NATION

PASSWORD

The Suggestion Box

Who needs it, who got it, who hands it out and why.
User avatar
Reploid Productions
Forum Admin
 
Posts: 27768
Founded: Antiquity
Democratic Socialists

The Suggestion Box

Postby Reploid Productions » Sat Oct 26, 2013 9:10 pm

Due to the interest players have expressed in improving the site, and clarifying the rules, coupled with the difficulty of having a productive such discussion via existing approaches, we would like to offer the opportunity to do just that here.

Please state what point you are attempting to improve - if you have a link to current posted rules, or other information that would be helpful in making your case, please include them. State why it is you believe this improvement is important. And state how best you believe it could be implemented.

Check your vendettas and personal grudges at the door, please. Avoid inflammatory remarks, accusations, etc - this is an attempt to solve problems, not drag them out. Generalized insults and nastiness offer nothing of value to the discussion, and make it that much harder to get at the useful suggestions and feedback.

If you have a specific incident you wish to address or appeal, please post a new thread report in Moderation, or file a Getting Help Request gameside - this is not the place for reporting, or carrying on arguments.

Posts that do not suggest or address potential improvements, or are simply argumentative will be removed - either to Moderation where the incident can be addressed, or to the evidence locker so as not to clutter the discussion.

To start things off, a couple of examples that I've been mulling on to help set up the format (Problem, description, possible solutions):

-Are mods giving people too much leeway? (IE: Locking a "trollish OP" without warning the poster?) In the distant past, moderation was much harsher ("two strikes and you're DEAT!") due to far more limited tools available. With the ability to better tailor punishments to specific types of violations, have we opened an unacceptably wide leeway gap between first violation and deletion that is causing the 'teflon troll' phenomenon?
-Possible solutions?
  • Require and enforce a higher standard of expected behavior? Although this would in theory reduce the amount of petty sniping in debate, this could also drive a lot of people away and worsen the existing inability some people have to take criticism or deal with an opposing viewpoint.
  • Enforce a lower standard of expected behavior? Basically tell people to 'grow a thicker skin' more often, and let the truly petty insults slide entirely. While this would mean fewer warnings, it would also likely worsen the existing problems regarding the general debate atmosphere and create problematic situations where people rely on and really go to town with the petty insults because they can get away with it.
  • Make the penalties harsher to compensate for the widened gap between first offense and deletion/less 'pre-emptive' moderation? Instead of giving people chances with unofficial and official warnings, would elevating more rapidly to bans send a strong enough message to correct problem behaviors? Similarly, do less pre-emptive moderation (less stopping threads that are starting to go off the rails, shutting a trollish thread down before it actually goes into definite trolling territory, etc) in favor of letting it happen and then hitting the people involved with warnings/bans/deletion as necessary? On one hand, it creates more work for moderation, as pre-emptive actions also translate into fewer warnings that need to be handed out. On the other hand, it means less opportunity for tapdancing on the line, and probably means more consistent moderation. And a lot more warnings.
  • Grant much less leeway for time elapsed between warnings. Typically, if somebody went through a bad spell, wracked up a bunch of warnings and bans, but then kept their nose clean for a few months and then tripped up again, we've typically taken that gap into account and lessened the punishment accordingly. Should we give less credit for 'good behavior' when evaluating someone's record? On the downside, this would probably be detrimental to long-term players, because every now and then people slip up. On the upside, this would prevent the known abuse where someone will rack up a bunch of warnings and bans and then deliberately lay low for a few months; and it would also snag the "troll who pops up only occasionally" types who only show up to troll and then disappear entirely until they happen to remember that they have an account here.

-How do we resolve the issue of reporting bias? The forums, NSG especially, are very clearly left-leaning, and to such a point that a player of an opposing/unpopular viewpoint ends up put under a microscope and any little thing they do that might possibly be out of line gets reported by a cabal of liberal players; meanwhile, similar such behaviors by players with the more popular viewpoint frequently goes unreported. This also tends to falsely generate the impression that posters of a minority or unpopular viewpoint are protected and allowed to get away with more, if only because of the volume of reports that are deemed not actionable.
-Possible solutions?
  • Make it a standard part of procedure to skim through the entire thread (or in really long threads, at least the past several pages?) Contrary to popular knowledge, moderation procedure does not presently require going through the entire thread. It was a tactic employed rather heavily during the last US presidential election cycle to try and counteract this exact issue, and some mods still do it, but it is not standard or expected. On the plus side, it would counteract reporting bias, and possibly discourage some of the dogpile reporting if those who make such reports know they run the risk of having their own behavior similarly examined. On the down side, the lock 'n trawl technique is very time-intensive, which means further reduction in moderation response times and delays, and a whole hell of a lot more warnings that such endeavors tend to turn out.
  • Enforce a higher standard of behavior? If everybody is held to a higher standard, perhaps we could get people of the unpopular viewpoint who don't get dogpiled on. Similarly, it would reduce the habit some posters have of making nasty little remarks like "Can't you read?" or "If you'd read my post-" and such that are currently deemed not actionable most of the time. On the downside, this would likely result in a lot more work and a lot more people getting in trouble with moderation.
Forum mod since May 8, 2003 -- Game mod since May 19, 2003 -- Nation turned 18 on March 23, 2021!
Sunset's DoGA FAQ - For those using DoGA to make their NS military and such.
One Stop Rules Shop -- Reppy's Sig Workshop -- Getting Help Page
[violet] wrote:Maybe we could power our new search engine from the sexual tension between you two.
Char Aznable/Giant Meteor 2024! - Forcing humanity to move into space and progress whether we goddamn want to or not!

User avatar
Regnum Dominae
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 12345
Founded: Feb 13, 2013
Ex-Nation

Postby Regnum Dominae » Sat Oct 26, 2013 9:19 pm

This is a suggestion that was first brought up back in the first NSG Culture thread a few months ago: Whenever you delete a nation, give a significantly long forumban on top of the deletion. This is because a lot of people, especially non-RPers, really don't care about their nation that much as anything more than a screen name, and don't see being forced to return to the nation creation screen, as a huge deal. An associated forumban would make the effect of having your nation deleted, much more significant to the people who really don't care that much about their nation.

