NationStates

Something I really dislike in the argument certain posters are trying to initiate on this thread is the idea that there is an absolute battleline between all posters and all mods. "Solutions" like "remove the entire moderation staff" aren't solutions in the least for many reasons (how would you replace them? Who with? etc etc).

It's just as unhelpful to be turning it into a war. I obviously can't speak for everyone, but speaking for myself I have some concerns about moderation. There are some things I would like to see addressed and adjusted to give us better forums moving forwards. But I don't have no faith in moderation, I'm of the belief that there are problems, but not inherent flaws. Things can be fixed and repaired, and sheer invective isn't either of those, no matter how cathartic venting might be.

To put my money where my mouth is, a couple of hopefully productive thoughts on things that might help:

Specialist Moderation: There are subjects where the experience of most of the current moderation team isn't necessarily the best guide. One obvious relatively recent past example was the mess regarding mispronouning transgendered people, but there are going to be analagous cases in other specialist areas. These seem to be mostly characterised by being an area where there's general cultural bias or oppression, which makes certain forms of language or attack much more severe than they appear on the surface.

Appointing more mods would be one way to try and address this, but a possibly more practical option is to adjust moderation policy: when dealing with a specialist area such as trans issues, consult with people who do have the context and expertise to give an accurate assessment, and take that into account when judging complaints. Once that information is gained, write it up, stick it somewhere, and apply it in future.

(I'm aware there's been a fair bit of work on trans stuff specifically, this is using that as an example, not trying to identify a current problem there)

Transparency: There is a problem with visible correction and appeals. When a poster makes an appeal and it's handled behind the scenes, it doesn't provide us with the information we need to know the right action has been taken. This is particularly relevant when mods are disiplined behind the scenes, but a request for clarification about consistency or some other comparison with another previous ruling should get a public answer, even if the thread remains closed. Not every decision has to be debated, far from it - but we do need the information about why a decision has been made, particularly when said decision seems unusual in comparison to other ones.

The main problem with this is it involves more posting and gruntwork taking up volunteer moderator time. On the other hand, it might well be that time spent preventatively here saves a lot more in arguments later.

Consistency: Here I'm going to disagree with some of the other posters on this thread. One of the best things about the NS rules is that they'll recognise the context that makes borderline rulebreaking okay or not okay. There's a big difference between sniping at someone in an already heated thread and discussion on the one end, or mildly ribbing a friend on the other, and while the language used might be the same in both cases, they aren't issues for moderation in the same way.

But, when an inconsistency is pointed out, the reason for this difference should be something that can be given as justification. "X isn't an insult normally, but in this case it's exacerbating the sniping and tension in this thread, and we want to keep a lid on that" or whatever. This links into the previous point somewhat.

These aren't all the most thought-out points - I'm writing in a hurry and while busy. But I'm hopeful they're somewhat productive as suggestions, and critique or further thoughts are welcomed.

I assume that arguing for essentially the status quo is okay...

I don't think that the moderation team is perfect, but can we expect them to be? Firstly, they're volunteers, so they have no required standards, other than that which the site owner imposes upon them. Secondly, they're humans, and they're just as human as the rest of the posters here, including myself. Therefore, they're going to make mistakes, they're going to make missteps, and they're going to disappoint people.

And while they make mistakes, it seems to me that the culture on these forums, or at least NSG, since that's where so many of these problems are, of permitting rule breaking and violations begins with hostile, argumentative and snippy posters who aren't kind or respectful of their fellow participants. Am I saying that it's always wrong to be blunt in critiquing an opponent's argument? No. But when a thread consists mostly of one-line snide remarks about how Republicans/Democrats hate women, blacks, or gays, or how religion/atheism is delusional, stupid, and pointless, how can there be an expectation of a forum culture conducive to peaceful, amicable discussion? The moderators could prohibit unneeded digs and attacks (or at least enforce them more), and I'd support that, but then I suspect the criticism would be that they're being too heavy handed and harsh.

But without trying to root out an NSG culture that has always been primarily hostile and snarky in my experiences, the forum culture that so many here purport to want cannot be accomplished. The goal must begin with us as posters. We must treat our fellow participants as worthy of respect, put aside pointless insults and digs, and attempt to have productive discussions.

