Pathetic.

[Samuraikoku]

How nice that you decided to delete my comments when pointing out exactly what the poster's intention was.

Not to mention this gem by Dread Lady Nathicana.

And in order to explain that, you yourself, continue to threadjack, Sam? Leading by example there?

Look - people are having a discussion on the topic. We've had worse OPs get whined about for not leaving open so people could do just that. If you have a complaint, take it to the proper area. Which is not this thread. Thank you.

Again with the "leading by example" thing? Neo Art explained it clear to you that one time, Dread Lady Nathicana. I am not a Moderator, nor do I care to be. I do not have to "lead" anyone by example. You and the rest of the mod staff are required to keep the forums orderly, not me. My posts had broken no rules and there was no reason they it should have been deleted - except for pointing out the mods's incompetent decision on this matter.

Instead of focusing on me for something completely irrelevant, do what is required of you. Lift those sixteen bans, and ban the user that caused the whole problem.

[Sedgistan]

Links?

[Dread Lady Nathicana]

Sedge, I cleared up the continued threadjacking and it's in MA - from the water on Mars bit that Fury came down on last night for people threadjacking and baiting. There's been a solid discussion going on since, and Sam chose to again try to drive it off-course in that thread rather than taking his complaint here initially. Hence his current perturbation with me. Hope that helps with some direction.

[Neo Art]

Wait, how'd I get dragged into this?

[Dread Lady Nathicana]

I have no idea, Neo. I was simply addressing Sam's bit on my end. Don't know if it helps, but this is relevant to the discussion at hand. viewtopic.php?f=20&t=245673&p=14934982#p14934982

[Neo Art]

I have no idea, Neo. I was simply addressing Sam's bit on my end. Don't know if it helps, but this is relevant to the discussion at hand. viewtopic.php?f=20&t=245673&p=14934982#p14934982

I mean, I am inclined to agree that getting people banned was exactly what TSU was going for there. I mean, we already have "flamebaiting" and even "trollbating". Creating deliberately nonsensical, uninformed, and clearly erronious threads over and over again for the express purpose of "threadjackbaiting" seems to be his trolling tactic of choice. Indeed, if we accept that "baiting" others to break the rules is in itself against the rules then "threadjackbaiting" seems as good a term as any.

I don't necessarily disagree with the bannings for falling for it. I do somewhat object that he's continually been allowed to DO it. And I think the post history of this particular player in question, when viewed in context, seems abundantly clear to accomplish exactly what he accomplished. Which is to deliver a series of nonsensical, unusual, and borderline (or in some cases, beyond borderline) spamming posts explicitly so that he'd be seen as someone who wasn't to be taken seriously, so he could then complain that he wasn't being taken seriously.

Frankly, and with utter and complete honesty, I think y'all got played. Mods and players alike. My objection (and again, I don't want my name brought up here in some form of "solidary") is not that the players in question broke the rules and were banned for it. My objections to that interaction is twofold:

1) that he was allowed to do it in the first place
2) that the idea of proprotionate moderation seemed to go away, because I saw names in there that, in 8 years, I can't recall EVER getting a warning, get a full day ban, while the OP in question, having racked up a CONSIDERABLE number of warnings in his short history, get yet another warning.

I know I mentioned this in TET, but there's a difference between "having an unpopular opinion" and "having nothing BUT unpopular opinions". This particular poster seems solidly in the second category, and has seemingly made a habit of being as deliberately outlandish and offensive as possible in order to ensure his own threads get derailed, just so he can see other people get punished for it.

I'm not saying they don't deserve it, I'm saying, when viewed in context, it's abundantly clear that's EXACTLY what he's doing, and if "flamebaiting" and "trollbaiting" are impermissable, I can't see why he's allowed to get away with it.

That's my actual concern over this.

[Reploid Productions]

Yeah, kinda suspected that whole shotgun blast of 1-day bans was going to kick up some mod-hate. While I'll be staying out of any appeals filed and the mess is getting dropped squarely in the rest of the mods' laps, here's my reasoning for going all REPPY SMASH! in there.

Two wrongs don't make a right.

That's pretty much it. I did not see in TSU's thread OP the intention of baiting anybody out. Yes, that user has a lackluster history with threads, but that one seemed to have legit potential as a discussion topic- one that I suspect would have gone just fine had it been the exact same post but made by a different user. It was also immediately dogpiled by people spamming and taking potshots at the poster due to his notoriety. Almost all of the names on that list of bans came from the first three pages, before clearer heads started to make an honest attempt at staying on topic and discussing the implications of water on Mars.