This post will likely be added to as I think of more things.
Last edited by Regnum Dominae on Sat Oct 26, 2013 9:20 pm, edited 2 times in total.
I support peace in Israel and Palestine. The governments and people in power on all sides are an absolute disgrace, and their unwillingness to pursue peace is a disservice to the people they are meant to be serving. The status quo is not simply untenable; it is unquestionably unacceptable.

User avatar
United Dependencies
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 13647
Founded: Oct 22, 2007
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby United Dependencies » Sat Oct 26, 2013 9:21 pm

from the other thread:
viewtopic.php?p=17131079#p17131079

I'll give my two cents:

Let's have a precedent of sorts. I would be fine if we had a sort of system where mods make rulings and we can compare it to earlier rulings we made. That way we don't have to edit and re-edit the rules to the umpteenth degree. Essentially we pick a set of example posts or behaviors and punishments resulting and use those to start getting an exact definition of what qualifies as a rule violation and what kind of punishment would be appropriate.

I also think we should allow people to rules lawyer. If someone can prove that the same or similar situations are being treated differently, then that speaks to inconsistency in enforcement of the rules.

Does this make sense?

in summation: I want rules lawyering and precedent.
Last edited by United Dependencies on Sat Oct 26, 2013 9:23 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Alien Space Bats wrote:2012: The Year We Lost Contact (with Reality).

Cannot think of a name wrote:
Obamacult wrote:Maybe there is an economically sound and rational reason why there are no longer high paying jobs for qualified accountants, assembly line workers, glass blowers, blacksmiths, tanners, etc.

Maybe dragons took their jobs. Maybe unicorns only hid their jobs because unicorns are dicks. Maybe 'jobs' is only an illusion created by a drug addled infant pachyderm. Fuck dude, if we're in 'maybe' land, don't hold back.

This is Nationstates we're here to help

Are you a native or resident of North Carolina?

User avatar
The Free Kingdom of Proprius
Chargé d'Affaires
 
Posts: 462
Founded: Aug 08, 2013
Ex-Nation

Postby The Free Kingdom of Proprius » Sat Oct 26, 2013 9:24 pm

Help players communicate effectively with moderation.

I'm seeing a lot of people on Moderation who take a good criticism and turn it into something that's banworthy because they're mad. Maybe make/write something in the stickies about how to deal with mods effectively? Are there any other ways you could help players and mods work together?

Example:

This post gets responded to and starts a good discussion
I would like to question [mod's] ruling in this case. I really feel like this was a great topic and a lot of people enjoyed discussing it.


This post gets the player in trouble. The points made in it are also ignored, even if they're worth considering.
Fuck [Mod], they're a piece of crap. How dare they ban my topic! I loved discussing it and so did other people. Suck a dick.

User avatar
United Dependencies
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 13647
Founded: Oct 22, 2007
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby United Dependencies » Sat Oct 26, 2013 9:25 pm

Regnum Dominae wrote:This is a suggestion that was first brought up back in the first NSG Culture thread a few months ago: Whenever you delete a nation, give a significantly long forumban on top of the deletion. This is because a lot of people, especially non-RPers, really don't care about their nation that much as anything more than a screen name, and don't see being forced to return to the nation creation screen, as a huge deal. An associated forumban would make the effect of having your nation deleted, much more significant to the people who really don't care that much about their nation.

This post will likely be added to as I think of more things.

I think nation deletion should carry a minimum 1 month ban.
Alien Space Bats wrote:2012: The Year We Lost Contact (with Reality).

Cannot think of a name wrote:
Obamacult wrote:Maybe there is an economically sound and rational reason why there are no longer high paying jobs for qualified accountants, assembly line workers, glass blowers, blacksmiths, tanners, etc.

Maybe dragons took their jobs. Maybe unicorns only hid their jobs because unicorns are dicks. Maybe 'jobs' is only an illusion created by a drug addled infant pachyderm. Fuck dude, if we're in 'maybe' land, don't hold back.

This is Nationstates we're here to help

Are you a native or resident of North Carolina?

User avatar
Hathradic States
Postmaster of the Fleet
 
Posts: 29895
Founded: Mar 26, 2010
Ex-Nation

Postby Hathradic States » Sat Oct 26, 2013 9:36 pm

A uniform code of justice. So that one crime has the same penalty, regardless of the mod's personal feelings on it.

Liberals: Honestly I was wrong bout em.
I swear I'm not as terrible as you remember.
Sadly Proven Right in 2016
Final text here.

User avatar
Caninope
Postmaster of the Fleet
 
Posts: 24618
Founded: Nov 26, 2008
Capitalizt

Postby Caninope » Sat Oct 26, 2013 9:36 pm

Suggestion 1: Get rid of rules lawyering.

I know you're typical response has been along the lines of "Getting rid of rules lawyering allow people to abuse the spirit of the decision !" and I say, "So what?"

If there has to be a rule saying that we can't use previous Moderation appeals to defend ourselves (even if we did abuse the spirit of the decision), maybe we should look into changing those rules/making the decisions more consistent. The only time that rules lawyering/insisting on precedent is bad is if the judges/rules makers are doing a bad job.
I'm the Pope
Secretly CIA interns stomping out negative views of the US
Türkçe öğreniyorum ama zorluk var.
Winner, Silver Medal for Debating
Co-Winner, Bronze Medal for Posting
Co-Winner, Zooke Goodwill Award

Agritum wrote:Arg, Caninope is Captain America under disguise. Everyone knows it.
Frisivisia wrote:
Me wrote:Just don't. It'll get you a whole lot further in life if you come to realize you're not the smartest guy in the room, even if you probably are.

Because Caninope may be in that room with you.
Nightkill the Emperor wrote:Thankfully, we have you and EM to guide us to wisdom and truth, holy one. :p
Norstal wrote:What I am saying of course is that we should clone Caninope.

