Ignore List and Regional Message Boards

[RiderSyl]

As someone who thinks the purpose behind the original complaints mostly has to do with wanting to silence particular views hated by certain intolerant players, I agree with this statement.

Describing a desire to see less homophobia and transphobia in their community as "certain intolerant players silencing particular views" leads me to believe you're not exactly approaching the issue here from a place of good intentions.

[Wascoitan]

As someone who thinks the purpose behind the original complaints mostly has to do with wanting to silence particular views hated by certain intolerant players, I agree with this statement.

Describing a desire to see less homophobia and transphobia in their community as "certain intolerant players silencing particular views" leads me to believe you're not exactly approaching the issue here from a place of good intentions.

not sure what you expected, it's galiantus, of course he isn't approaching the issue from a place of good intentions.

[Slatos Empire]

Some of you have very broad definitions of bigotry and it gets to a point where you're just suppressing views you don't like or agree with.

[RiderSyl]

Some of you have very broad definitions of bigotry and it gets to a point where you're just suppressing views you don't like or agree with.

The proposal in this thread doesn't involve suppression, and I am confident that you have no examples on hand of any misattributed bigotry.

[Galiantus III]

Describing a desire to see less homophobia and transphobia in their community as "certain intolerant players silencing particular views" leads me to believe you're not exactly approaching the issue here from a place of good intentions.

I would say that is your own interpretation based on your political position. I can understand why you would read it that way, but your conclusion is incorrect. Regardless of the intentions of the individuals who have been complaining, I think TRR ought to be given some control of their own RMB. Whether the ideas being censored are ones I personally agree with or disagree with is irrelevant. The point is TRR can't control its own RMB. This is quite unlike any other region, and a serious drawback even by comparison to other GCRs.

As for the ignore list, it seems like something else entirely. It is obviously meant as an alternative to any kind of giving TRR control of their RMB, but it doesn't help with the TRR situation. It's its own thing. I can see where TRR members are coming from in their complaints, because the real issue is one of regional control. The issue isn't toxic players, bad opinions, or anything else. It is regional control. So if admin does an RMB ignore list for its own sake, that's great. But if the goal is to throw scraps to TRR and hope it satisfies them, that is a mistake. TRR needs a better solution than this.

[The Church of Satan]

But if the goal is to throw scraps to TRR and hope it satisfies them, that is a mistake. TRR needs a better solution than this.

And to any mods reading this, if you intend for this ignore feature to be a means to placate us; it will not achieve that, because this is insufficient.

As a feature that should be rolled out game-wide however, I do support it.

[Esternial]

I definitely support this feature.

Together with Reploid Productions' question on whether we should allow Moderation to mandate Ignores, this could be a powerful alternative to using Warnings/Bans for bickering - otherwise sane - players that just need to be put in a time-out.

[Ghost Land]

But if the goal is to throw scraps to TRR and hope it satisfies them, that is a mistake. TRR needs a better solution than this.

And to any mods reading this, if you intend for this ignore feature to be a means to placate us; it will not achieve that, because this is insufficient.

As a feature that should be rolled out game-wide however, I do support it.

This. It's good that this is being proposed and hopefully considered, but it doesn't really address the problems with TRR as it stands. I'm still intrigued by this idea, though I'm not sure how feasible it is from a technical perspective or how much the mods and admins would go for that.

Some of you have very broad definitions of bigotry and it gets to a point where you're just suppressing views you don't like or agree with.

Also this.

[RiderSyl]

Describing a desire to see less homophobia and transphobia in their community as "certain intolerant players silencing particular views" leads me to believe you're not exactly approaching the issue here from a place of good intentions.

I would say that is your own interpretation based on your political position.

Which political position is that?

[Esternial]

And to any mods reading this, if you intend for this ignore feature to be a means to placate us; it will not achieve that, because this is insufficient.

As a feature that should be rolled out game-wide however, I do support it.

This. It's good that this is being proposed and hopefully considered, but it doesn't really address the problems with TRR as it stands. I'm still intrigued by this idea, though I'm not sure how feasible it is from a technical perspective or how much the mods and admins would go for that.

Would be nice if a nation could be banjected to...just nowhere.

It would also allow Nations to "hard opt out" of Gameplay, by leaving their Region and not joining another.

[Visionary Union]

I see NS is truly doing its best to simulate IRL politics- Offering 'solutions' that solve nothing, but instead let the problem fester and spread further. While I'm not opposed to this feature on its own, it will not and should not be considered the answer to the issues TRR faces.

