Embassy of the South Pacific

[Cormactopia Prime]

Unibot has nothing to do with the TSP situation, and the repeated attempts to invoke him as a weapon against anyone just because they talk to him are making me less sympathetic to those using that tactic. Simply communicating with him is not, nor has it ever been, the important issue. The important issue, without getting into details I'd rather not, is that he remain banned from various NS communities. Nobody is taking any steps to lift his bans, nor as far as I know is he even trying to get them lifted, so there is absolutely, positively no reason to continue down this path.

[RiderSyl]

Glad you could arrive at the point that virtually everyone else has been at for a while, Cormac.

The majority of this shitfest hasn't been criticism of the bans because they're unjustified. It's because there are other players in TSP that arguably meet the standard that was met for these bans that have gone unpunished, seemingly because of their sway in TSP's regional government.

Souls' ban was also terribly handled, but that's largely been overshadowed now.

[Mommy Yuno]

Unibot has nothing to do with the TSP situation, and the repeated attempts to invoke him as a weapon against anyone just because they talk to him are making me less sympathetic to those using that tactic. Simply communicating with him is not, nor has it ever been, the important issue. The important issue, without getting into details I'd rather not, is that he remain banned from various NS communities. Nobody is taking any steps to lift his bans, nor as far as I know is he even trying to get them lifted, so there is absolutely, positively no reason to continue down this path.

I agree with you, given that Unibot isn't getting unbanned from regions, so I mean, as long as he's banned, you've done your (required) part. A region can take on crazy utilitarian policies such as "ban everyone who gets caught talking to this person" but I feel that's over-stepping its boundaries for a feeder, only UCRs can do that (as the AA did against Atero-- although the two guys are not on the same level)
You can of course be criticized by others for "being friends with XYZ", but that's just price to pay. You take it or leave it, based on how much it's worth. For example, Glen and Unibot knew each other 14years, morally speaking, I don't feel we should force them to cut contact during their non-NS time. Real life friends is something the adult chooses by his/her discretion. Whether it's good or bad for the adult, that's the adult's decision to make. I'm not defending Unibot but saying if someone is friends with him, well, that's life. Anyway, we're getting off topic. Point was that the Unibot dead horse has been overbeat.

As Syl said, this topic isn't about Unibot, it's about Administration Concerns.

[Jar Wattinree]

As Syl said, this topic isn't about Unibot, it's about Administration Concerns.

This.

[Glen-Rhodes]

It's because there are other players in TSP that arguably meet the standard that was met for these bans that have gone unpunished, seemingly because of their sway in TSP's regional government.

I lost two elections against Tim, one for MoFA and one for Delegate. I haven't been in the Cabinet for nearly 2 years. He had considerably more "sway" than I did-- in fact, they're both claiming they were banned because they were getting too popular for "the cabal's" liking. If you're going to pin your conspiracy on "sway in the regional government," you should at least make sure the person you're targeting has been in the government lately.

Some of you certainly have confidently-held opinions on events you simultaneously say you haven't seen any evidence of.

[RiderSyl]

I lost two elections against Tim, one for MoFA and one for Delegate. I haven't been in the Cabinet for nearly 2 years. He had considerably more "sway" than I did-- in fact, they're both claiming they were banned because they were getting too popular for "the cabal's" liking. If you're going to pin your conspiracy on "sway in the regional government," you should at least make sure the person you're targeting has been in the government lately.

So you're not an admin nor a member of the CRS, then?

[Escade]

Over the past few months, I've listened and overheard friends and former colleagues (so Glenn, Roavin, Kris and Farengeto) who have been genuinely distressed, frustrated, and disillusioned at the state of the South Pacific as a direct result of Escade and Tim.

You know Glen better than I do. You know TSP better than I do. You know that Glen has done far worse in TSP and has spent a lot of time chasing people out of the region. Years even. You were there for a lot of it. How can you completely ignore that even now? How can you not even acknowledge it knowing that you can face no consequences for it? A luxury that nobody in TSP has?

Exactly. Lady Hopolis, Tac Saxton, Apad, Hileville, Imki, and the list goes on and on. Glenn and Kris have forced out people for years now. The current escalation of conflict as it were was begun by Roavin and pursued by him endlessly with Glenn providing commentary in DMs about how the alleged MoNC was either serious or manageable or whatever and also not being able to clarify between IC and OOC. There is no parity for punishment and for being recommended to go to rehabilitation and seek forgiveness I don't see any contrition from the initiators of the conflict. My points about actual administration concerns were made clear and outlined. Administration does not even have evidence collected other than hearsay. Nothing was done by Tim or myself that was outside the norm for TSP. Nothing.

Look, you can wall away all you want about how TSP absolutely needed to get rid of Escade and Tim, and for the most part, I think folks are pretty open to hearing it - this does not change the fact that TSP's admin team either needs to back accusations of harassment properly, or stop calling it harassment. That is the biggest problem, and you of all people mirroring the deflections of Glen and others isn't exactly helping their cases.

Simply, now if administration follows Unibot's advice (over all the other people asking for the same thing) and actually collates evidence there can be counter filings and holding all player's involved up to fair administration and moderation standards. As I pointed out Roavin received two separate warnings to cease and desist (not counting unofficial ones) and nothing was done about that. Let's also be clear that I have rarely if ever asked admin to take actions against a player because TSP has never utilized admin that way but rather have only dealt with OOC issues. I have, in general, spoken to people casually without referring to "warnings" about getting someone to chill out whether internally or externally. If TSP actually utilized a transparent and fair system of moderation there would be no questions about whether or not the bans were justified.

