions with a mild insult is worthy of a 1-day ban. To this day I'm still stumped as to how that wasn't reversed.

[USS Monitor]

EDIT: Short, quick reply to USS Monitor - The word "jerk" isn't normally used to change the tone of discussion in American English dialect. It's almost exclusively used as an insult.

Way to totally misinterpret what I said. Bravo. I put line breaks between the things that were supposed to be separate points and used punctuation and everything, and you just completely garbled it.

This thread just reeks of petty grudges, and it's a couple of different posters that are setting that tone. This seems more like a problem with a few players' inability to get along than a problem with moderation.

[RiderSyl]

EDIT: Short, quick reply to USS Monitor - The word "jerk" isn't normally used to change the tone of discussion in American English dialect. It's almost exclusively used as an insult.

Way to totally misinterpret what I said. Bravo. I put line breaks between the things that were supposed to be separate points and used punctuation and everything, and you just completely garbled it.

This thread just reeks of petty grudges, and it's a couple of different posters that are setting that tone. This seems more like a problem with a few players' inability to get along than a problem with moderation.

My short quick reply was to the following parts of your original, unedited comment:

"It's just that depending on how it's used, it can change the tone of a post."
"I'm not sure if this is a regional thing where some dialects of English treat it as a more serious insult."

I'm not sure why you're reacting the way you are, but I apologize nonetheless.

My most recent comment before this one, especially the part of it directing questions towards the moderation team, was the most professional comment I've ever made on the NS forums. It's possibly the most professional comment I've made on any forum. For you to say this thread reeks of petty grudges right after that comment is just bizarre to me.

[Enfaru]

>.> If you're getting banned by Moderators you're doing something wrong.

As for that second example, it's my opinion that both yourself and Ridersyl deserved the one day ban. Given prior conduct however... I'm surprised you weren't just deated. The moderators must be feeling generous lately.

Flaming is flaming. Calling someone a prick fits that description nicely.

Edit: Can confirm the word Prick is considered Vulgar in that context and Jerk is not.

They do not mean "generally the same thing" one is polite, the other is not.

Edit 2:

USS Monitor, you're correct, this is a problem with a few select players who can't abide by the rules and who are increasing posting threads because they don't like mods warning them.

[Ambroscus Koth]

Your psychoanalysis is completely uncalled for, Enfaru. Would it kill you to consider that maybe I'm just trying to figure out where the line is so that I can prevent us from breaking the rules in the future? Yes, I admitted in my first post that I still have copious salt over a ruling a while back that I believe was unnecessary. However, I'm trying to put it to constructive use in this thread. I'm such a villain.

My point is that in my mind, an insult is an insult no matter how "tame" it is. I honestly don't know the "tiers" of insult beyond like, playground talk such as "poopyhead" or "buttface". I guess that it's okay for people to compare us to children on a playground, but if we literally act like it, we can avoid flaming warns.

Apparently this makes absolute sense to you, Enfaru.

[Enfaru]

What psychoanalysis? At what point did I question anyone's mental integrity?

The line is clear, always has been.

"Flame/Threats: Personal attacks against other players, expressed via OOC (out-of-character) comments; insults, swearing and anything posted with intent to offend. In-character remarks can be interpreted this way as well; watch what you post if other posters are unaware you're not serious. Erudite slams while maintaining a veneer of politeness can also be considered flaming. Repeated instances of flaming directed at the same player can be considered harassment, a more serious offense."

In this instance, the Moderators found that "jerk" was not intended to insult or intend to offend, yet prick was intended to insult and to offend. They also use past record as a guideline so the rules change every so slightly for different players. For example one person might be let off without any warning whatsoever because they have good solid clean history and the matter is a grey area. Where as another person with a history of confirmed flaming, the mods would take this grey area and assume the worst.

In general, Nationstates operates under the rule of thumb: "If you don't have anything polite or nice to say, then don't say it at all." At least that's always been my interpretation of how to stay on the right side of the law here.

Now, if I were to say, "Shut up you jerk", I would expect to cited and warned for flaming. In this respect I agree with your "an insult is an insult no matter how tame", but some words will get you flagged up far faster, for example words that are widely considered vulgar usually get reported/spotted faster. That is what I was trying to say earlier.

I wasn't aware that comparing others to children in a playground was considered a flame... O.O

What makes sense to me, is how the mods decide each case and the level of behaviour that I am expected to abide by.
What makes little sense to me is using an example of "prick" compared to "jerk" and claiming the rules were applied unfairly.

[Skyviolia]

Yeah, I think calling someone stupid or dumb is different from calling them a motherfucker or dickhead or something to that tune.

[Ever-Wandering Souls]

In general, Nationstates operates under the rule of thumb: "If you don't have anything polite or nice to say, then don't say it at all." At least that's always been my interpretation of how to stay on the right side of the law here.

If that were the case, then I'd wager the majority of NSG and GP users at least would be banned from the forums for life. It's about how the not nice things are said

[Enfaru]

...It's about how the not nice things are said

This. Lots and lots of this.

Context is always important, intention and the words themselves.

[Lunatic Goofballs]

Discussion threads about specific instances or as an attempt to 'score points' or continue a disagreement about moderator actions are strictly verboten. This thread shall be locked.

As for comparing one incident to another single incident is an unreliable technique. As a player, you don't necessarily have all the facts, like prior history or context.

However, if you wish to appeal your prior mod action, there is a process for that via a [report] thread. If you've already done that, you can do so again via GHR. But this thread isn't the place or the time.

Please grab some complimentary tacos on your way out.

[Sedgistan]

Posting past lock to note that there are different severities of offence, and "jerk" is more mild than "prick", which again is far milder than calling someone a "cunt".

I will also note that a post whose primary intent is to make the point that many/most players can be "jerks" at times is - as was ruled in Glen-Rhodes' case, non-actionable (though if he'd used the word "cunts" instead, it would have been). Someone posting something similar, albeit with the intent of insulting another player, and thinking they can rules-lawyer their way out of a warning by calling themselves a jerk too, gets warned.