NationStates

We do not consider third-party appeals.

~Scolo der Mod

What 'proof of bias towards CP' have the mods shown?

I know everyone loves a good persecution complex, but I've seen no evidence for it.

Personal Interest wrote:I cannot sit idly by as injustice is served to someone who has done little to no wrong and done much good to the NationStates community.

Unibot, is that you?

Personal Interest wrote:Several moderators have demonstrated extreme bias against the region of Capitalist Paradise, Afforess in particular.

... What?

Personal Interest wrote:It is Personal Interest's belief that the nation of Afforess is innocent of the charges brought against him, and his previous punishments harsher than if performed by a different nation.

That's demonstrably incorrect. Posting past ban results in the deletion of both the posting nation and the banned nation. It says as much in the rules.

Personal Interest wrote:Furthermore, it is Personal Interest's belief that the deletion Afforess was decided by moderators that should have recused themselves from the case.

Why?

So Afforress claims to have given the nation away, despite every single post coming from his IP address?

Mad Jack wrote:So Afforress claims to have given the nation away, despite every single post coming from his IP address?

(Image)

I had a smart remark for that, but the image is simply too awesome to attempt to counter.

It a conspiracy, y'know.

Riiiiight, okay. So the rules don't apply just because the person who broke them is someone you like and has "contributed" to the game. Anybody who's paid any attention to the mod line on puppet switching should know that it's done at own risk simply because it gets tricky telling if someone controls a nation or not...Afforess took a gamble with the long established and clear cut posting past ban rule and lost.

What gets me is that everyone else is getting outraged. If you're going to start throwing accusations around, prove it. If not, then just accept it, learn from it and just move on. If Afforess wanted to he's quite able to do that as soon as his ban is up, and there's nothing stopping everyone else doing it right now.

Mad Jack wrote:So Afforress claims to have given the nation away, despite every single post coming from his IP address?

Every single post prior to his forum ban, from what I read. So you're point is not that relevant.

It seems to me the over-riding theme from all the past controversial moderation decisions I've seen is that the mods go out of their way to remove intent or any judgement calls from the process, to result in very specific if X then we delete you / ban you from the WA / etc. No ifs ands or buts, no room for reasoning or rational thought to enter into the equation, just pure mechanical application of rules. I can see the appeal to that system, since as we see in this thread itself as soon as one does not agree with moderation they claim bias. But it doesn't really leave me with a feeling that NS really cares about its users when this kind of thing happens, this feels like extreme indifference as opposed to any sort of bias.

"I wasn't in control of my nation when X happened" is probably the most common excuse we hear for rules violations. Nonetheless, we do look into it when people make that claim, as we did in this case. The claim that Afforess handed his nation over didn't match the evidence. When high-profile players have a nation deleted, it's often claimed that they were singled out for special treatment. That is not the case - we enforced the same rules that apply to every other player, and acted the same way we would have done with any other player who committed the offences.

Damn, I've been saving the mods have singled me out excuse for years.

Weed wrote:

Mad Jack wrote:So Afforress claims to have given the nation away, despite every single post coming from his IP address?

Every single post prior to his forum ban, from what I read. So you're point is not that relevant.

It seems to me the over-riding theme from all the past controversial moderation decisions I've seen is that the mods go out of their way to remove intent or any judgement calls from the process, to result in very specific if X then we delete you / ban you from the WA / etc. No ifs ands or buts, no room for reasoning or rational thought to enter into the equation, just pure mechanical application of rules. I can see the appeal to that system, since as we see in this thread itself as soon as one does not agree with moderation they claim bias. But it doesn't really leave me with a feeling that NS really cares about its users when this kind of thing happens, this feels like extreme indifference as opposed to any sort of bias.

And if they started trying to make judgement calls, actual bias would enter the system. That sounds like a great solution to the problem.

As much as I've given them a hard time, the mods have always communicated that I was approaching the line, warned me as I stepped on it, I have never crossed it, but they were clear he crossed the line. At some point, his behavior is his responsibility

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk

Damn, I was going to cover that case next.

Southern Bellz wrote:As much as I've given them a hard time, the mods have always communicated that I was approaching the line, warned me as I stepped on it, I have never crossed it, but they were clear he crossed the line. At some point, his behavior is his responsibility

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk

When OC says the mods did the right thing you know that it must be true. Never seen this before.