The hostile atmosphere came to a head because two players, Roavin and Glenn, basically wanted to remove me and Tim from the community. I'm not sure what we were expected to do? Keel over and die because of our political differences and different visions for the region? There's even a discussion on August 8th in which the admin talk about how the legislators keep electing people they don't approve of so they have to do something else. Hence this ban.

There has been nothing but an IC political war which Roavin\Glenn turned into an OOC one starting with the MoNC in May of this year. They had a vision of who they wanted in power\cabinet and it conflicted with mine and Tim's different visions. When Tim almost became delegate of TSP, they decided to take it this far.

The admin could have PNGed me and Tim or taken other avenues but those would, like in the case of Souls' proscription, require a burden of proof that they could not sustain. Tim and I allegedly flamed, trolled, baited - anyone looking through the past year in the TSP Legislator Lounge will see flaming, trolling and baiting particularly the number of conflicts between Glenn-Rhodes and other players is consistent.

A player let me know they did not think I would be unbanned ever from TSP especially since I haven't just taken the ban without protest. This wasn't about being unbanned, this has been about making sure that the admin of TSP understand the difference between IC and OOC and don't misuse OOC (particularly when they don't care about OOC when it's a friend). My struggle in TSP was always "if you're applying standards apply them fairly to friend or foe" and I don't see fairness being a goal of any admin involved.

Unibot has nothing to do with the TSP situation, and the repeated attempts to invoke him as a weapon against anyone just because they talk to him are making me less sympathetic to those using that tactic. Simply communicating with him is not, nor has it ever been, the important issue. The important issue, without getting into details I'd rather not, is that he remain banned from various NS communities. Nobody is taking any steps to lift his bans, nor as far as I know is he even trying to get them lifted, so there is absolutely, positively no reason to continue down this path.

I think it's a valid concern when administration gives more rights to a known OOC banned player then they do to their IC political enemies. I think it's a valid concern when a player banned for legitimate reasons is not only defending administration's poorly thought out actions in which they accuse players of OOC harassment without any proof and when Unibot is speaking on their behalf with more information than certain members of the CRS of TSP.

I think it's a valid concern that Unibot is invested in seeing me and Tim banned from not only TSP but other regions because of a personal vendetta his best friend Glenn has against Tim and now me. I have DMs of Glenn saying my actions were not a big deal, much as he has in this thread vaulted between "it's serious" to "other admin have said it's overblown and not serious." Which is it? I also have DMs of Glenn lamenting how Roavin and I chose Tim instead of him during the MoFA election and fixating on Tim.

I'm a malignant soul-crusher now. Amazing.

Given what has made you unwelcome in the Gameplay community, I think it's a pretty accurate depiction of you.

I've also always sought to clean up my own messes

Really? From what I hear, you just try to claim you got hacked

Let's be clear. I left the game completely for almost 2.5 years. No contact with anyone in the game at all.

When I left the game there was a different awareness and situation regarding Unibot, who had also been up for IC political bans at the time. When I returned to the game almost 2.5 years later there was a different and OOC situation regarding him in which legitimate members of the community had done the work of collating evidence and presenting it and getting action taken. I actually had no idea what had happened and had to get information outside of the TSP community to get a clear picture that finally NSGPers were dealing with sexual harassment as a community.

I spoke to several players and have clearly stated that Tsunamy is the reason Unibot was banned from TSP. The scary thing is the way three admin have attempted to mitigate the OOC ban. Roavin being very careful to use the term "misogynist" rather than the actual term that should be used. Kris apparently not understanding why the ban happened with a "horny lonely guys" are just "horny lonely guys" logic.

When I was made up to date of all the actual realities, my views very quickly changed as did who I spoke to on a personal level or even regularly as a friend. There were people I used to speak to on OOC terms every single day, like I do with most of my NS friends. Let's be clear the fact that certain players associated with Unibot made me limit or pretty much end any OOC relations and keep it to business\limited.

I have DM proof of talking to Kris and telling him that TSP and TSPers should completely disassociate with "strong language here" Unibot. The response was basically "You can't tell me what to do." At that point I wasn't in a place to argue or do anything else because I actually didn't know what else to do. I did not tell Roavin my actual thoughts at all or Glenn because I believed Roavin to be Unibot or at least to be highly affiliated with him (which was true as Unibot had trained Roavin as a defender) and already knew the history of Glenn. Glenn has also always brought up how he's not allowed to see the evidence against Unibot and therefore ...oh there's irony.

As I stated publicly and privately, because Unibot has never confessed to his actions he is still allowed onsite. Similar to what could have happened in the Brunhilde situation if there wasn't a confession. My one goal in speaking to him, before he told other players he had access to me, was to see if he would confess and therefore repent\leave the game. That was a no and I cut off all communication completely.

I do and still find it highly offensive when players try to use Unibot to paint defenders or a region with a broad brush when they do not have any dealings with him. There are plenty of defenders who actively disavow everything Unibot stands for. However, it's perfectly acceptable to discuss admin of a region who are taking advice and guidance from an individual who should not have any access to any TSP channels or private conversations but allegedly does. Why is that?