User avatar
Ainin
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 13979
Founded: Mar 05, 2011
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Ainin » Sat Oct 26, 2013 9:41 pm

This is something I've thought about, but has little to do with NSG Culture, but it's still allowed, right? New Generalites tend to flame, flamebait or troll others without knowing it, because not everyone reads the OSRS, which is honestly quite long and confusing.

My suggestion is to put the most often violated rules (trolling, flaming, flamebaiting, etc.), along with contexts and examples of what is and isn't allowed, in a second post in the "First Stop to NSG" sticky.

Also, make NS "civil law", if you will. Don't allow people to use rulings as precedents, and introduce preset equal punishments across the board.
"And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned round on you — where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat?"

User avatar
Caninope
Postmaster of the Fleet
 
Posts: 24618
Founded: Nov 26, 2008
Capitalizt

Postby Caninope » Sat Oct 26, 2013 9:45 pm

Ainin wrote:Also, make NS "civil law", if you will. Don't allow people to use rulings as precedents, and introduce preset equal punishments across the board.

No.

There are two many insults to possibly list in the OSRS as flaming, and there should be some level of discretion based on past activity. With that said, there does need to be consistency, and the way to do that is by introducing precedent. Believe it or not, but precedent is not highly valued round these parts.
I'm the Pope
Secretly CIA interns stomping out negative views of the US
Türkçe öğreniyorum ama zorluk var.
Winner, Silver Medal for Debating
Co-Winner, Bronze Medal for Posting
Co-Winner, Zooke Goodwill Award

Agritum wrote:Arg, Caninope is Captain America under disguise. Everyone knows it.
Frisivisia wrote:
Me wrote:Just don't. It'll get you a whole lot further in life if you come to realize you're not the smartest guy in the room, even if you probably are.

Because Caninope may be in that room with you.
Nightkill the Emperor wrote:Thankfully, we have you and EM to guide us to wisdom and truth, holy one. :p
Norstal wrote:What I am saying of course is that we should clone Caninope.

User avatar
Souseiseki
Post Marshal
 
Posts: 19371
Founded: Apr 12, 2012
Psychotic Dictatorship

Postby Souseiseki » Sat Oct 26, 2013 9:50 pm

Fuck it I'm gonna outright copy your format.

-Do people actually actually know if/when they've been warned? In relation to a, how shall we say, recent issue, I tired to look up a persons warning history through the magic of searching "playername + warn" and "playername + ban" in General and Moderation, which has become my standard method of "finding out if I've been warned recently". I found there was a warning. To my utter lack of surprise, the player had no idea this warning ever happened. You can see where I'm going with this! Neither they nor I am the only person this happened to, and the last time I brought this up I was met with a rather dismissive reply about how maybe if players didn't break the rules (of course, completely meaningless in the face of the fact people will cross the line without knowing it and the fact we don't live in a utopia) or run away from threads (ignoring, well, at least 3-5 situations I don't want to inflate this post with) we wouldn't have this problem. I still maintain the system of putting out a little bit of red text and hoping the player 1) happens to wander upon it 2) finds it through desperately searching their own name to find out if they've been warned or checking the warning level in their User CP at reguar intervals and then desperately searching their own name in order to try and figure what is actually going on and has some large flaws when "people have no idea they've been warned" becomes something that I see happening on a regular basis. Of course, as far as I know, you can request a warning history, but that's fairly meaningless if you don't know you have one.
-Possible solutions?
  • Actually tell people when they get warned, possibly unofficially in addition to officially.
  • Use a method that they cannot miss, or at least, are significantly less likely to not notice

-"Moderator reprimands are seldom done in public. If a moderator makes a mistake, the corrections are typically done in private."
-Possible solutions?
  • Actually tell people the final outcome of appeals
  • Transparent moderation, ooooooooooooh~!
Last edited by Souseiseki on Sat Oct 26, 2013 9:52 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Dread Lady Nathicana
Retired Moderator
 
Posts: 26053
Founded: Antiquity
Ex-Nation

Postby Dread Lady Nathicana » Sat Oct 26, 2013 9:55 pm

Hathradic States wrote:A uniform code of justice. So that one crime has the same penalty, regardless of the mod's personal feelings on it.

Hath - we need an actual solution in your opinion. How would this be done? Which parts would be changed? It's easy enough to say 'make it so' but honestly, it isn't always 'the same crime' when situations can vary as much as they often do. Context is key and such. Going straight up that way seems a bit draconic and leaning towards zero tolerance in a less-than-useful way. Might as well state 'Don't be a dick' as the only rule and 'off with their accounts' as the punishment. It's what it all boils down to once it reaches maximum saturation point.

User avatar
Forsher
Post Marshal
 
Posts: 17979
Founded: Jan 30, 2012
Liberal Democratic Socialists

Postby Forsher » Sat Oct 26, 2013 10:00 pm

Um, I tried to post a reply and it gave me this message:
You cannot read posts in this forum.


This is annoying as I appear to have lost my comments.

On Rules Lawyering (context)

It is appropriate, when making a report, to include no more than three similar incidents. These may not actually affect the outcome of any decision due to contextual differences. It is inappropriate to use previously established rulings to attempt to skirt punishment for baiting.

If you feel moderation action was inappropriate an appeals process exists. An appeal is distinct from reporting new material (or old unreported material) relevant to the initial report, that may affect the ruling. Moderation will try to consider context, but is not perfect and may have missed something.


On Illegal Activity (context)

Discussion of illegal activities is permitted so long as the activities are not endorsed, encouraged, or facilitated during the coversation. Confession to a crime is not advisable.


This is an inferior post with the gist of my old one.
That it Could be What it Is, Is What it Is

Stop making shit up, though. Links, or it's a God-damn lie and you know it.

The normie life is heteronormie

We won't know until 2053 when it'll be really obvious what he should've done. [...] We have no option but to guess.