I also think that it is important to remember that this is a GAME. Not only that, but NationStates is a nation simulation game, not primarily a forum for discussion of real-life issues. I'm guilty of this, too, but players must stop thinking that their preferred area of NS is the best and therefore should be allowed to dictate rules to the rest of the game. I would venture to guess that the vast majority of posters have no problem with moderation, and that the issues are mainly concentrated in NSG. That's not to say that they're not valid, but I think it needs to be noted that NSG is just another community in the great game that is NS.

I would encourage the mods to consider ideas put forward in this thread, but also to seek out a wider point of view before making major changes. I think we as posters should also be appreciative of the opportunity to give our perspectives and not abuse it, such as by violating the rules set forth in the OP... (In an RP thread, the OP can dictate rules, why not in Moderation?)

Any change should start with the players. The moderators do more than an adequate job, there are more than adequate avenues for appeal, and while I think that some minor rules could be tweaked,such as third party appeals being made legal, and the stronger enforcement of rules against petty insults and jabs, I don't think that the majority of the posters here think the moderators are some sort of secret cabal imposing tyranny on this GAME.

Tsaraine wrote:If the framework for administrating the rules is not working, tell us what to do to fix it.

Here's how you fix it: resign. Every last one of you. Make moderation, game admins, forum admins, and the ruleset, everything, something that is chosen by the community at large, via procedures agreed to by the community at large, and answerable to the community at large. Moderators and admins who are not performing to the community's satisfaction get replaced.

If Max won't go along with it, we can make him an offer to offset a portion of his costs in exchange for this. If he still won't, it's time to leave. That's only a last resort, of course, because so many of us have so much invested here (in my case, I've been around for over ten years now--literally my entire adult life), and it'd be hard to rebuild what we have in a different place.

There are a couple of you who are eminently competent. I have no doubt that you would be heavily supported if you were interested in continuing to serve after this reform (and I, for one, would be greatly disappointed if you didn't). The rest of you, I get that maybe it's not your fault--whether it's just your personality, lack of interest, too much else to do, or what--you're just not cutting it. It sucks, but it is what it is. It might not be a blind man's fault he's blind, and he might really love the kids, but he still doesn't need to be driving the school bus.

I think when we report people to mods, a specific mod talks to us in TG form. That way we can communicate and the best decision is made.

To clarify my (Marquire's) earlier post (as some have messaged me elsewhere about it):
I am not saying we get rid of forum posts, or any game-side stats. But I do believe the best option at this point is to seek an entire system reform, including drastic changes to the moderation staff (far more than just adding two, or any amount of new mods) and rewriting of the rules system - especially the current attitude towards "rules lawyering." I'd also advocate making the appeals process far more open. If a ruling is good, it should be able to sit in public view and not falter. But again, it might be easier to simply rewrite the entire policy than trying to make small revisions.

Edlichbury wrote:I'd also advocate making the appeals process far more open.

This was suggested a couple of years ago, in a very in-depth discussion. I'm afraid that all that came out of it was some severe disingenuousness from Katganistan in an attempt to defend the status quo, that plenty of people called her out on.

Here's the thread. It's very long, but also very eye-opening--worth a full read if you have the time.

Franklin Delano Bluth wrote:

Tsaraine wrote:If the framework for administrating the rules is not working, tell us what to do to fix it.

Here's how you fix it: resign. Every last one of you. Make moderation, game admins, forum admins, and the ruleset, everything, something that is chosen by the community at large, via procedures agreed to by the community at large, and answerable to the community at large. Moderators and admins who are not performing to the community's satisfaction get replaced.

If Max won't go along with it, we can make him an offer to offset a portion of his costs in exchange for this. If he still won't, it's time to leave. That's only a last resort, of course, because so many of us have so much invested here (in my case, I've been around for over ten years now--literally my entire adult life), and it'd be hard to rebuild what we have in a different place.

There are a couple of you who are eminently competent. I have no doubt that you would be heavily supported if you were interested in continuing to serve after this reform (and I, for one, would be greatly disappointed if you didn't). The rest of you, I get that maybe it's not your fault--whether it's just your personality, lack of interest, too much else to do, or what--you're just not cutting it. It sucks, but it is what it is. It might not be a blind man's fault he's blind, and he might really love the kids, but he still doesn't need to be driving the school bus.