I also have a DM of Roavin re-inviting me to the private server after I left because of feeling uncomfortable and the "access" comment. The admin of TSP can have whatever friends they choose to have as long as they aren't introducing that player to other players and validating OOC banned players, in this case by presenting internal affairs to him (isn't that against the law and technically espionage?).

It is however startling and problematic when a banned player is allowed to determine the course of TSP events including administrative actions. It is utterly horrifying that Glenn has taken his personal vendetta against Tim, since he lost an election to him, to this degree. I didn't ask any alleged friends to choose sides over IC bullshit. Neither did Tim and here's the thing about Tim at least he's always consistent on never letting OOC crossover with IC.

The fact that Unibot tried to use my ignorance is depressing. The fact that my friends in this game are upset and harmed by his trying to use this ban to further whatever agenda he has in TSP is depressing. The fact that he is enabled by TSP admin to do so is so terrible. You don't need Unibot to argue for you or help you make admin decisions, just make the case yourself.

[Unibot III]

Those posts might as well count as Exhibit A and B for the kind of petty manipulation, outright lies, and diabolical pettiness that wound you up in this situation to begin with.

People should wait for others to chip in with their knowledge of events before taking those posts at face value. I’m personally off to work now for the day, but here’s my two cents...

That was a no and I cut off all communication completely.

This is untrue on both counts. You’re trying to save face here by rewriting events.

You eventually cut off speaking with me because I made a publicly negative comment about your diplomatic style (gifs) which raised your ire. That’s the kind of mercurial swings from friend to foe we’ve all experienced from you.

It is utterly horrifying that Glenn has taken his personal vendetta against Tim, since he lost an election to him, to this degree.

He doesn't harbor a vendetta against Tim over an NS election - who does that!??? He and others are doing their job as an administrator.

I spoke to several players and have clearly stated that Tsunamy is the reason Unibot was banned from TSP.

This is true, however. It would have been inappropriate for Kris and Glen to oversee a decision on a good friend of theirs.

I think it's a valid concern that Unibot is invested in seeing me and Tim banned from not only TSP but other regions because of a personal vendetta his best friend Glenn has against Tim and now me.

I'm invested in seeing you stop using me to attack anyone who has communicated with me. You created a nascent environment in TSP and now you think your best path forward is to smear the administrators who had to make a decision on your case.

It is however startling and problematic when a banned player is allowed to determine the course of TSP events including administrative actions.

If I determine anything, it'll be to put a pin-prick through the hydrogen-filled nonsense you're floating here. I have no administrative authority and my activity in this game was only piqued when you started invoking my name and basic presence in the room to attack people and excuse your own actions.

[Escade]

That was a no and I cut off all communication completely.

This was untrue on both counts.

It is utterly horrifying that Glenn has taken his personal vendetta against Tim, since he lost an election to him, to this degree.

He doesn't harbor a vendetta against Tim over a goddamn election, he and others are doing his job as an administrator.

I spoke to several players and have clearly stated that Tsunamy is the reason Unibot was banned from TSP.

This is true, however. It would have been inappropriate for Kris and Glen to oversee a decision on a good friend of theirs.

I think it's a valid concern that Unibot is invested in seeing me and Tim banned from not only TSP but other regions because of a personal vendetta his best friend Glenn has against Tim and now me.

I'm invested in seeing you stop using me to attack anyone who has communicated with me. You created a nascent environment in TSP and now you think you're best path forward is to smear the administrators who had to make a decision on your case.

It is however startling and problematic when a banned player is allowed to determine the course of TSP events including administrative actions.

If I determine anything, it'll be to put in a pin-prick through the hydrogen-filled nonsense you're floating here. I have no administrative authority and my activity in this game was only piqued when you started invoking my name and basic presence in the room to attack people and excuse your own actions.

1. You're still in the game, trying to push your agenda on TSP right now. If you cared about the players that you forced to either leave this game, or hide, or otherwise feel extreme distress by your mere presence you wouldn't still be here. The admin you quote as not being able to make the decision regarding yourself also shouldn't be making any decisions right now because they have been in an IC political feud with the accused for several months.

2. I have not communicated with you since I last DMed a player stating, "I'm sorry I can't speak to that creep anymore." I have avoided your threads and told several people involved that you should not be posting in TSP related areas. Unless you have some sort of alt account in TSP as was alleged you had when you offered to train players during the Lazarus coup, I have not spoken to you since that comment. Indeed, I am impressed that you've tried to make this all about yourself to take the heat off the admin and their responsibilities in this situation.

In fact during the Lazarus coup of last summer, I told players that I suspected Player X of being your alt account and ignored that player DMing me because I wasn't sure. Last summer is also when a prominent defender and I had a long conversation about how you in particular could not be involved in any Lazarus freedom fighting operations because of the negative impact and I let him know that it was not something I was at all aware of or would stand for.

3. It seems that admin has shown you more evidence than I or any other member of NS, including regional admin of major GCRs. Or you have some sort of access\alt account in TSP that helps you keep tabs? Or members of the CRS\admin are sharing (and therefore leaking) more info\hearsay with you than they have with anyone else. Which is it?