User avatar
Regnum Dominae
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 12345
Founded: Feb 13, 2013
Ex-Nation

Postby Regnum Dominae » Sat Oct 26, 2013 10:02 pm

Souseiseki wrote:-Possible solutions?
  • Actually tell people when they get warned, possibly unofficially in addition to officially.
  • Use a method that they cannot miss, or at least, are significantly less likely to not notice.

I'm going to make a suggestion for this: send a telegram from the Voice of Mod, informing the player that a warning has been made against them, with a link to the relevant post making the warning.

That would be pretty damn hard to miss.
I support peace in Israel and Palestine. The governments and people in power on all sides are an absolute disgrace, and their unwillingness to pursue peace is a disservice to the people they are meant to be serving. The status quo is not simply untenable; it is unquestionably unacceptable.

User avatar
Hathradic States
Postmaster of the Fleet
 
Posts: 29895
Founded: Mar 26, 2010
Ex-Nation

Postby Hathradic States » Sat Oct 26, 2013 10:04 pm

Dread Lady Nathicana wrote:
Hathradic States wrote:A uniform code of justice. So that one crime has the same penalty, regardless of the mod's personal feelings on it.

Hath - we need an actual solution in your opinion. How would this be done? Which parts would be changed? It's easy enough to say 'make it so' but honestly, it isn't always 'the same crime' when situations can vary as much as they often do. Context is key and such. Going straight up that way seems a bit draconic and leaning towards zero tolerance in a less-than-useful way. Might as well state 'Don't be a dick' as the only rule and 'off with their accounts' as the punishment. It's what it all boils down to once it reaches maximum saturation point.

Write it out is how I would do it. Treat this much like real life law in respect that a crime carries the same punishment, as well as avoiding two mods giving two different rulings on the same thing. I recall this happening to myself once over what I believe was a minor flame between me and I can't remember who. I got one mod who gave me a slap on the wrist, another who gave me three days to think about what I had said.

To be more specific, describe what constitutes each offense, and have a punishment to deal with it, as well as different punishments based on severity. For example "you are a dick" would not have the same penalty as "you are a nigger fag and deserve to die."

Liberals: Honestly I was wrong bout em.
I swear I'm not as terrible as you remember.
Sadly Proven Right in 2016
Final text here.

User avatar
Reploid Productions
Forum Admin
 
Posts: 27768
Founded: Antiquity
Democratic Socialists

Postby Reploid Productions » Sat Oct 26, 2013 10:07 pm

Regnum Dominae wrote:
This is a suggestion that was first brought up back in the first NSG Culture thread a few months ago: Whenever you delete a nation, give a significantly long forumban on top of the deletion. This is because a lot of people, especially non-RPers, really don't care about their nation that much as anything more than a screen name, and don't see being forced to return to the nation creation screen, as a huge deal. An associated forumban would make the effect of having your nation deleted, much more significant to the people who really don't care that much about their nation.

This post will likely be added to as I think of more things.

This is an idea I wouldn't mind, but there are issues in implementing it. Basically, there's no simple systematic way to automatically slap a ban on a deleted nation; we would have to keep an eye out (and rely on players helping spot likely suspects) and manually apply such a post-DEAT ban against new accounts that they make. It could work, but this could also lead to more people getting nuked for posting-past-ban.

United Dependencies wrote:
from the other thread:
viewtopic.php?p=17131079#p17131079

I'll give my two cents:

Let's have a precedent of sorts. I would be fine if we had a sort of system where mods make rulings and we can compare it to earlier rulings we made. That way we don't have to edit and re-edit the rules to the umpteenth degree. Essentially we pick a set of example posts or behaviors and punishments resulting and use those to start getting an exact definition of what qualifies as a rule violation and what kind of punishment would be appropriate.

I also think we should allow people to rules lawyer. If someone can prove that the same or similar situations are being treated differently, then that speaks to inconsistency in enforcement of the rules.

Does this make sense?

in summation: I want rules lawyering and precedent.

Yeah... we're not a legal site, nor a court of law. Rules-lawyering for the sake of nitpicking behavioral standards probably won't ever happen.

I DO like the idea of making a collection of samples taken from the forum however, like some sort of sidecar to the OSRS to give clearer examples of some of the more nebulous or esoteric bits of the guidelines. Less as precedent-establishment tools given individual histories and the like do factor in to actual decisions, but as something to make it easier for newcomers to sort out what is and isn't okay here. Been plenty of cases where we get some poor newbie fresh from 4chan for instance, who runs headlong into the notion that using "-fag" as a suffix might be acceptable elsewhere, but not here.
Souseiseki wrote:
Fuck it I'm gonna outright copy your format.

-Do people actually actually know if/when they've been warned? In relation to a, how shall we say, recent issue, I tired to look up a persons warning history through the magic of searching "playername + warn" and "playername + ban" in General and Moderation, which has become my standard method of "finding out if I've been warned recently". I found there was a warning. To my utter lack of surprise, the player had no idea this warning ever happened. You can see where I'm going with this! Neither they nor I am the only person this happened to, and the last time I brought this up I was met with a rather dismissive reply about how maybe if players didn't break the rules (of course, completely meaningless in the face of the fact people will cross the line without knowing it and the fact we don't live in a utopia) or run away from threads (ignoring, well, at least 3-5 situations I don't want to inflate this post with) we wouldn't have this problem. I still maintain the system of putting out a little bit of red text and hoping the player 1) happens to wander upon it 2) finds it through desperately searching their own name to find out if they've been warned or checking the warning level in their User CP at reguar intervals and then desperately searching their own name in order to try and figure what is actually going on and has some large flaws when "people have no idea they've been warned" becomes something that I see happening on a regular basis. Of course, as far as I know, you can request a warning history, but that's fairly meaningless if you don't know you have one.
-Possible solutions?
  • Actually tell people when they get warned, possibly unofficially in addition to officially.
  • Use a method that they cannot miss, or at least, are significantly less likely to not notice

I would love this. We need some way to set it up so people get a Voice of Mod TG or something notifying them that they got dinged. Problem right now is there's no automagical way to do this. You need a game moderator to actually send a Mod TG, and we don't want to force forum mods to rely on using their personal TGs for mod business.