The problem with that idea is that NS is so broad by now that community satisfaction isn't guaranteed. P2TMers don't care about what happens in II. TETers (mostly, I think, or at least a few) don't care about what happens in the rest of NSG. GE&Ters probably won't care about what happens in F7.

Not to mention introducing ideological bias from the players. I don't think that kind of openness is feasible - although I admit I'm generally satisfied with the current state of the moderation team.

Tsaraine wrote:

Rubiconic Crossings V2 rev 1f wrote:We have been over this time and time again. You have been given suggestions over the years and they've effectively been ignored...you bring on board a couple of new mods and pretend all is good while playing the "we can work on the rules" card.

That shit don't play no more.

Then what, exactly, do you hope to gain by all this - if we are so intransigent and unamenable to reason? If that shit don't play, which shit will? What is your actual goal, your ideal solution? If you don't in fact have one, if you're only here to poke and prod ... I'll have to kindly ask you to bloody well stop it.

Appoint more moderators. Especially from the people who are complaining eloquently in this thread.

Franklin Delano Bluth wrote:

Edlichbury wrote:I'd also advocate making the appeals process far more open.

This was suggested a couple of years ago, in a very in-depth discussion. I'm afraid that all that came out of it was some severe disingenuousness from Katganistan in an attempt to defend the status quo, that plenty of people called her out on.

Here's the thread. It's very long, but also very eye-opening--worth a full read if you have the time.

That's rather depressing.

What I also notice immediately is the change in certain poster's behaviour when addressing these issues; some have really gotten more aggressive. Only more evidence to highlight how fed up some people are with the current state of affairs and how little actually changes.

Mods, if you want to enact change, do it.
If you don't, stop lying.

Tiltjuice wrote:

Franklin Delano Bluth wrote:
Here's how you fix it: resign. Every last one of you. Make moderation, game admins, forum admins, and the ruleset, everything, something that is chosen by the community at large, via procedures agreed to by the community at large, and answerable to the community at large. Moderators and admins who are not performing to the community's satisfaction get replaced.

If Max won't go along with it, we can make him an offer to offset a portion of his costs in exchange for this. If he still won't, it's time to leave. That's only a last resort, of course, because so many of us have so much invested here (in my case, I've been around for over ten years now--literally my entire adult life), and it'd be hard to rebuild what we have in a different place.

There are a couple of you who are eminently competent. I have no doubt that you would be heavily supported if you were interested in continuing to serve after this reform (and I, for one, would be greatly disappointed if you didn't). The rest of you, I get that maybe it's not your fault--whether it's just your personality, lack of interest, too much else to do, or what--you're just not cutting it. It sucks, but it is what it is. It might not be a blind man's fault he's blind, and he might really love the kids, but he still doesn't need to be driving the school bus.

The problem with that idea is that NS is so broad by now that community satisfaction isn't guaranteed. P2TMers don't care about what happens in II. TETers (mostly, I think, or at least a few) don't care about what happens in the rest of NSG. GE&Ters probably won't care about what happens in F7.

Not to mention introducing ideological bias from the players. I don't think that kind of openness is feasible - although I admit I'm generally satisfied with the current state of the moderation team.

This is just an idea I'm putting forward here:

Should Bluth's suggestion actually be enacted (which I strongly doubt, since I suspect some Mods are reluctant to give up their title; it's only human to cling to power), then I'd suggest each subforum to be given a certain amount of empty Mod/Admin slots that are to be filled up through the suggested process. Hell, maybe even add a new procedure in Moderation that requires reporters to add the subforum's name to the topic title of their report, so that the Mod team belonging to that sub forum can address it. Of course, certain Mods will be focused in several subforums.

For example, a Mod like Blaat could have his "home turf" in both NSG and Gameplay. Reports from other forums will be out of his jurisdiction.

NSG would probably need the largest portion of Mods/Admins. The RP forums are generally more well-behaved (though Gameplay has been known to misbehave, as well)

You should regard NS as a state with different counties. Smaller, more peaceful counties don't need the manpower a larger one does.

Tiltjuice wrote:

Franklin Delano Bluth wrote:
Here's how you fix it: resign. Every last one of you. Make moderation, game admins, forum admins, and the ruleset, everything, something that is chosen by the community at large, via procedures agreed to by the community at large, and answerable to the community at large. Moderators and admins who are not performing to the community's satisfaction get replaced.