Admin have standards they follow. They collate and compile evidence and are able to annotate it and explain their process. These admin cannot do that because the standards they are applying would result in them requiring bans or consequences as well. What any admin should be doing is asking for proof of the allegations and proof of consistent moderation practices because otherwise TSP admin cannot be trusted. Simple.

[Unibot III]

1. You're still in the game, trying to push your agenda on TSP right now. If you cared about the players that you forced to either leave this game, or hide, or otherwise feel extreme distress by your mere presence you wouldn't still be here trying to use my own ignorance against me and mine.

I’m not aware of any players who have left the game because of my conduct: this is information I’d like to know. If players feel emotional distress with me around, I’d like to know. If I’m not told, I cannot make informed decisions about whether to cut ties here. I’m not the most well informed player in this game anyone - I hear literally everything third-hand, weeks later.

Why am I here? Because for the past few months, I’ve heard of the drama that was unfolding with you at the center of it in the South Pacific. And one day I hear you’re invoking me as your defence! I had to step in at that point. I may in fact be a really shitty person, but good people hang out with shitty people all of the time - and you don’t to smear them using me.

2. I have not communicated with you since I last DMed a player stating, "I'm sorry I can't speak to that creep anymore." I have avoided your threads and told several people involved that you should not be posting in TSP related areas. Unless you have some sort of alt account in TSP as was alleged you had when you offered to train players during the Lazarus coup, I have not spoken to you since that comment.

I didn’t have a false account training people last year. I did it in the open as Unibot. Everyone knows this already. The rest of what you cited contradicts your prior comments.

[Escade]

I'm going to return to the topic at hand rather than the Unibot show. Yes, you were mentioned. You were mentioned, in part, because one of the players in this thread made an incendiary post that you were seeking to come back based on old info and that caused a lot of stress for a lot of people. You were mentioned because the admin is apparently giving you access to things that the regional admin of allied GCRs have asked for and not received and because you chose to comment on it. Therefore, you a banned player for provable OOC reasons, has more rights and access than both Tim and myself.

I have days and days and days worth of logs that show that I am consistent on not communicating with you. Even now I wish I didn't have to in any way, shape or form because I believe it may validate you in some way and I don't want that. This makes me highly uncomfortable.

Just to reiterate:
Here is how TSP admin have responded to requests for evidence from regional admin, leaders and other members of the community:
A. The evidence is too hard to collect, find, etc THEREFORE the TSP admin do not have any evidence to show
B. The evidence is "minor" and "not a big deal" i.e. this is a politically motivated ban where admin have weaponized moderation
C. Showing the evidence to the accused would allow them to counter-file based on the same standards so Tim and I can't be shown the evidence
D. Showing the evidence to NSGP will lead to NSGP making fun of the accusers for trying to manipulate IC into OOC which speaks to a larger issue
E. One of the four admin argued that they word "OOC" shouldn't have been included in the ban at all because of the above
F. The TSP admin don't care what the other admin think because they'll do whatever they want anyway and they think NSGP will move on

I'll repeat it again, there were two political factions. Both used IC political tactics to try to gain the upper hand. Those included a plethora of tactics that are the norm for TSP and have been used against for and by the people involved (with public proof). When one faction, no matter how hard it tried through voter coordination, rumor-mongering and use of "real life" issues could not stop Tim getting this close to becoming the delegate of TSP they decided to weaponize administration.

Admin are accountable for the accusations they make especially of OOC ones. That should be clear.

[Aclion]

they think NSGP will move on

Foolish that.

[Ever-Wandering Souls]

Seperate from the ongoing issues with the administrative team, I’ve got some questions for the cabinet.

It has been a full week since your court ruled in my favor and stuck down my proscription, with an opinion supporting my team’s absolute shredding of the cabinet’s positions, including outright noting that blatant falsehoods in the posted claims made the cabinet’s assertions hard to trust.

Still, at present, all announcements of the proscription stand without amendment.

When will the cabinet be indicating in its formal announcements here and on the TSP offsite that the portion of the proscription released aimed at me has been stuck down? Perhaps with a nice strikethrough and note on why it is struck? When will the cabinet acknowledge in the locations that the defamatory claims including those of blackmail are *still actively posted* that those claims are false and defamatory? When will the cabinet be making an equally formal announcement making clear that it made false accusations against me, apologizing for such, and noting acceptance that those claims have been disproven, to begin to counter the effects of its defamatory statements against me in public standing for almost two months?

I hope the answer is “very soon.”

[Syberis]

Seperate from the ongoing issues with the administrative team, I’ve got some questions for the cabinet.

It has been a full week since your court ruled in my favor and stuck down my proscription, with an opinion supporting my team’s absolute shredding of the cabinet’s positions, including outright noting that blatant falsehoods in the posted claims made the cabinet’s assertions hard to trust.

Still, at present, all announcements of the proscription stand without amendment.

When will the cabinet be indicating in its formal announcements here and on the TSP offsite that the portion of the proscription released aimed at me has been stuck down? Perhaps with a nice strikethrough and note on why it is struck? When will the cabinet acknowledge in the locations that the defamatory claims including those of blackmail are *still actively posted* that those claims are false and defamatory? When will the cabinet be making an equally formal announcement making clear that it made false accusations against me, apologizing for such, and noting acceptance that those claims have been disproven, to begin to counter the effects of its defamatory statements against me in public standing for almost two months?

I hope the answer is “very soon.”