[Esternial]

I see NS is truly doing its best to simulate IRL politics- Offering 'solutions' that solve nothing, but instead let the problem fester and spread further. While I'm not opposed to this feature on its own, it will not and should not be considered the answer to the issues TRR faces.

That's one way to look at it.

I personally only heard about TRR's issues today. I'm sure there are plenty of other communities across the site that have issues that need to be addressed. From my perspective, NS doesn't have the resources (e.g. technical staff, moderators) to satisfactorily resolve all of them for everyone in a timely manner AND keep business-as-usual (e.g. moderating the forum, addressing GHRs). It's all on voluntary basis.

As is often the case, issues have to be prioritized, analyzed and properly addressed. Haphazardly patching things up serves nobody long-term. This is the case in most companies, I'm guessing this is also the case for NS.

So I wouldn't resort to pessimism just yet. It may take time but advocating your case is not wasted effort. You can always suggest a Mod if you know someone who would be capable enough to expand the site staff of volunteers, and it might end up in more hands to look at and/or tackle all the things you want to see addressed or resolved.

[Visionary Union]

I see NS is truly doing its best to simulate IRL politics- Offering 'solutions' that solve nothing, but instead let the problem fester and spread further. While I'm not opposed to this feature on its own, it will not and should not be considered the answer to the issues TRR faces.

That's one way to look at it.

I personally only heard about TRR's issues today. I'm sure there are plenty of other communities across the site that have issues that need to be addressed. From my perspective, NS doesn't have the resources (e.g. technical staff, moderators) to satisfactorily resolve all of them for everyone in a timely manner AND keep business-as-usual (e.g. moderating the forum, addressing GHRs). It's all on voluntary basis.

As is often the case, issues have to be prioritized, analyzed and properly addressed. Haphazardly patching things up serves nobody long-term. This is the case in most companies, I'm guessing this is also the case for NS.

So I wouldn't resort to pessimism just yet. It may take time but advocating your case is not wasted effort. You can always suggest a Mod if you know someone who would be capable enough to expand the site staff of volunteers, and it might end up in more hands to look at and/or tackle all the things you want to see addressed or resolved.

If NS doesn't have enough technical staff, it should hire more. This is how it should work- If your current staff isn't sufficient, you get more.
Also, a suggested solution was to give to ROs with comm perms the ability to temporarily mute nations from posting on the RMB, essentially giving them RMB ban. This feature already exists for moderators, so it wouldn't require creating it from scratch to let the ROs mute nations.
In addition, both Sedge and CG, the 'resident' TRR moderators have stated that there is a universal disagreement (among site staff) to such a feature, because reasons (read: homophobia, racism and anti vaxxer talking points are valuable discussions, apparently), so I somehow doubt that there will be a significant change.

[Phydios]

That's one way to look at it.

I personally only heard about TRR's issues today. I'm sure there are plenty of other communities across the site that have issues that need to be addressed. From my perspective, NS doesn't have the resources (e.g. technical staff, moderators) to satisfactorily resolve all of them for everyone in a timely manner AND keep business-as-usual (e.g. moderating the forum, addressing GHRs). It's all on voluntary basis.

As is often the case, issues have to be prioritized, analyzed and properly addressed. Haphazardly patching things up serves nobody long-term. This is the case in most companies, I'm guessing this is also the case for NS.

So I wouldn't resort to pessimism just yet. It may take time but advocating your case is not wasted effort. You can always suggest a Mod if you know someone who would be capable enough to expand the site staff of volunteers, and it might end up in more hands to look at and/or tackle all the things you want to see addressed or resolved.

If NS doesn't have enough technical staff, it should hire more. This is how it should work- If your current staff isn't sufficient, you get more.

NS runs on a volunteer staff. I don't know that anyone gets paid, even [violet]. And it is very difficult, I hear, to find people who are willing to spend hours and hours of unpaid time working with the code and players on this site.

[Esternial]

That's one way to look at it.

I personally only heard about TRR's issues today. I'm sure there are plenty of other communities across the site that have issues that need to be addressed. From my perspective, NS doesn't have the resources (e.g. technical staff, moderators) to satisfactorily resolve all of them for everyone in a timely manner AND keep business-as-usual (e.g. moderating the forum, addressing GHRs). It's all on voluntary basis.

As is often the case, issues have to be prioritized, analyzed and properly addressed. Haphazardly patching things up serves nobody long-term. This is the case in most companies, I'm guessing this is also the case for NS.