If Max won't go along with it, we can make him an offer to offset a portion of his costs in exchange for this. If he still won't, it's time to leave. That's only a last resort, of course, because so many of us have so much invested here (in my case, I've been around for over ten years now--literally my entire adult life), and it'd be hard to rebuild what we have in a different place.

There are a couple of you who are eminently competent. I have no doubt that you would be heavily supported if you were interested in continuing to serve after this reform (and I, for one, would be greatly disappointed if you didn't). The rest of you, I get that maybe it's not your fault--whether it's just your personality, lack of interest, too much else to do, or what--you're just not cutting it. It sucks, but it is what it is. It might not be a blind man's fault he's blind, and he might really love the kids, but he still doesn't need to be driving the school bus.

The problem with that idea is that NS is so broad by now that community satisfaction isn't guaranteed. P2TMers don't care about what happens in II. TETers (mostly, I think, or at least a few) don't care about what happens in the rest of NSG. GE&Ters probably won't care about what happens in F7.

Not to mention introducing ideological bias from the players. I don't think that kind of openness is feasible - although I admit I'm generally satisfied with the current state of the moderation team.

Maybe it's because I'm subconsciously scrambling to defend my position like some power-hungry feudal lord (don't think into it more than necessary and my opinions do not reflect those of the moderation team), but some mods are pretty specialized, so a blanket change would be bad.

Jenrak wrote:

Tiltjuice wrote:
The problem with that idea is that NS is so broad by now that community satisfaction isn't guaranteed. P2TMers don't care about what happens in II. TETers (mostly, I think, or at least a few) don't care about what happens in the rest of NSG. GE&Ters probably won't care about what happens in F7.

Not to mention introducing ideological bias from the players. I don't think that kind of openness is feasible - although I admit I'm generally satisfied with the current state of the moderation team.

Maybe it's because I'm subconsciously scrambling to defend my position like some power-hungry feudal lord (don't think into it more than necessary and my opinions do not reflect those of the moderation team), but some mods are pretty specialized, so a blanket change would be bad.

I agree.

In fact, I think this specialisation is pretty good.

You're actually a good example, here. You don't meddle in NSG (understandably) and stick to your own district. You know stuff about II and its denizens the NSG-Mods don't.

Federalise this shit, fellas.

[/Belgium]

Jenrak wrote:

Tiltjuice wrote:
The problem with that idea is that NS is so broad by now that community satisfaction isn't guaranteed. P2TMers don't care about what happens in II. TETers (mostly, I think, or at least a few) don't care about what happens in the rest of NSG. GE&Ters probably won't care about what happens in F7.

Not to mention introducing ideological bias from the players. I don't think that kind of openness is feasible - although I admit I'm generally satisfied with the current state of the moderation team.

Maybe it's because I'm subconsciously scrambling to defend my position like some power-hungry feudal lord (don't think into it more than necessary and my opinions do not reflect those of the moderation team), but some mods are pretty specialized, so a blanket change would be bad.

No, that's basically what I was saying.

I've seen collisions and at least one mis-lock in Gameplay later reversed by a different mod, for instance. I think Esternial's ideas are very good.

Nanatsu no Tsuki wrote: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.

Which is why I said should. It means that something is not happening but I want it to happen.

Franklin Delano Bluth wrote:

Tsaraine wrote:If the framework for administrating the rules is not working, tell us what to do to fix it.

Here's how you fix it: resign. Every last one of you. Make moderation, game admins, forum admins, and the ruleset, everything, something that is chosen by the community at large, via procedures agreed to by the community at large, and answerable to the community at large. Moderators and admins who are not performing to the community's satisfaction get replaced.

No way, there are posters that do not really do anything wrong but are deeply unliked by very popular posters. I fear for their continued existence if this ever happened. Possibly have a day where all the mods get separate little polls with the question, "On a scale of one to ten, how much do you trust this mod to do their job properly?" and do the same with proposed mods (with the expectation that the results are taken into consideration)* but do not put all the decision making in the hands of the wider community.

Maybe have some meaningful system whereby mods chosen in the current manner have their actions reviewed in public every couple of months... but nothing like elected mods.

*This would probably need to be done in public. Any mod that gets 50% of results under 5, should be put on probation... Alternatively, have mods create the shortlist and then have player input/discussion in moderation. This would avoid my concern.

I've been thinking about the implementation of a spokesperson.