You're a funny man sometimes, Souls. We all know the answer.

[King HEM]

A statement from the Europeian Administrative team
Contact: King HEM with questions or concerns

Our administrative team generally does not make statements that extend outside of Europeia, as we believe our mission is almost exclusively an internal one. We have no desire to routinely police behavior within other regions, or worse, become some kind of pseudo-political entity that is a part of the In-Character political process of this game.

However, as individual admins, many of us have spent the last several years working with admins from other regions to establish norms and standards for administrative teams that create a clear separation between In-Character game interactions and Out of Character actions that require “suspension of the game” and immediate action outside the gameplay of Nationstates. We believe that the recent actions by the South Pacific Admin Team put that work in dire jeopardy.

To briefly summarize our vision of Administrative action, we have to recognize that the game and community surrounding Nationstates is made up of “In Character” and “Out of Character” components. When we say “In Character” we mean anything that has to do with the gameplay of Nationstates.net and the various regions and entities contained within. “In Character” is, at the most basic point, anything that people sign up to do at Nationstates.net.

“Out of Character” is those things that are not a part of the gameplay. These are things dealing specifically with “real life”. While this might be intuitive to some, we want to really spell out the difference here with some examples that also address grey areas.


— HEM blackmailing Souls by threatening to tell The Pacific about Souls’ plan to coup is in-character and no action should be taken by admins.
— HEM blackmailing Souls by threatening to post RL pictures of Souls in a public chat is out-of-character and admins would be right to take action.
—HEM making a scathing post on Europeia’s forum accusing Sopo of being an awful President, say because of the drama between Europeia and Osiris, is in-character and no action should be taken by admins
— HEM threatening to send a letter to Sopo’s college to get him thrown out over the drama between Europeia and Osiris is out-of-character and admins would be right to take action.


Parsing this distinction is important because to make Nationstates safer it is essential that administrative bans are not seen as political.

As Nationstates.net staff have declined responsibility for any offsite behavior, it is imperative that local administrative teams are empowered to moderate their communities and that those bans are taken seriously by the rest of Nationstates. When doubt and skepticism enter administrative decisions, it means that bans may be up for dispute and that dangerous players may be allowed to continue playing the game.

So, in order to prevent the appearance of administrative bans being political, and maintaining the trust in such bans across many different gameplay communities, it is necessary that all administrative bans only handle matters that are out-of-character. By litigating in-character matters, administrative teams become in-character institutions that are subject to all the scrutiny and skepticism that gameplay politics brings with it. That would be disastrous, and this cannot be emphasized enough. 'Our RP Courts wouldn't allow it' is reasoning that will not be heard when faced with IRL legal complaints, so admin teams need to have the trust and credibility to act unilaterally.

It is for that reason that Europeia’s Administrative team is concerned by The South Pacific’s ban of Tim and Escade on grounds that appear to be In-Character.

The bulk of the evidence for this ban, as offered by sandaoguo (Glen-Rhodes) on the South Pacific forum seems to be testimony from other players. When asked about warnings, sandaoguo says that, “Though it wasn't given by any admins, the motion of no confidence was the original ‘warning,’ but being an inherently political IC act, it wasn't treated with the level of seriousness it deserved.” This quote was extremely alarming to us, as no “political IC act” should serve as a warning or have any place in adjudicating administrative bans. Sandaoguo has since said that his remarks there were suggesting that a motion of no confidence should have served as some kind of early wake up call to Escade and Tim, not that it was a formal process in TSP’s administrative investigation. Regardless, we find it concerning that when asked what “warnings” the parties were given, an in-character event was even brought up as relevant.

When Tsunamy enters the thread, the evidence provided is blatantly in-character. He says it’s impossible to lay the evidence out effectively, but that, “For two of the more recent examples, we have the continued smearing of Glen through his friend [sic] with Unibot and the assertion that Roavin was purposefully delaying votes.” Both examples are of negative but legitimate political tactics.

When questioned by long-time TSP member Drugged Monkeys, Tsunamy provides additional evidence that is all links to heated debates in in-character threads.

How Tsunamy sums the matter up, also sums up the core of our concern: “For me, it ultimately came down to this choice: Are we going to alienate a majority of the community in order to keep Escade and Tim, who are largely smarting from Roavin's motion of no confidence?”

Before making this statement, the Europeian Administrative team reached out to the South Pacific Administrative Team for any evidence that could be imparted to us confidentially, admin team to admin team. We were told that they would ask those who gave testimony if it could be shared, but that, “[Tim and Escade’s] actions in TSP aren’t enough, in our opinion, to warrant bans anywhere but TSP.”

The totality of this evidence leaves us convinced that, ultimately, the administrative bans on Tim and Escade were based primarily on in-character events and should not have been executed. It may be that there is evidence out there of out-of-character misfeasance by Tim and Escade, but we have not seen it. And even if there were, the blurring of lines between in-character and out-of-character action still represents a threat to effective administrative action in future. We are concerned about the role of IC processes in the OOC admin ban adjudication process. We are concerned about the reference of IC threads as evidence for the ban. Perhaps most alarming of all, the open admission that public opinion played a role in the decision is a source of grave and immediate concern.