Granted, even if the thread OP had been clearly meant for bait, that does not excuse the subsequent rulebreaking of all those that spammed it and went after the OP. As I said in the ban post, somebody being unpopular doesn't give everybody else the right to break the rules in response. Even if the thread had been ruled baiting, people had the choice NOT to post, but chose to take the bait anyway. Given the sheer volume of that behavior, the shotgun blast of 1-day bans was intended to send the message loud and clear that such behavior is not acceptable. I'm hoping that people will take some responsibility for their own behavior and either report suspected rulebreaking to moderation or simply elect not to post in threads started by a user that they dislike. We even have an ignore function for those who just cannot control themselves if they see a post by somebody they don't like.

Sure, in some of these really subjective situations, it is difficult to determine whether or not a user is baiting/trolling/etc or is just not very good at starting a discussion/has a very unpopular point of view and we may irritate folks because we opt to wait and see if an intent becomes clear enough or a blatant violation occurs; however we would rather have people making a report asking for us to take a look instead of dogpiling a potential troublemaker. Keeps the situation much clearer and easier to sift through when we're only having to look at one guy's posts, rather than at the behavior of over a dozen people in a multipage thread. Also makes for fewer warnings or bans that need to be issued.

Not going to get into a debate over it here; any changes to the ruling or appeals are well and truly out of my hands, however I did want to elaborate on why I came to that decision.


~Evil Forum Empress Rep Prod the Ninja Mod
~She who wields the Banhammer; master of the mighty moderation no-dachi Kiritateru Teikoku

[Neo Art]

we may irritate folks because we opt to wait and see if an intent becomes clear enough or a blatant violation occurs

Here's my only concern with that.

Lots of people (myself included) said that meanstoanend was a troll. Moderation decided to wait and see. What happened? he ultimately got deleted for trolling, after causing significant disruption to the community.

Lots of people (myself included) said that Hiddenrun was a troll. Moderation decided to wait and see. Conclusion? She got that account deleted for trolling, after causing significant disruption to the community.

Lots of people (myself included) said Deep Kimchi/Eve Online was a troll. Moderation decided to wait and see. Conclusion? Deleted for trolling, after causing significant disruption to the community.

Lots of people (myself included) said Parthenon was a troll. Moderation decided to wait and see. Conclusion? Deleted for trolling, after causing significant disruption to the community.

Lots of people (myself included) said YGO was a troll. Moderation decided to wait and see. Conclusion? Deleted for trolling, after causing significant disruption to the community.

Lots of people (myself included) said Spiritwolf was a troll. Moderation decided to wait and see. Conclusion? Deleted for trolling, after causing significant disruption to the community.

Lots of people (myself included) said New Mittani was a troll. Moderation decided to wait and see. Conclusion? Deleted for trolling, after causing significant disruption to the community.

Lots of people (myself included) said The Mongol Ikhanate was a troll. Moderation decided to wait and see. Conclusion? Deleted for trolling, after causing significant disruption to the community.

Lots of people (myself included) said Objective land was a troll. Moderation decided to wait and see. Conclusion? Deleted for trolling, after causing significant disruption to the community.

Lots of people (myself included) said Ausable River was a troll. Moderation decided to wait and see. Conclusion? Deleted for trolling, after causing significant disruption to the community.

Lots of people (myself included) said The-God-Realm was a troll. Moderation decided to wait and see. Conclusion? Deleted for trolling pending, after causing significant disruption to the community.

And this is off the top of my head. Literally a dozen examples. And what do they all have in common? In every one, every single one, one or more moderator ruled that these posters were NOT trolling, and merely posting controversial views. Every SINGLE time, a moderator has determined, that this person was not trolling. Every SINGLE time, in the end, deleted for trolling.

How much harm was caused by those above? How much animosity? How much distrust? How much bad blood? How many good people left in frustration? Every single one of them made this community worse. Every single "Mark Foley is a modern day Rosa Parks", every single "trannies are filth", every single "I hope Obama gets assassinated". Every single "I would gut my wife for having an abortion", every single one has caused this community harm.

And as someone who cares for this community, a great deal in fact, for all its flaws and foibles, as someone who has spent YEARS here, I don't want to see ANOTHER YGO. I don't want to see ANOTHER Parthenon. I don't want to see ANOTHER Deep Kimchi. I don't want to see another person whose SOLE goal is to harm this community get away with it, time and time and time again.

And when the very same people who said it before, and, despite not having mod tools, despite not having mod abilities, despite not having mod resources were right every single time are saying it now, maybe that means...something.

Maybe we've spent enough time here to know when someone is trying to fuck with us. And please don't get me wrong. I'm not saying you have to listen to me. I'm not saying you have to listen to any of us. I'm just saying, for those 12 times above...wouldn't it have been better if ya did?

Just something to think about, is all.

[Sentoria]

Sounds like the mods dont like controversial views. In a world awash with controversy, perhaps mods should come back to real life.