People who can view (and post in, given some guidelines) the Modcave and form a link between them and the playerbase to provide transparency. See it like this: you want to keep an eye on your investments, and if you don't trust anyone on the inside, you put someone in there that you DO trust.

A Mod's word might not mean anything to some, but this person's word might.

Of course, this person would still have to adhere to some guidelines set by the Mods, but it'd be a step forward to earning back the trust of a sizeable portion of players, would it not?

Esternial wrote:I've been thinking about the implementation of a spokesperson.

People who can view (and post in, given some guidelines) the Modcave and form a link between them and the playerbase to provide transparency. See it like this: you want to keep an eye on your investments, and if you don't trust anyone on the inside, you put someone in there that you DO trust.

A Mod's word might not mean anything to some, but this person's word might.

Of course, this person would still have to adhere to some guidelines set by the Mods, but it'd be a step forward to earning back the trust of a sizeable portion of players, would it not?

You mean a sort of Ombudsman?

Rubiconic Crossings V2 rev 1f wrote:

Esternial wrote:I've been thinking about the implementation of a spokesperson.

People who can view (and post in, given some guidelines) the Modcave and form a link between them and the playerbase to provide transparency. See it like this: you want to keep an eye on your investments, and if you don't trust anyone on the inside, you put someone in there that you DO trust.

A Mod's word might not mean anything to some, but this person's word might.

Of course, this person would still have to adhere to some guidelines set by the Mods, but it'd be a step forward to earning back the trust of a sizeable portion of players, would it not?

You mean a sort of Ombudsman?

Sort of, yes.

Esternial wrote:

Rubiconic Crossings V2 rev 1f wrote:
You mean a sort of Ombudsman?

Sort of, yes.

Interesting idea...certainly worth considering.

Esternial wrote:

Rubiconic Crossings V2 rev 1f wrote:
You mean a sort of Ombudsman?

Sort of, yes.

I don't think that would work. The person/s selected would be chosen by the moderation team and would have to be bound by restrictions placed on them by the moderation team. If the current issue is trust, which I believe it is, then that person or persons would be viewed with the same scepticism as the moderation team.

Esternial wrote:I've been thinking about the implementation of a spokesperson.

People who can view (and post in, given some guidelines) the Modcave and form a link between them and the playerbase to provide transparency. See it like this: you want to keep an eye on your investments, and if you don't trust anyone on the inside, you put someone in there that you DO trust.

A Mod's word might not mean anything to some, but this person's word might.

Of course, this person would still have to adhere to some guidelines set by the Mods, but it'd be a step forward to earning back the trust of a sizeable portion of players, would it not?

We handle things that a. are private, and b. would give an enormous advantage in various aspects of the game should they be released. I know the forums are your home (mine too for that matter), but it is a small aspect of NS, there's more, a lot more, people who gameplay than there are people who post to the forums. Allowing someone to watch over would be very dangerous in terms of the information being released.

As Moderator Max has a 'hook' as it were in us, we've been vetted down as far as you can. What would this spokesperson have to guarantee the same? If they underwent the same process... why not just make them Mods in the first place? I'm really not seeing the advantage to anyone.

Fartsniffage wrote:

Esternial wrote:Sort of, yes.

I don't think that would work. The person/s selected would be chosen by the moderation team and would have to be bound by restrictions placed on them by the moderation team. If the current issue is trust, which I believe it is, then that person or persons would be viewed with the same scepticism as the moderation team.

No...the person would be chosen by the user base.

NERVUN wrote:

Esternial wrote:I've been thinking about the implementation of a spokesperson.

People who can view (and post in, given some guidelines) the Modcave and form a link between them and the playerbase to provide transparency. See it like this: you want to keep an eye on your investments, and if you don't trust anyone on the inside, you put someone in there that you DO trust.

A Mod's word might not mean anything to some, but this person's word might.

Of course, this person would still have to adhere to some guidelines set by the Mods, but it'd be a step forward to earning back the trust of a sizeable portion of players, would it not?

We handle things that a. are private, and b. would give an enormous advantage in various aspects of the game should they be released. I know the forums are your home (mine too for that matter), but it is a small aspect of NS, there's more, a lot more, people who gameplay than there are people who post to the forums. Allowing someone to watch over would be very dangerous in terms of the information being released.