Probably the ideal solution would be some modification to the forum that tells the game to send a mod TG to the person when their warning level goes up or they get a ban. Probably less likely given the forum and the game kinda don't play very nice together though. More viable alternative might be some sort of mod TG tool that all the mods can use to dispatch such notices. That way forum mods could make sure that people are aware when they get warned, without having to badger a game mod to send it, and it would help maintain the nice clean paper trail for admin oversight.

Think I'mma go bug [violet] or Ballo next time I seem 'em in the clubhouse.
Forum mod since May 8, 2003 -- Game mod since May 19, 2003 -- Nation turned 18 on March 23, 2021!
Sunset's DoGA FAQ - For those using DoGA to make their NS military and such.
One Stop Rules Shop -- Reppy's Sig Workshop -- Getting Help Page
[violet] wrote:Maybe we could power our new search engine from the sexual tension between you two.
Char Aznable/Giant Meteor 2024! - Forcing humanity to move into space and progress whether we goddamn want to or not!

User avatar
United Dependencies
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 13647
Founded: Oct 22, 2007
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby United Dependencies » Sat Oct 26, 2013 10:18 pm

Reploid Productions wrote:
United Dependencies wrote:
from the other thread:
viewtopic.php?p=17131079#p17131079

I'll give my two cents:

Let's have a precedent of sorts. I would be fine if we had a sort of system where mods make rulings and we can compare it to earlier rulings we made. That way we don't have to edit and re-edit the rules to the umpteenth degree. Essentially we pick a set of example posts or behaviors and punishments resulting and use those to start getting an exact definition of what qualifies as a rule violation and what kind of punishment would be appropriate.

I also think we should allow people to rules lawyer. If someone can prove that the same or similar situations are being treated differently, then that speaks to inconsistency in enforcement of the rules.

Does this make sense?

in summation: I want rules lawyering and precedent.

Yeah... we're not a legal site, nor a court of law. Rules-lawyering for the sake of nitpicking behavioral standards probably won't ever happen.

I DO like the idea of making a collection of samples taken from the forum however, like some sort of sidecar to the OSRS to give clearer examples of some of the more nebulous or esoteric bits of the guidelines. Less as precedent-establishment tools given individual histories and the like do factor in to actual decisions, but as something to make it easier for newcomers to sort out what is and isn't okay here. Been plenty of cases where we get some poor newbie fresh from 4chan for instance, who runs headlong into the notion that using "-fag" as a suffix might be acceptable elsewhere, but not here.

I would like to be able to discuss rules lawyering and precedent further. Is this the appropriate place?
Alien Space Bats wrote:2012: The Year We Lost Contact (with Reality).

Cannot think of a name wrote:
Obamacult wrote:Maybe there is an economically sound and rational reason why there are no longer high paying jobs for qualified accountants, assembly line workers, glass blowers, blacksmiths, tanners, etc.

Maybe dragons took their jobs. Maybe unicorns only hid their jobs because unicorns are dicks. Maybe 'jobs' is only an illusion created by a drug addled infant pachyderm. Fuck dude, if we're in 'maybe' land, don't hold back.

This is Nationstates we're here to help

Are you a native or resident of North Carolina?

User avatar
United Dependencies
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 13647
Founded: Oct 22, 2007
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby United Dependencies » Sat Oct 26, 2013 10:30 pm

Actually, while I'm thinking about it, I have another suggestion that I was thinking about a while ago and just remembered.

I don't care how silly it sounds: The moderation team should have a mission statement. I don't mean some silly quote or motto, the mods should have a legit and defined purpose that they will hopefully keep in mind as they make their rulings. Perhaps something about balancing freedom of posters vs. the needs of the community to not have a crappy environment (among other things).
Last edited by United Dependencies on Sat Oct 26, 2013 10:31 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Alien Space Bats wrote:2012: The Year We Lost Contact (with Reality).

Cannot think of a name wrote:
Obamacult wrote:Maybe there is an economically sound and rational reason why there are no longer high paying jobs for qualified accountants, assembly line workers, glass blowers, blacksmiths, tanners, etc.

Maybe dragons took their jobs. Maybe unicorns only hid their jobs because unicorns are dicks. Maybe 'jobs' is only an illusion created by a drug addled infant pachyderm. Fuck dude, if we're in 'maybe' land, don't hold back.

This is Nationstates we're here to help

Are you a native or resident of North Carolina?

User avatar
Baader-Meinhof Gruppe
Diplomat
 
Posts: 944
Founded: Oct 13, 2013
Ex-Nation

Postby Baader-Meinhof Gruppe » Sat Oct 26, 2013 11:09 pm

If you have been subject to action from the moderation you should receive a message stating why and linking to the post where the mod lists the warning or ban. For threads with lots of moderation it isn't hard for the moderators post to become buried and this makes it hard for the player to find as well as for other mods to find so if one mod has said the thread is good but their post becomes buried another mod might not see this and make a ruling counter to this.

To make things easier all moderation action should be PM'd as well as posted on the forum as well as logged in a moderator only sub-forum or something. As you do not want to force the mods to use personal TG's to do so it might be handy to make an official warning account or two and have a mod elevate it to moderator status and share it among the mods, but that creates the hassle of logging in and out of accounts or keeping multiple browsers open but it would do for a short term fix. Without having admin powers I understand the mods are very restricted and cannot make a fully automated system or even make the moderation appear under "View My Posts", both of which would be a lot easier for everyone involved.

Another suggestion would be to require more of an explanation from players when they report incidents, and warn those who seem to be making reports with flimsy evidence simply to try to back up their argument. Some players will instantly run to the mods if you refer to their beliefs as "dumb" or some minor offense such as that. This rarely, if ever, results in the mods actually punishing the poster being reports but those who do so consistently should be faced with at least a little slap on the wrist. The first two or three times I can understand, but when it's a constant thing it has to end. There also needs to be moderation on posts that contribute nothing to a thread, one poster whom we all know and love likes to reply with a single emoticon but this doesn't contribute to the discussion and needs to be stopped as it is no better than bumping a thread.
Last edited by Baader-Meinhof Gruppe on Sat Oct 26, 2013 11:21 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Snafturi
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1356
Founded: Sep 19, 2006
Ex-Nation

Postby Snafturi » Sun Oct 27, 2013 2:21 am

This is something I've wanted to mention for awhile.