[The Tiger Kingdom]

Sounds like the mods dont like controversial views. In a world awash with controversy, perhaps mods should come back to real life.

Sounds like you didn't read the rules.

[Frisbeeteria]

I'm just saying, for those 12 times above...wouldn't it have been better if ya did?

The twelve cited instances are absolutely true in the long view. I wonder how many times we've had similar warnings for players who are still around, being active contributors? How do we pick which ones are going to be assholes from the ones who grow out of their "bored kid" mode and actually start to participate and contribute? Sure, we could ban everyone who posted unpopular opinions, but I'm not seeing that improving the community. Arguing with people who always agree with you is pretty dull sport. It's like having bullfighters dressed out in the ring, but banning bulls because they're dangerous.

I do disagree with "significant disruption to the community". None of the posters you've mentioned would have been in any way disruptive if NSG failed to respond to them. Trollbaiting is the national sport of NSG. Every once in a while, y'all get so carried away that we have to slap your wrists a little. You (collectively) know that you're breaking site rules, even if you consider site rules to be silly or misguided. I can't imagine why anyone is surprised when those rules are enforced.

"The community" has the ability, if not the strength, to simply not respond to trolls. I'm sure there are plenty of players who quietly sit back without responding and go on to other threads. We don't hear from them very often. They're the quiet 99%. Mostly we hear from people like the OP and a small group of discontented players about our many and various failures. I truly think that most of "the community" probably thinks we're doing a good job, or simply doesn't think about it at all.

Bottom line: we do have a tendency to bend over backwards regarding banning trolls, because Max has told us that he wants to keep the site lively. That means accommodating people with abhorrent or unpopular ideas from time to time. In almost every one of your 12 cited cases, the Hivemind was largely in agreement with the players about the likelihood of those players ever being actual contributors to the site. We could have banned them on day 1, but instead, we let them run through the same gamut of warnings, short term, and long term bans that we hand out to every other rulebreaker. We get slammed for being inconsistent in our rulings no matter how we rule, so I'd rather we go with "too lenient" than "too overbearing".

[The Sector Union]

Enough with the theories that I was making an epic flamebait to get people banned. You think I am smart enough to pull such a stunt?

Let me explain.

The reason I made the "Water on Mars" thread because I wanted to correct my past mistakes. I realize I was making threads about my own personal opinions at an extreme level and I was in doubt that they were supposed to be thread discussions, not blog posts. And I was wrong on that part.

So, about the people that were banned? One part of me tells me that they deserved it for carrying on the reactional toxic behavior from the other threads, one other part of me tells me that I was a bit too much and hope they get unbanned, but it's the moderator's choice, not mine.

I apologize for any flaming I may have did because I could not resist some of the backlash I received and got my share of warnings.

So let's clear the air here and hopefully we can all get happy.

[Furious Grandmothers]

I'm not exactly an involved party in this issue, so if this post is actually a spam in moderation, I will accept any warning/ban issued. I just sorta have a suggestion to make because issues like these are, as Neo Art pointed out well, very significant to the NS ecosystem and the culture developed (and continually developing) here, and will invariably happen time and again:

I was thinking that in the locking up of the previous thread, much, much more could have been done to stave off what consequently happened in this next thread in question. In that previous thread emotions were skyrocketing, people were even willing to openly break rules in trying to force their way, aggression was bounced off one another among posters and swelled up in a vicious cycle. That was definitely far from normal thread behavior. Yet, the ending post by NERV addressing the locking of the thread seemed as if the thread were treated just like an ordinary spam thread. It was disproportionately far too normal a response in reply to all the brimming tensions that inevitably overflowed into the subsequent thread that was regarded as a place for continuation of unfinished business, with there having been no resolution to the conflict, and justice seen as not doled out appropriately, if at all, by the mods.

I don't know how the sociology works, but it seems to me that these things are bound to happen if the comfortable illusion of justice always being served (which humans probably have a very strong inherent inclination for) at the end (of contentious threads, in this case) was not upheld. No warnings, official or otherwise, issued to naughty posters (I consider myself to have been one of the transgressors). This also contributed to why the shotgun-banning was seen as such a shock that came, literally, without warning, which is now one of the major factors for the reactionary "mod-hate" now, even if disregarding whether appropriate justice was perceived to have been served to TSU or not. Not even a chill-down issued; just a typical "this topic is done".

I know you Mods are hella busy and often overwhelmed, but in your daily running and handling of this crossroad of motley ideas and personalities, pushing the human limits of being meticulous and being somewhat mindful of the psychology of posters can go a long way for continuing to drive the success of this community that has become like a second life for many of us and has seen many amazing things happen. And one of the small, but key steps in this direction, could be a properly addressed locking post.