I've done it a few times. The people complaining about mod bias should have tried being a pre influence invader. Or couped by one

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk

Sedgistan wrote:"I wasn't in control of my nation when X happened" is probably the most common excuse we hear for rules violations. Nonetheless, we do look into it when people make that claim, as we did in this case. The claim that Afforess handed his nation over didn't match the evidence. When high-profile players have a nation deleted, it's often claimed that they were singled out for special treatment. That is not the case - we enforced the same rules that apply to every other player, and acted the same way we would have done with any other player who committed the offences.

A minor correction, your investigation may not have been wholy accurate, and I'd rather just get all the facts out so this speculation can stop flying around. Afforess is not lying when he said that he forfeited erudite_observer.

Afforess did give erudite_observer to me, and had me change the password without telling him what it was. It was intended to be a permanent transfer of the nation. To cement his decision to step out of Gameplay, he then requested that I leave a post about the closure of the newspaper, which I did. The final login to NS and the NS Forums originated from a computer in my control, not Afforess'.

When I saw the two nations get deleted, I felt terrible, and still do. I did not realize this would be the outcome.

I am not stating this in any attempt to sway the decision of the mods, just stating for the record what actually happened.

Lun Noir wrote:

Sedgistan wrote:"I wasn't in control of my nation when X happened" is probably the most common excuse we hear for rules violations. Nonetheless, we do look into it when people make that claim, as we did in this case. The claim that Afforess handed his nation over didn't match the evidence. When high-profile players have a nation deleted, it's often claimed that they were singled out for special treatment. That is not the case - we enforced the same rules that apply to every other player, and acted the same way we would have done with any other player who committed the offences.

A minor correction, your investigation may not have been wholy accurate, and I'd rather just get all the facts out so this speculation can stop flying around. Afforess is not lying when he said that he forfeited erudite_observer.

Afforess did give erudite_observer to me, and had me change the password without telling him what it was. It was intended to be a permanent transfer of the nation. To cement his decision to step out of Gameplay, he then requested that I leave a post about the closure of the newspaper, which I did. The final login to NS and the NS Forums originated from a computer in my control, not Afforess'.

When I saw the two nations get deleted, I felt terrible, and still do. I did not realize this would be the outcome.

I am not stating this in any attempt to sway the decision of the mods, just stating for the record what actually happened.

This is exactly what happened. I saw no where in the rules where giving away nations & then having said nations post on the forums would be a violation. If I am to be made an example, please at least update the rules for this particular case.

Shadow Afforess wrote:

Lun Noir wrote: ...he then requested that I leave a post about the closure of the newspaper, which I did.

This is exactly what happened...

That's posting past ban.

Mallorea and Riva wrote:

Shadow Afforess wrote:
This is exactly what happened...

That's posting past ban.

As I said, the rules nowhere mentioned that, so they should be clarified.

Shadow Afforess wrote:

Mallorea and Riva wrote:That's posting past ban.

As I said, the rules nowhere mentioned that, so they should be clarified.

You didn't think it seemed even slightly sketchy to give your nation to another player to make a post on your behalf?

Mallorea and Riva wrote:

Shadow Afforess wrote:As I said, the rules nowhere mentioned that, so they should be clarified.

You didn't think it seemed even slightly sketchy to give your nation to another player to make a post on your behalf?

I have interpreted the rules literally many times in the past without undue concern.

You swap and share nations at your own risk. Complaining that you didn't know that isn't an excuse for your actions.

Mad Jack wrote:You swap and share nations at your own risk. Complaining that you didn't know that isn't an excuse for your actions.

I have nowhere complained. I have asked for clarification & a rule update so future nations do not fall into the same trap.

Shadow Afforess wrote:

Mallorea and Riva wrote:You didn't think it seemed even slightly sketchy to give your nation to another player to make a post on your behalf?

I have interpreted the rules literally many times in the past without undue concern.

I'll take that as a no then and conclude that your judgment was very faulty, which is unfortunate. I thought the rules regarding the matter implicated that such actions should not be done. The rules cannot possibly seek to outline everything that will get you into trouble after all.

Will the writer of the above piece be coming around to explain their views or was this just hit and run?