I've been noticing a trend towards greater transparency lately, and I'd really like to see that continue. I do realize there's of course quite a lot that you guys can't disclose, and I'm not asking that boundaries that are set be overstepped. But I really do prefer an explanation, even if it's not something I agree with, to "you don't know what we know/things are happening/misc vagueness". It doesn't matter to me if I agree or disagree with the rationale/explanation/whathaveyou, just that it's given. Even if the answer is "We can't discuss this, and here's why."

I've been going back and forth about whether or not I should actually give concrete examples or not, but I decided against because I didn't want to see this thread get derailed and locked.
Last edited by Snafturi on Sun Oct 27, 2013 2:27 am, edited 2 times in total.
[color=#000080]
The four most overrated things in life are champagne, lobsters,... and picnics -Hitchen

User avatar
UNIverseVERSE
Minister
 
Posts: 3394
Founded: Jan 04, 2004
Liberal Democratic Socialists

Postby UNIverseVERSE » Sun Oct 27, 2013 2:38 am

A few thoughts:

On the subject of leeway. One possible way to adjust how time is taken into account is by only considering active time. A periodic troll who tries to duck below the parapet for a while to let some of the flak slide off is then unable to pull such a scheme, while a regular and consistent poster who makes the odd mistake is less penalised. However, this is relatively hard to quantify, although getting an impression of it is less tricky.

On rules lawyering. Several of the NS rules depend on intent, which will consequently make any attempt to apply them in an ironclad fashion very tricky. Furthermore, lots of offenses can be exacerbated or mitigated based on the interactions between posters - if a habit of sniping over something normally non actionable is already in place, it can be reasonable to issue warnings for flaming or baiting. Rules lawyering and fixed approaches to moderation forbid exactly the flexibility which can keep many things in check without turning into formal complaints and warnings.
Fnord.

User avatar
Bezombia
Postmaster of the Fleet
 
Posts: 29250
Founded: Apr 01, 2013
Ex-Nation

Postby Bezombia » Sun Oct 27, 2013 6:18 am

Reploid Productions wrote:I would love this. We need some way to set it up so people get a Voice of Mod TG or something notifying them that they got dinged. Problem right now is there's no automagical way to do this. You need a game moderator to actually send a Mod TG, and we don't want to force forum mods to rely on using their personal TGs for mod business.


I just want to point out that I've twice gotten warnings in threads that I'd since left (removed bookmark), and gotten a TG from a moderator saying that I was warned. Good thing too, because I would almost definitely never know otherwise.
A Mod TG system would be just wonderful.


Now, for the real show:

To start off with "things in the rules that you have a problem with". Oh, I have plenty.
But before I even start with that, I'd like to make another point. Players should not, ever, be warned or banned for things that aren't in the rules. Ever. Now that I've said that, let's move on.

Euroslavia wrote:3) No rules lawyering. The intent of a post (while sometimes hard to judge), is a very important factor when determining whether or not it is actionable. The Moderation team does its best to interpret it. Agreeing or disagreeing with a moderation decision at whatever length you wish is perfectly within the rules, so long as it is done tactfully and civilly. Please see the Appeals Process (listed below) for further information.That said, moderator decisions are not to be taken in bad faith. For instance, if something is ruled to be acceptable, don't turn around and use that ruling to bait another player (e.g. "In this case, I don't think Player 2 intended to be malicious when he described Player 1 as a 'maladjusted rapscallion.'" "Okay. Hey, Player 2! You're a maladjusted rapscallion! Moderator 3 said it's okay to call people that!"). This will never end well for you and it's best to simply leave things be; if you are doing so in an attempt to demonstrate that a moderator decision is wrong, simply file an appeal.


I can absolutely see the need for this rule and I have no problems with it in its current form.
What I do have a problem with is when this rule is referenced when moderators are trying to shut up players asking for an appeal. I can specifically remember a thread where a player brought up prior rulings that contradicted with a current mod's ruling during an appeal...and was unofficially warned for rules lawering. See my note above. There is absolutely nothing in the OSRS that says you can't appeal a ruling - in fact, it's in there that you can. Further there's absolutely nothing in this rule that says you can't use prior rulings to make your case for the appeal - in fact, it'd be very problematic if it did. So...why are mods treating it as if it is? For a while I actually had myself convinced that it did say that, and I began to become afraid to contest mod actions in fear of being slapped with a warning or ban for this...even though there's nothing in the rule about it.

Euroslavia wrote:Offensive Material: As mentioned previously, we use the US movie rating "PG-13" standard. Mild swearing may be tolerated, mild sexuality may be hinted, but explicit or excessive versions of either or both will be handled accordingly.


This rule really needs to be rewritten. Now it should generally be common sense what "offensive material" entails, but the notes about "explicit or excessive versions of swearing" strike me as rather odd. If I remember correctly, there was (supposed to be) nothing wrong with swearing unless it's coupled with (or used as) a further infraction...if that's true, this rule needs to be rewritten, and if it isn't then not having a language filter makes no sense at all.

Euroslavia wrote:Flamebaiting: Posts that are made with the aim of angering someone indirectly. Not outright flame, but still liable to bring angry replies. Flame baiting is a far more subtle and covert action; it is an underhanded tactic that is designed to provoke a response from another player. It's in the same context of trolling but with flamebaiting it's just the one person.


This is a broken rule.
As previous moderator rulings have shown, trolling isn't actionable unless someone on the site is getting trolled. I remember using the example "I wish every president of the US that ever lived gets a face filled with shit"...apparently that wouldn't be actionable because the chances of there being a president of the united states on this website is rather slim.
So...why doesn't this apply to flamebaiting as well? Surely it shouldn't be actionable if they didn't take the bait? No, as long as no one's flamed because of it, flamebaiting should be perfectly legal.