Now, it has been suggested by some that these in-character events can become out-of-character problems because they serve as a trigger to some players’ real life mental health illnesses. While we are not unsympathetic to that, when establishing what it is in-character and what is out-of-character we have to consider the context of Nationstates.net. That is to say, Nationstates is a political simulator game. There is a reasonable expectation for all participants that there will be politics, which occasionally includes harsh politics. This is a reasonable expectation for anyone who opts-in to a political game. For those who don’t like intense politics, it is more realistic to ask those folks to confine themselves to the social aspect of Nationstates or find another game more to their liking than to suggest we should remove politics from an inherently political game. It simply isn’t fair to all the players who come here for the core function of the game, and it certainly isn’t fair to ban people for playing the game as it was constructed. It’s akin to several new players joining monopoly, and saying that dealing with money is stressful to them and then deciding to play without it.

This is all a fancy way of saying that the bar for what might be considered “harassment” is much different in a political game than it might be if someone chose instead to spend their time on Club Penguin, or even a privately owned forum that discussed casual cultural topics. Furthermore, regional communities have more appropriate ways to address these issues. In-character laws can be passed governing what is acceptable behavior and enforced transparently through a region’s court system. Motions of no confidence, censures, or the like may be issued by in-character governments. Players whose behavior is deemed unacceptable may be punished by the community by calling out their behavior and choosing to not vote for them or appoint them to any positions of significance. In other words, there are many in-character ways for a community to address unacceptable in-character behavior.

That isn’t to say we are suggesting that there is never a time where in-game politicking can become out-of-character harassment, but the bar is much higher, and there would require something much more extreme than what the South Pacific administrators have put forward here—not merely playing the political game out in public.

Finally, it has been suggested by the Administrators in the South Pacific that they can’t be expected to run their region the same way that other regions are run. Perhaps their administrative team would like to be more hands-on in administration in order to enforce a regional tranquility? However, that doesn’t alleviate our concern that over-administration of in-character actions puts all of our communities at risk. If players are not confident that administrative decisions are non-political, wholly objective, wholly out-of-character, then administrative teams become just political, in-character entities themselves. It becomes harder to police out-of-character threats when confidence in neutral administration is low. If administrative teams have to worry about public push back over every ban, the potential for the true “bad guys” to roam free in the game increases. That is a danger to all of us, and should be unacceptable.

This is not an issue we should sweep under the rug. This is not an issue that we should dismiss as mere Nationstates Gameplay Forum drama. This is about the safety of players, and the safety of our game. We do not particularly care if some admins chat with Unibot every so often. Such a talking point is immaterial to the true damage that this decision has done to the universal integrity of administrative teams. This decision means that if the Europeian Administrative team comes to Gameplay with a shocking ban (say, something on the level of Brunhilde) it’s very possible that this person will be able to fight back, will be able to say that we’re political, and they may find followers and find sanctuary to continue their activities in this game.

That is an unacceptable risk, and it is the risk that the South Pacific administrators have opened us to with this decision. We assume that their intentions were good, but their conclusion was not, and we implore them to immediately review this decision.

Whether the South Pacific administrators re-examine this decision or not, we urge all regions to establish administrative teams and administrative bans using the best practices we’ve outlined here. That means administrative bans should be for out-of-character reasons only, and ideally, there is as much distance between administrative authorities and in-character political authorities as possible. We recognize this isn’t always possible and the line is not always clear, but making the roles as distinct as possible and making clear when you are talking as an admin, and when you are talking as a political leader, can truly help.

We understand this statement was lengthy, but we felt it had to be. We hope folks have spent the time reading it over, and look forward to playing a safe, fun, game of Nationstates with all of you. Please feel free to contact King HEM with any questions.

/s/
HEM, Chief Administrator
Malashaan, Deputy Chief Administrator
Darcness, Administrator
Lethen, Administrator
Sopo, Administrator
Kuramia, Administrator

[Cormactopia Prime]

Hear, hear. As usual, regardless of whatever IC differences I may have with Europeia, Europeia's admin team sets the standard for OOC administration.

[The Church of Satan]

Most definitely Europeia's admin team is professional and reliable. TSP's admin team could learn a thing or ten from them.

[RiderSyl]

So now that concerns have been raised by another admin team, not just the so-called "peanut gallery", will TSP start to realize they fucked up?

[Guy]

To briefly summarize our vision of Administrative action, we have to recognize that the game and community surrounding Nationstates is made up of “In Character” and “Out of Character” components. When we say “In Character” we mean anything that has to do with the gameplay of Nationstates.net and the various regions and entities contained within. “In Character” is, at the most basic point, anything that people sign up to do at Nationstates.net.

“Out of Character” is those things that are not a part of the gameplay. These are things dealing specifically with “real life”. While this might be intuitive to some, we want to really spell out the difference here with some examples that also address grey areas.


— HEM blackmailing Souls by threatening to tell The Pacific about Souls’ plan to coup is in-character and no action should be taken by admins.
— HEM blackmailing Souls by threatening to post RL pictures of Souls in a public chat is out-of-character and admins would be right to take action.
—HEM making a scathing post on Europeia’s forum accusing Sopo of being an awful President, say because of the drama between Europeia and Osiris, is in-character and no action should be taken by admins
— HEM threatening to send a letter to Sopo’s college to get him thrown out over the drama between Europeia and Osiris is out-of-character and admins would be right to take action.

The cases cited are the really clear and obvious cases, not the difficult grey areas.

