Bears Armed wrote:It looks to me as though pretty well all of these complaints are coming from within "the NSG community", rather than from players whose activity within NS is more focussed (in one way or another) on their actual nations.
Because NSG doesn't really have anything to do with the players' actual nations it's arguably less "essential" to NS than any of the other sub-forums except perhaps F7,
So, maybe the best way to resolve this situation for the benefit of NS as a whole wouldn't be to scrap & replace all of the current Mods, it would be to abolish NSG (and F7) -- thus leaving the Mods with a lot more time (and hopefully a better mood, too) for dealing with the rest of the forums -- instead?
While I am inclined to agree that the problem is NSG, not the mods and that the NSG culture is currently way out of line, I still believe that NSG should exist. I'd prefer if the moderators reformed NSG to bring about a more welcoming atmosphere. Since NSG is supposed to be a debate forum, why aren't one-line non-response responses to a lengthy argument (such as "Wrong," with no explanation) considered to be spam, even when they come from NSG regulars? I also think that snark-only replies and "gimmick posting" should be considered spam. Regarding the flaming rule, I'm aware that there is a difference in the way the mods treat "you are a misogynist" as compared to "your argument is misogynistic" even though, from my point of view at least, they are different ways of saying the same thing and therefore both flaming. Calling somebody's argument a name (misogynistic, racist, homophobic, leftist, right-wing, misandric, reverse-racist, heterophobic, moronic, idiotic, stupid, crazy etc.) without even attempting to refute the argument does not come across to me as productive debate. Calling somebody a troll to shut down debate is, rightly, against the rules (and, it seems, along with rules-lawyering, the most controversial rule among the vocal portion of NSG that always complains about the mods) and I think the troll-naming rule should be expanded.
I think the current NSG culture probably drives newcomers who would have been productive contributors to leave NS. In some cases, newcomers see veterans "flaming" them and getting away with it, "spamming" and getting away with it and even "trolling" (gimmick posting) and getting away with it. Although the behavior I'm referring to, which was commonplace in NSG several months ago, is not considered to be against the rules, I think it is easy to see how it could be considered to be a violation of the rules and, I hope, it is easy to follow my reasoning as to why I believe it should be a violation of the rules. Therefore, they get the idea that the mods wouldn't care if they retaliated in kind and they do so, in a way that justifiably brings about mod action. I think coming down hard on borderline behavior, especially such behavior by long-time posters, would have the effect of discouraging not just borderline behavior, but also the more serious violations and would make NSG more welcoming to newcomers, especially newcomers that hold "unpopular" (in NSG) opinions. My point of view can be summarized as follows: If NSG is supposed to be about debate, then behavior that is not conducive to debate should be against the rules in NSG, with reasonable leeway for newcomers of course. If people who disagree in other areas of NS can have a productive conversation instead of descending into "petty sniping" or worse, then I think NSG should be held to the same standard. If there are NSGers who are incapable of debating civilly with somebody with whom they disagree, then I think it would be better if they not participate in a political debate forum. If somebody can not participate in a civil debate with people who hold an opposing point of view on a particular subject, they shouldn't be debating that subject on a political debate forum where they are likely to encounter opposing views.
Judging by this thread and similar past threads, it seems like there are very few complaints with the state of moderation that aren't related to NSG, so I think it would be ill-advised to dramatically change the rest of NS just because one part of NS, which appears to be the majority of the forum-side workload for the mods, has problems with the mods. The only complaint I've seen in this thread unrelated to NSG has to do with transparency and I think it would be reasonable, whenever possible, for the mods to provide explanations for rulings, even if it is by TG to an party with good cause to be interested and under the condition that this information not be shared publicly.
Bears Armed wrote:The UK in Exile wrote:Appoint more moderators. Especially from the people who are complaining eloquently in this thread.
In other words,
"We're going to keep on shouting until you put some of us in power"? I don't know how
other people respond to that approach, but it certainly doesn't incline
me to feel that you should be trusted with authority.
That's the same way this stuff reads to me. If somebody is constantly lobbying to be a mod and calling the existing mods incompetent, I'd prefer that they not be made moderators. As a long-time moderation lurker, I think the mods made a mistake when they appeared to give into pressure from this group a few months ago by DEATing a long-time poster's main nation after some had gone to great lengths to try to get that result. While the decision was understandable, taken out of the context of the situation (and based on a separate, unrelated, report), it seems to have emboldened some into thinking that they can get their way (and remove users they dislike) if they constantly complain about the "failure" of the mods to delete those users. I think this may have encouraged the reaction to the controversial (Cameroi) ruling a few weeks ago, which was followed by requests for explanation. After the mods repeatedly explained the ruling, their explanations were ignored and were followed up with continued demands for an explanation, just because the explanation wasn't "some mod made a mistake, Cameroi is now DOS and that mod is no longer a mod," which is probably the only "explanation" that would be acceptable to the complainers. I don't think it is reasonable, in the slightest, to keep complaining about a moderation decision and bashing the mods after they have repeatedly explained their reasoning and apparently the mods, admins and Max Berry have come to a consensus on the matter. At some point, you just have to accept that a decision has been made through the appropriate process and stop trying to re-litigate it just because you aren't getting your way. If a group of users repeatedly complain about a moderation decision even after being given repeatedly explanations and demand a review even after it has been repeatedly reviewed, shouldn't that qualify as "spamming moderation" and be treated accordingly? I especially don't think it would be a good idea to give into this sort of behavior or even appear to do so, since that would only encourage more of it in the future.
As for the question in the OP about reporting bias, I think it would be a good idea to check and see if the poster was provoked into breaking the rules and, if so, also reprimand the person who did the provoking. One thing that could help counteract reporting bias would be if the mods were to get into the habit of occasionally skimming general threads for rulebreaking (or just searching the thread for keywords that have a high correlation with rulebreaking) and handing out reprimands for un-reported rulebreaking. If there is the belief that the mods may be reading your post, even if it goes unreported, you'll probably be more inclined to follow the rules. After an initial period of relatively heavy activity of this sort, the mods could probably do this sort of thing less frequently and still get the same effect. If one believes that they are being monitored and understands that they are not "above the rules," they will be less likely to violate the rules.
Although I am basically calling for the mods to enforce a higher standard on NSG, I don't think it would be desirable for mods to just go into NSG and start handing out red-text when less drastic measures would get the desired result. It would be desirable, if possible to replace the current NSG culture with a culture that encourages productive, civil, debate. A more positive culture probably reduce the need for mod action in the long term. Therefore, I think it would be desirable to try to change the culture on NSG, even though it will be very difficult to take posters that come from an extremely polarized and nasty political environment (as the political environment is in today's US and also, judging by what I've heard, the UK and Australia) and encourage them to debate civilly with one another. All too often, people forget that somebody they disagree with is probably just as intelligent as they are and just as confident that they are right. Since this is a problem in society at large, its going to be a problem any political debate forum will have to address if it wishes to remain a political debate forum, not an "everybody agrees with everybody" forum or a name-calling forum.