Do you see the problem here?
This is what we mean when we say consistency. Trolling is trolling and flamebaiting is flamebaiting, whether or not someone took the bait for either. At least is should be.


Oh yeah, another note: constantly gloating that someone has you on ignore should absolutely be actionable for flamebaiting. I've had problems with this.

Euroslavia wrote:Gravedigging: Posting a reply on a long unused thread. Adding legitimate new material is permitted, but the acceptable age varies from forum to forum. Check the stickies in each forum to determine the standard for what constitutes gravedigging.


This rule would be great -- if there were stickies in each forum that determined what constitutes gravedigging, which there most certainly aren't.
For the forum where it really matters the greatest, NSG, there isn't a sticky about "NSG specific rules" at all. Same thing with F7 and A&F. I don't think the gravedig rule applies to the other forums, but at least for F7, NSAF, and NSG the rule needs clarification...because as it stands there's no way of finding out what is a gravedig short of asking a moderator, and I've seen very conflicting reports for this.

Euroslavia wrote:Homework: Requests for assistance with homework in any forum are forbidden.


I'd like this rule to be taken a bit more literally. For example, "Last month my class had this assignment, it would make a good discussion, have at it" shouldn't be locked for homework.

Euroslavia wrote:IP addresses: IP swapping among admins of offsite boards is outside our jurisdiction, and as such, we can take no action. IP swapping in public on our boards is not permitted.


Exactly what does this mean? If I remember correctly my IP address will sometimes change every month, sometimes not. Will I be permabanned for this? This rule really needs major clarification on what it actually is permitting. Also, I'd cut out the crap about offsite forums, everyone knows that mods have no power there.

Modedit: change completed

Euroslavia wrote:Posting Past a Forumban/Lock: If a nation is forumbanned, that nation's player is not permitted to post on the forums with other puppet nations until the forumban expires. Doing so will result in the deletion of both the puppet and the originally forumbanned nation. Questions or appeals regarding a forumban should be submitted via the Getting Help Page. Similarly, do not repost a locked thread unless given permission by a moderator.


I ran into trouble with this rule a while back, when I was DEAT'd. You see, when you're DEAT'd but your new nation doesn't technically have the forumban...you have absolutely no way of knowing when your ban is up. To this day I'm still unsure on whether or not I started posting an hour early, due to time zone differences. We need a system that tells you how long your ban is across your entire usermap, not just one nation. If a usermap system isn't in place yet, it should be.

Euroslavia";p=16394954 wrote:*Signature Spam: Maximum size should never exceed eight lines, including blank lines and a quote box is four lines; signatures should not use more than two of these. Signatures exceeding eight lines will be reduced using spoiler tags. Large font sizes should be avoided and may be trimmed without warning. See Advertisements and Forbidden Links above.


There is a problem here.
I'll never forget when I received a telegram from a mod saying something like "We've trimmed your sig again, this is the second time" and I'm like wait WHAT? I was not notified of the first time.
"Trimmed without warning" is just asking for people to do it again. I'm not asking for a "two strikes your out" thing that's just silly. I'm saying that if you trim a sig, TELL THEM, or they won't notice.

Euroslavia wrote:Trolling/Baiting/Gloating: Trolling is defined as posts that are made with the aim of angering people. (like 'ALL JEWS ARE [insert vile comment here]' for example). Someone disagreeing with you does not equate to trolling. Intent is incredibly important and will be judged by the moderators to the best of their abilities. Disagreements are expected and conducting yourself in a civil manner is ideal. Trollbaiting is the action of making posts that attract trolls. A prime example of trollbaiting would be gloating over the results of an election.


I covered this above.
Although the trollbaiting rule needs to be removed entirely. You should never be held responsible for other people's actions (although I've seen people get redtext warnings because of an unrelated party's post), and this is no exception. I cannot possibly see a situation in which someone intentionally trollbaits. Flamebaitbaiting? I've seen it happen countless times. Trollbaiting? Not once.
"Gloating over the results of an election" should fall into the gloating rule, no need for a redundancy.

Euroslavia wrote:Another form of the offense, IGNORE gloating, is typically seen in the roleplay forums, though it can appear elsewhere. Politely informing another nation that you are henceforth using the "ignore" feature is acceptable, but repeating it in different threads or over long periods is considered gloating and will be dealt with appropriately.


This is not enforced.
Last edited by Frisbeeteria on Sun Oct 27, 2013 8:18 am, edited 2 times in total.
Reason: Removing the material that should have been posted as a report elsewhere - read the OP.
Our weary eyes still stray to the horizon...but down this road we've been so many times...
Please, call me Benomia. Post count +14623, founded Oct. 23, 2012.
Sauritican wrote:We've all been spending too much time with Ben
Verdum wrote:Hey girl, is your name Karl Marx? Because your starting an uprising in my lower classes.
Black Hand wrote:New plan is to just make thousands of disposable firearms and dump them out of cargo planes with tiny drag chutes attached.
Spreewerke wrote:The metric system is the only measurement system that truly meters.
Spreewerke wrote:Salt the women, rape the earth.
Equestican wrote:Ben is love, Ben is life.
Sediczja wrote:real eyes realize real lies
I'm a poet. Come read my poems!

User avatar
Esternial
P2TM RP Mentor
 
Posts: 52808
Founded: May 09, 2009
Democratic Socialists

Postby Esternial » Sun Oct 27, 2013 6:24 am

Hathradic States wrote:
Dread Lady Nathicana wrote:Hath - we need an actual solution in your opinion. How would this be done? Which parts would be changed? It's easy enough to say 'make it so' but honestly, it isn't always 'the same crime' when situations can vary as much as they often do. Context is key and such. Going straight up that way seems a bit draconic and leaning towards zero tolerance in a less-than-useful way. Might as well state 'Don't be a dick' as the only rule and 'off with their accounts' as the punishment. It's what it all boils down to once it reaches maximum saturation point.