As Moderator Max has a 'hook' as it were in us, we've been vetted down as far as you can. What would this spokesperson have to guarantee the same? If they underwent the same process... why not just make them Mods in the first place? I'm really not seeing the advantage to anyone.

An interesting question. What is the vetting procedure for a moderator?

Rubiconic Crossings V2 rev 1f wrote:

Fartsniffage wrote:
I don't think that would work. The person/s selected would be chosen by the moderation team and would have to be bound by restrictions placed on them by the moderation team. If the current issue is trust, which I believe it is, then that person or persons would be viewed with the same scepticism as the moderation team.

No...the person would be chosen by the user base.

It'd never happen and for several reasons I would never support that happening.

NERVUN wrote:

Esternial wrote:I've been thinking about the implementation of a spokesperson.

People who can view (and post in, given some guidelines) the Modcave and form a link between them and the playerbase to provide transparency. See it like this: you want to keep an eye on your investments, and if you don't trust anyone on the inside, you put someone in there that you DO trust.

A Mod's word might not mean anything to some, but this person's word might.

Of course, this person would still have to adhere to some guidelines set by the Mods, but it'd be a step forward to earning back the trust of a sizeable portion of players, would it not?

We handle things that a. are private, and b. would give an enormous advantage in various aspects of the game should they be released. I know the forums are your home (mine too for that matter), but it is a small aspect of NS, there's more, a lot more, people who gameplay than there are people who post to the forums. Allowing someone to watch over would be very dangerous in terms of the information being released.

As Moderator Max has a 'hook' as it were in us, we've been vetted down as far as you can. What would this spokesperson have to guarantee the same? If they underwent the same process... why not just make them Mods in the first place? I'm really not seeing the advantage to anyone.

Chosen by the user base and vetted by Max then.

Mind you given the current situation it does not speak well of the vetting process does it?

NERVUN wrote:As Moderator Max has a 'hook' as it were in us, we've been vetted down as far as you can. What would this spokesperson have to guarantee the same? If they underwent the same process... why not just make them Mods in the first place? I'm really not seeing the advantage to anyone.

For one, they wouldn't be involved in Moderation and its ruling.

Also known as the whole reason we're having this entire conversation in the first place.

They would be placed outside of the collective "Moderation team", but still be trustworthy enough to keep the information available to them contained. Not being involved in that side wouldn't make them the target of scrutiny as you all are.

Granted, perhaps these spokespersons would make good Mods if they've been screened like one, but that should be their decision. If anything, it's a good stepping block to Modhood. Consider it an internship.

Adding to my suggestion: while directly chosen, I do agree they need to be screened as well. Or perhaps a direct democracy is just no feasible and these spokespersons need to be elected via the same process as Blaat and Farn's election.

Fartsniffage wrote:

NERVUN wrote:We handle things that a. are private, and b. would give an enormous advantage in various aspects of the game should they be released. I know the forums are your home (mine too for that matter), but it is a small aspect of NS, there's more, a lot more, people who gameplay than there are people who post to the forums. Allowing someone to watch over would be very dangerous in terms of the information being released.

As Moderator Max has a 'hook' as it were in us, we've been vetted down as far as you can. What would this spokesperson have to guarantee the same? If they underwent the same process... why not just make them Mods in the first place? I'm really not seeing the advantage to anyone.

An interesting question. What is the vetting procedure for a moderator?

Darts at the board. *nods*

Ok, seriously, when it becomes apparent that we need new Mods or one is suggested to us via the email, we start looking at them. Generally the first step is "Anyone know this person?" followed by "Any reasons why he or she shouldn't be allowed near Moderation?" Those are the casuals. Assuming that we don't have anything that automatically pops up "I.e. Yeah, that's so-and-so who just got a week ban for trolling and flaming all over the place" we start digging deeper. We look at the posts, how does this person interact with others? We look at their RMB posts, we look at their TGs. We look at everything that we can find for things that might disqualify them as Moderators (Fine on the form, flames like hell on RMB for example). We look at where they are active, do they bring knowledge that we're currently lacking. Are they members of well known groups (Defenders and Raider tend to get picky about that) and might be an issue. If all of that comes clean and we're still happy with it, we offer the suggestion to the Admins with our recommendation in case THEY have an issue (It has happened, someone we thought was great turns out to have been email stalking Max), and then we extend the invite.

Pretty much we go through with a fine-toothed comb.