To suggest that there is a bright-line distinction between OOC and IC matters is mistaken at best, and most often intellectually dishonest as well.

People routinely get nasty, in a personal matter, over matters relating to NS gameplay. People get called names, friendships are tested, people are made to feel awful. That does not have to relate to RL characteristics or doxxing. People forge "IC" alliances off the basis of personal friendships. Supposedly "in character" political matters are transacted on the personal level.

As Nationstates.net staff have declined responsibility for any offsite behavior, it is imperative that local administrative teams are empowered to moderate their communities and that those bans are taken seriously by the rest of Nationstates. When doubt and skepticism enter administrative decisions, it means that bans may be up for dispute and that dangerous players may be allowed to continue playing the game.

So, in order to prevent the appearance of administrative bans being political, and maintaining the trust in such bans across many different gameplay communities, it is necessary that all administrative bans only handle matters that are out-of-character. By litigating in-character matters, administrative teams become in-character institutions that are subject to all the scrutiny and skepticism that gameplay politics brings with it. That would be disastrous, and this cannot be emphasized enough. 'Our RP Courts wouldn't allow it' is reasoning that will not be heard when faced with IRL legal complaints, so admin teams need to have the trust and credibility to act unilaterally.

Now, it has been suggested by some that these in-character events can become out-of-character problems because they serve as a trigger to some players’ real life mental health illnesses. While we are not unsympathetic to that, when establishing what it is in-character and what is out-of-character we have to consider the context of Nationstates.net. That is to say, Nationstates is a political simulator game. There is a reasonable expectation for all participants that there will be politics, which occasionally includes harsh politics. This is a reasonable expectation for anyone who opts-in to a political game. For those who don’t like intense politics, it is more realistic to ask those folks to confine themselves to the social aspect of Nationstates or find another game more to their liking than to suggest we should remove politics from an inherently political game. It simply isn’t fair to all the players who come here for the core function of the game, and it certainly isn’t fair to ban people for playing the game as it was constructed. It’s akin to several new players joining monopoly, and saying that dealing with money is stressful to them and then deciding to play without it.

This is all a fancy way of saying that the bar for what might be considered “harassment” is much different in a political game than it might be if someone chose instead to spend their time on Club Penguin, or even a privately owned forum that discussed casual cultural topics. Furthermore, regional communities have more appropriate ways to address these issues. In-character laws can be passed governing what is acceptable behavior and enforced transparently through a region’s court system. Motions of no confidence, censures, or the like may be issued by in-character governments. Players whose behavior is deemed unacceptable may be punished by the community by calling out their behavior and choosing to not vote for them or appoint them to any positions of significance. In other words, there are many in-character ways for a community to address unacceptable in-character behavior.

That isn’t to say we are suggesting that there is never a time where in-game politicking can become out-of-character harassment, but the bar is much higher, and there would require something much more extreme than what the South Pacific administrators have put forward here—not merely playing the political game out in public.

Finally, it has been suggested by the Administrators in the South Pacific that they can’t be expected to run their region the same way that other regions are run. Perhaps their administrative team would like to be more hands-on in administration in order to enforce a regional tranquility? However, that doesn’t alleviate our concern that over-administration of in-character actions puts all of our communities at risk. If players are not confident that administrative decisions are non-political, wholly objective, wholly out-of-character, then administrative teams become just political, in-character entities themselves. It becomes harder to police out-of-character threats when confidence in neutral administration is low. If administrative teams have to worry about public push back over every ban, the potential for the true “bad guys” to roam free in the game increases. That is a danger to all of us, and should be unacceptable.

Not every OOC ban has to be for 'reprehensible' OOC behaviour, such as the one that you are referencing. If political exchanges get too heated, administrative action can be a reasonable action. TRR does not have a court system, for instance, and so the matters in which administrators have to get involved may be wider than in regions that do. I don't think it's for Europeia to set the standard of "acceptable politicking" vs "administratively punishable behaviour" in other regions.

Given that TSP has said that this the ban was not the result of the type of reprehensible behaviour that can be a danger to other communities, I don't see where the grave danger is from administrative teams being more proactive in cases that involve mere "rudeness" or "excessive politicking" that threaten the fabric and wellbeing of the community without constituting reprehensible conduct such as sexual harassment or doxxing.

It's fairly routine in other online communities of which I have been part that a "breakdown of community" can lead to an acrimonious breakup, including bans being issued. The fact that NS communities manage to largely avoid this, in spite of the politicking and disagreements that go on (or possibly thanks to the fact that we're mostly used to it!) doesn't mean that bans cannot be issued for those reasons.

In sum, perhaps there isn't really a strong basis for the bans on Tim and Escade. That would be concerning as NS players. To go from there and say that there is a danger to NS regions' ability to respond to persons who pose a danger to all communities due to their rerprehensible behaviour is a stretch. Not every administrative action needs to be due to such action. Someone may receive a long-term ban, for example, for mere rudeness or excessive cussing, or perhaps even as part of dispute resolution between a fairly localised conflict between two players. Those are not inappropriate uses, per se, of administrative bans.

[Cormactopia Prime]

So now that concerns have been raised by another admin team, not just the so-called "peanut gallery", will TSP start to realize they fucked up?

My guess is they'll dismiss it as politically motivated, given TSP-Europeia relations. I doubt very much they'll bother to listen, to Europeia or anyone else.