Write it out is how I would do it. Treat this much like real life law in respect that a crime carries the same punishment, as well as avoiding two mods giving two different rulings on the same thing. I recall this happening to myself once over what I believe was a minor flame between me and I can't remember who. I got one mod who gave me a slap on the wrist, another who gave me three days to think about what I had said.

To be more specific, describe what constitutes each offense, and have a punishment to deal with it, as well as different punishments based on severity. For example "you are a dick" would not have the same penalty as "you are a nigger fag and deserve to die."

Real-life law?

Like with court and lawyers?

In real life the same crime doesn't necessarily carry the same punishment. Context is essential, and may get you off scot-free for shooting (or in this case, perhaps, flaming) a man.

Maybe Mods should try to enforce the rules similar to the way you suggest, but players should have the opportunity to present evidence and context that might impact the ruling.
Last edited by Esternial on Sun Oct 27, 2013 6:31 am, edited 2 times in total.

User avatar
Nanatsu no Tsuki
Post Overlord
 
Posts: 198821
Founded: Feb 10, 2008
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Nanatsu no Tsuki » Sun Oct 27, 2013 7:46 am

As I said in the other thread, my main problem with Moderation is lack of consistency regarding some rulings.

For example, warning someone for flaming. If calling someone 'a bitch' is a warnable offense, things like ''why do you act like a bitch'' should also be warnable offenses. I understand there's such a thing as a case by case basis ruling, but there are insults that are pretty much evident.

I'm not trying to harp on DLN but since one of the latest examples is of something she posted, I'll remit to it. Saying that someone should stop acting like 'a pompous ass' is, clearly cut, flaming. I will also recall Melkon Unchained's reaction to a similar instance involving Neo Art reporting Unhealthy Truthseekers for flaming him.
Code name: Ratatouille Strychnine
Also: THERNSY!!
Your story isn't over;֍Help save transgender people's lives֍Help for feral cats
Cat with internet access||Supposedly heartless, & a d*ck.||Is maith an t-earra an tsíocháin.||No TGs
RIP: Dyakovo & Ashmoria

User avatar
Forsher
Post Marshal
 
Posts: 17979
Founded: Jan 30, 2012
Liberal Democratic Socialists

Postby Forsher » Sun Oct 27, 2013 7:49 am

Reploid Productions wrote:Are mods giving people too much leeway?
How do we resolve the issue of reporting bias?


I think that both are solved by the same solution... going through threads that get locked. There are threads like this, which, I personally feel, contained material that wasn't reported that should have been acted on. Nothing happened except for the lock (thread was reported for thread-jacking).

Obviously, with the long threads random sampling of pages plus a read through of the last three or so is going to be more achievable than full trawls. More mods would help with this, because often mods say they don't have time to look at everything theyfeel they need to.

Nanatsu no Tsuki wrote:As I said in the other thread, my main problem with Moderation is lack of consistency regarding some rulings.

For example, warning someone for flaming. If calling someone 'a bitch' is a warnable offense, things like ''why do you act like a bitch'' should also be warnable offenses. I understand there's such a thing as a case by case basis ruling, but there are insults that are pretty much evident.

I'm not trying to harp on DLN but since one of the latest examples is of something she posted, I'll remit to it. Saying that someone should stop acting like 'a pompous ass' is, clearly cut, flaming. I will also recall Melkon Unchained's reaction to a similar instance involving Neo Art reporting Unhealthy Truthseekers for flaming him.


We have a flamebaiting rule, we should use it. Stop acting like X, doesn't actually call a person X but it certainly suggests it... that's got to be flamebaiting.
Last edited by Forsher on Sun Oct 27, 2013 7:49 am, edited 1 time in total.
That it Could be What it Is, Is What it Is

Stop making shit up, though. Links, or it's a God-damn lie and you know it.

The normie life is heteronormie

We won't know until 2053 when it'll be really obvious what he should've done. [...] We have no option but to guess.

User avatar
Nanatsu no Tsuki
Post Overlord
 
Posts: 198821
Founded: Feb 10, 2008
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Nanatsu no Tsuki » Sun Oct 27, 2013 7:51 am

Forsher wrote:
Reploid Productions wrote:Are mods giving people too much leeway?
How do we resolve the issue of reporting bias?


I think that both are solved by the same solution... going through threads that get locked. There are threads like this, which, I personally feel, contained material that wasn't reported that should have been acted on. Nothing happened except for the lock (thread was reported for thread-jacking).

Obviously, with the long threads random sampling of pages plus a read through of the last three or so is going to be more achievable than full trawls. More mods would help with this, because often mods say they don't have time to look at everything theyfeel they need to.

Nanatsu no Tsuki wrote:As I said in the other thread, my main problem with Moderation is lack of consistency regarding some rulings.

For example, warning someone for flaming. If calling someone 'a bitch' is a warnable offense, things like ''why do you act like a bitch'' should also be warnable offenses. I understand there's such a thing as a case by case basis ruling, but there are insults that are pretty much evident.

I'm not trying to harp on DLN but since one of the latest examples is of something she posted, I'll remit to it. Saying that someone should stop acting like 'a pompous ass' is, clearly cut, flaming. I will also recall Melkon Unchained's reaction to a similar instance involving Neo Art reporting Unhealthy Truthseekers for flaming him.


We have a flamebaiting rule, we should use it. Stop acting like X, doesn't actually call a person X but it certainly suggests it... that's got to be flamebaiting.


The thing is, you see, that it isn't used or applied in some cases. Hence the issue many posters have and have expressed, again, with lack of consistency in Moderation.
Code name: Ratatouille Strychnine
Also: THERNSY!!
Your story isn't over;֍Help save transgender people's lives֍Help for feral cats
Cat with internet access||Supposedly heartless, & a d*ck.||Is maith an t-earra an tsíocháin.||No TGs
RIP: Dyakovo & Ashmoria

Next

Advertisement

Remove ads

Return to Moderation

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: OwOlanda

Advertisement

Remove ads