So I wouldn't resort to pessimism just yet. It may take time but advocating your case is not wasted effort. You can always suggest a Mod if you know someone who would be capable enough to expand the site staff of volunteers, and it might end up in more hands to look at and/or tackle all the things you want to see addressed or resolved.

If NS doesn't have enough technical staff, it should hire more. This is how it should work- If your current staff isn't sufficient, you get more.
Also, a suggested solution was to give to ROs with comm perms the ability to temporarily mute nations from posting on the RMB, essentially giving them RMB ban. This feature already exists for moderators, so it wouldn't require creating it from scratch to let the ROs mute nations.
In addition, both Sedge and CG, the 'resident' TRR moderators have stated that there is a universal disagreement (among site staff) to such a feature, because reasons (read: homophobia, racism and anti vaxxer talking points are valuable discussions, apparently), so I somehow doubt that there will be a significant change.

Site staff can correct me, but I think NS operates on a "best effort" basis - as if often the case with free services. "Just hire more" (.e. demanding the site owner pays more money so we can get more new features faster) is maybe something we can ask for, but not expect or demand. But, again, you can always recommend a Moderator - maybe one that has some useful technical skills. Technical staff isn't exclusively paid staff - some are volunteers (like the Blaatschapen).

I think in your frustration you are also misinterpreting a lack of (immediate) action as active endorsement of views. I'm guessing any disagreement on the topic could come from differing opinions the dangers of giving such an ability to non site staff. You and I may only see the benefit, not the potential risks (and impacts it might have on the overall Gameplay elements).

Site staff being in disagreement would also be a sign that the topic is being discussed. You're not simply being ignored.

As for the feature in this topic: I'm not sure it will fix the issues you're facing, but perhaps it could be one part of a wider solution for your community.

If NS doesn't have enough technical staff, it should hire more. This is how it should work- If your current staff isn't sufficient, you get more.

NS runs on a volunteer staff. I don't know that anyone gets paid, even [violet]. And it is very difficult, I hear, to find people who are willing to spend hours and hours of unpaid time working with the code and players on this site.

It's sometimes even very difficult to find people who are willing to spend hours and hours of PAID time working with certain code and customers.

[Frisbeeteria]

Would be nice if a nation could be banjected to...just nowhere.

It would also allow Nations to "hard opt out" of Gameplay, by leaving their Region and not joining another.

Given that 100% of update is based off of regional membership, I see this suggestion as DOA. The alternative is a Rejected Rejected Realms, which would eventually require a Rejected Rejected Rejected Realms, an infinite recursion. Just sayin'.

[Esternial]

Would be nice if a nation could be banjected to...just nowhere.

It would also allow Nations to "hard opt out" of Gameplay, by leaving their Region and not joining another.

Given that 100% of update is based off of regional membership, I see this suggestion as DOA. The alternative is a Rejected Rejected Realms, which would eventually require a Rejected Rejected Rejected Realms, an infinite recursion. Just sayin'.

I had a suspicion there was some hard link between a Nation and its Region.

Perhaps the alternative could be a stripped down Region (lacking first and foremost a RMB) with a WFE instructing residents to go elsewhere if they want to participate in the Gameside activities?

Would probably require some tinkering to be able to "disable" a region's RMB.

For the sake of multi-functionality you *could* also add it to the Mod toolkit as a way to punish regions: e.g. no RMB for an hour.

[-SARS-]

But if the goal is to throw scraps to TRR and hope it satisfies them, that is a mistake. TRR needs a better solution than this.

And to any mods reading this, if you intend for this ignore feature to be a means to placate us; it will not achieve that, because this is insufficient.

I don't think this should be the main concern. They have to be fair to other players too. If they do their best to be fair to everyone, but it's not enough to placate you, then cest la vie.

As a feature that should be rolled out game-wide however, I do support it.

Yeah, it's a reasonable idea regardless.

[The Church of Satan]

I don't think this should be the main concern. They have to be fair to other players too. If they do their best to be fair to everyone, but it's not enough to placate you, then cest la vie.

This has been our only concern from the very beginning. What's fair about not being able to reign in our own RMB? I bet if The West Pacific had to play under the same conditions as TRR, for even just a week, more people would understand our position. But a lot of the opposition here doesn't understand because "muh free speech" which by the way is addressed in the FAQ.