[King HEM]

Not every OOC ban has to be for 'reprehensible' OOC behaviour, such as the one that you are referencing. If political exchanges get too heated, administrative action can be a reasonable action. TRR does not have a court system, for instance, and so the matters in which administrators have to get involved may be wider than in regions that do. I don't think it's for Europeia to set the standard of "acceptable politicking" vs "administratively punishable behaviour" in other regions.

The whole statement's purpose is to convince the readers that our vision for administrative action is in the entire gameplay community's best interest. The statement makes clear the danger we see in administrators going beyond banning for OOC reasons.

Just as an aside: this isn't a position we just pulled out of a hat today. Individual admins from Europeia have been talking about the importance of this distinction for quite a while—including lectures at the NSWF last year.

Given that TSP has said that this the ban was not the result of the type of reprehensible behaviour that can be a danger to other communities, I don't see where the grave danger is from administrative teams being more proactive in cases that involve mere "rudeness" or "excessive politicking" that threaten the fabric and wellbeing of the community without constituting reprehensible conduct such as sexual harassment or doxxing.

We explained in the statement why there is a grave danger. Because a ban for political behavior inserts administrative teams into the IC political process. The more that that happens, the more than the "aura" of being above the game evaporates from administrative decisions and inserts doubt—and the ability to contest—individual administrative decisions. That creates a real risk when an administrative team is banning someone for SERIOUSLY bad behavior (i.e. more than just keeping the harmony of a region) that the person being banned could stomp into NSGP and accuse that admin team of politicking and "fight the charges."

Europeia is very lucky, for instance, that we banned Brunhilde in 2017 and not 2018. I shudder to consider all the possibilities Brunhilde would have for fighting back against our charges today, rather than a year ago.

It's fairly routine in other online communities of which I have been part that a "breakdown of community" can lead to an acrimonious breakup, including bans being issued. The fact that NS communities manage to largely avoid this, in spite of the politicking and disagreements that go on (or possibly thanks to the fact that we're mostly used to it!) doesn't mean that bans cannot be issued for those reasons.

The statement also explains the distinctions between Nationstates and other internet communities. It's comparing apples and oranges.

[Cormactopia Prime]

If regions like TSP and TRR want to ban people for IC reasons, but IC democratic institutions don't allow it, perhaps you should consider:

1. Reforming IC democratic institutions so that they are more practical in meeting community needs; or
2. Abolishing IC democratic institutions and allowing Delegates to impose bans for IC reasons.

Both of those options are viable and reasonable. What isn't viable or reasonable is using an OOC administrative team to execute IC consequences, just because you have so thoroughly restrained your IC democratic institutions from taking any pragmatic action to preserve IC community stability. Stop using your OOC admin teams to implement the extrajudicial bans your IC governments won't allow. If you want to impose extrajudicial bans for IC reasons, simply alter your governments to facilitate that, instead of undermining the credibility of OOC administration in your regions and everyone else's. You folks preserving the thin veneer of democracy, which no one even buys at this point, isn't worth the cost of undermining OOC community safety.

[Guy]

“Taking the game too far” uses to be almost all that NS admins banned for. If someone is constantly personally rude in their in-game political activities, they’d receive admin warnings and eventually a ban. Community standards are something that admins are generally better-placed to respond to than a fairy-tale court or someone elected on the basis of in-game expediency. This is the line where “IC” and “OOC” is rather blurred, and the fact that you had not even acknowledged that section of the response suggests that you know it is so.

Admins banning people for those reasons will not destroy confidence in them when they deal with serious misconduct. The admin team can remain objective and perform its functions in a way that retains the confidence of the community even if it warns someone for saying “you’re a fucking idiot” and even issuing bans if it rises to the level of repeated conduct that could constitute bullying.

[Glen-Rhodes]

Europeia is very lucky, for instance, that we banned Brunhilde in 2017 and not 2018. I shudder to consider all the possibilities Brunhilde would have for fighting back against our charges today, rather than a year ago.

They would've been banned still, because we're all adults in our late 20s or older, and we have the basic human decency to see a creepy DM exchange and not think, "I bet they're faking it. Remember that one time 2 players got banned for flamebating?" Just like TSP admins did 3 days ago, even though the evidence came from someone we consider an enemy in the game.

[Unibot III]

I don’t think HEM is intervening here with a political motivation but I would argue that the distinction between IC and OOC isn’t at all clear cut in Gameplay, nor is it clear cut what is permissible IC that is non-permissible OOC if anything at all. There’s going to be room for disagreement, there is no universal set of Gameplay practices and norms. We’ve quite literally made it all up.

Europeia and TSP may be (in fact, probably are) operating on different expectations for how they hope their communities are administrated and moderated. This isn’t necessarily surprising, TSP has always strived to be a social region, Europeia has always strived to be a political one.

An appeal to administrative relativism may not be satisfying to anyone here. But TSP considers what’s happened to cross OOC lines, Europeia doesn’t need to; it’s free to make a decision on who they want to contribute to their region independent of other site administrations. There is, however, no sense in pounding your fist on the table declaring TSP in the wrong, when we’re talking about Gameplay norms that differ region to region, community to community, person to person, that none of us particularly agree on. What matters is what Timscade were doing wasn’t acceptable in TSP, and most TSPers have always understood that was the deal.