[Esternial]

I don't think this should be the main concern. They have to be fair to other players too. If they do their best to be fair to everyone, but it's not enough to placate you, then cest la vie.

This has been our only concern from the very beginning. What's fair about not being able to reign in our own RMB? I bet if The West Pacific had to play under the same conditions as TRR, for even just a week, more people would understand our position. But a lot of the opposition here doesn't understand because "muh free speech" which by the way is addressed in the FAQ.

I think the only solution that would make it "fair" would be to take away TRR's role as a Catcher region, and create a new Region to replace it - one that lacks the features that has led to TRR's current issues (like the RMB).

[Slatos Empire]

Given that 100% of update is based off of regional membership, I see this suggestion as DOA. The alternative is a Rejected Rejected Realms, which would eventually require a Rejected Rejected Rejected Realms, an infinite recursion. Just sayin'.

I had a suspicion there was some hard link between a Nation and its Region.

Perhaps the alternative could be a stripped down Region (lacking first and foremost a RMB) with a WFE instructing residents to go elsewhere if they want to participate in the Gameside activities?

Would probably require some tinkering to be able to "disable" a region's RMB.

For the sake of multi-functionality you *could* also add it to the Mod toolkit as a way to punish regions: e.g. no RMB for an hour.

Then there is no reason for TRR to exist if you do that. It would be much easier to simply create a new community then code that in.When you heard that TRR was an ejection free zone, people that you find problematic will end up there, now you're trying to send them off to another place.

[-SARS-]

I don't think this should be the main concern. They have to be fair to other players too. If they do their best to be fair to everyone, but it's not enough to placate you, then cest la vie.

This has been our only concern from the very beginning. What's fair about not being able to reign in our own RMB? I bet if The West Pacific had to play under the same conditions as TRR, for even just a week, more people would understand our position. But a lot of the opposition here doesn't understand because "muh free speech" which by the way is addressed in the FAQ.

They have to be fair to players including the players you want to mute.

I am talking about fairness at an individual level, not at a regional level. GCRs are created with different characteristics from region to region, and there's no obligation for them all to give their regional governments equal levels of control. TWP gets to have different rules than TRR because they set up shop in a region that had those rules.

[The Church of Satan]

They have to be fair to players including the players you want to mute.

Well, if allowing them to violate regional law is fair, then I don't want to be fair.

I am talking about fairness at an individual level, not at a regional level. GCRs are created with different characteristics from region to region, and there's no obligation for them all to give their regional governments equal levels of control. TWP gets to have different rules than TRR because they set up shop in a region that had those rules.

And without the ability to eject nations, having literally any semblance of control over our own RMB would still have us at a comparative disadvantage. This ignore list feature would do a good job of letting individual players ignore other players they can't get along with, but it does nothing at the regional level. It is at the regional level that our issue resides.

As to fairness, consider the following:

Is it fair for a region to eject someone because they don't like another player's nation name, another player's beliefs, or because they aren't in the World Assembly? Sure, game mechanics make these things possible, but are they fair? Fairness is relative in NationStates, when it comes to game mechanics. They all have the potential for abuse, and they have all been abused, without exception. It doesn't invalidate their intended uses though. Even this ignore feature has the potential for abuse, if someone is creative enough. If this were instituted, it would inevitably be abused at some point. This is an indisputable fact. But would it be fair? Who would it be fair to? Who would it be unfair to?

[Galiantus III]

They have to be fair to players including the players you want to mute.

If that's the issue, then the whole concept of being ejected from regions - particularly GCRs - needs to be revisited. Because every single region besides TRR can use it to effectively mute players they dislike. And I seriously doubt ejection is going to be changed or removed.

I am talking about fairness at an individual level, not at a regional level. GCRs are created with different characteristics from region to region, and there's no obligation for them all to give their regional governments equal levels of control. TWP gets to have different rules than TRR because they set up shop in a region that had those rules.

Where there are differences between regions, most of them are justified by tradeoffs. When it comes to RMB control in TRR, there's not an obvious tradeoff as with other regions; for example, feeders and sinkers get free nations, but they don't get access to perfect security - and the reverse is true for UCRs. I'm not seeing any such system around TRR's inability to control their own RMB. I suppose tradeoffs don't necessarily have to be one to one, but if there exist unambiguous drawbacks, that often does warrant a change. I personally see TRR's RMB situation as an unambiguous drawback.

[Slatos Empire]

Why are we still talking about the mute button, didn't the NS staff say it wasn't going to happen?