NationStates

Basically, if you're accusing someone of something they did offsite. It'll be clamped down on as defamation.

Everything before that, was me giving you the reasons *why* they should enforce it.

P.S You can be sued for defamation for repeating lies. The defence of, "Oh I said it because she said it so I assumed it was okay to say," falls on deaf ears quite quickly.

I can totally see that as an understandable interpretation of the rule. However, it's not quite that clear.

Mallorea and Riva wrote:It's a matter of degree. Forum wrecking/mishandling adminship etc is nowhere near the same level as a declaration that another player is a sexual predator, in the same way that calling someone silly is not nearly as severe as calling them a fucking moron. Yes it is a judgment call each time, no not all mods will agree every time. That's why the appeals process exists.

Does this mean that more serious accusations will receive a harsher punishment? That only serious accusations will get smacked? Also,

Twilight Imperium wrote: Isn't accusing people of being a sexual predator and whatnot without proof already against the rules? If this doesn't cover other more minor offsite drama importation, what's against the rules now that wasn't before?

EDIT: To clarify, I can see the "why". I just see too many "what"s, each with their own fairly dece "why" attached.

Enfaru wrote:Basically, if you're accusing someone of something they did offsite. It'll be clamped down on as defamation.

Everything before that, was me giving you the reasons *why* they should enforce it.

P.S You can be sued for defamation for repeating lies. The defence of, "Oh I said it because she said it so I assumed it was okay to say," falls on deaf ears quite quickly.

Such things tend to give a far smaller punishment, with many judges giving a summary 'yes, you're in the wrong, take it to mediation/arbitration.'

Railana wrote:The wording of this rule is concerning not only for the reasons previously mentioned by others but also because it uses the word "defamation" incorrectly. A true statement is, by definition, not defamation. Whether or not the moderators are able to verify a particular claim does not affect the truth or falsity of that claim. However, the way the rule is written, it seems that you're going to punish statements regarding offsite misconduct as defamatory even if they are true.

As such, what you're really prohibiting here is not defamation, but making any statement about offsite misconduct that cannot be proven by the moderators. The rule should be clarified to reflect this.

100 times this. The intent of the new rule is reasonable but its current wording is bonkers and should be amended instead of engaging in further mangling of the language.

Twilight Imperium wrote:

Enfaru wrote:-words-

Yeah, I got all of that. I really did. But what does it have to do with the new rule?

The new rule about jurisdiction, which is still weirdly defined and bordered. Is it just a "no excessive offsite drama" rule? Is it an anti-defamation rule? It is just a further extension of the "don't be a jerk" rule? All? None?

To clarify something, the no defamation thing has been part of the TOS for a very, VERY long time (look under FAQs, Etiquette). The jurisdiction thing has also been part of the OSRS for a very long time as well (the current wording is a bit newer since the last reworking).

NERVUN wrote:

Twilight Imperium wrote:
Yeah, I got all of that. I really did. But what does it have to do with the new rule?

The new rule about jurisdiction, which is still weirdly defined and bordered. Is it just a "no excessive offsite drama" rule? Is it an anti-defamation rule? It is just a further extension of the "don't be a jerk" rule? All? None?

To clarify something, the no defamation thing has been part of the TOS for a very, VERY long time (look under FAQs, Etiquette). The jurisdiction thing has also been part of the OSRS for a very long time as well (the current wording is a bit newer since the last reworking).

So it's just a rewording of existing rules, and adding an entry about it to the OSRS?

Twilight Imperium wrote:

NERVUN wrote:To clarify something, the no defamation thing has been part of the TOS for a very, VERY long time (look under FAQs, Etiquette). The jurisdiction thing has also been part of the OSRS for a very long time as well (the current wording is a bit newer since the last reworking).

So it's just a rewording of existing rules, and adding an entry about it to the OSRS?

Not even that. The only thing that got changed was the underlined sentence, "In particular, accusations of misconduct outside of NationStates do not belong in NationStates and will be punished as defamatory."

That was the only thing changed, everything else is the same as before. It was clarification that we cannot allow accusations of (serious) misconduct outside NS here because we simply cannot verify that it happened/was said/etc. Now, apparently, this is causing confusion (and possibly delay... and I have been watching WAY too much Thomas the Tank Engine thanks to my sons) and thus we are working on a clarifying statement by what is meant as misconduct.

NERVUN wrote:That was the only thing changed, everything else is the same as before. It was clarification that we cannot allow accusations of (serious) misconduct outside NS here because we simply cannot verify that it happened/was said/etc. Now, apparently, this is causing confusion (and possibly delay... and I have been watching WAY too much Thomas the Tank Engine thanks to my sons) and thus we are working on a clarifying statement by what is meant as misconduct.

Now that, I can deal with. Thanks!

*votes NERVUN the most useful engine*

Wait...you're telling me Twilight thought that the whole thing was being added rather than just the underlined bit. I can be so stupid sometimes.

Thanks NERVUN

Enfaru wrote:I can be so stupid sometimes.

You and me both.

NERVUN wrote: we are working on a clarifying statement by what is meant as misconduct.

Thank you. Please update us here when that has been done, if you don't mind.

Grabbing a dictionary would help (though you should make sure you list what dictionary you are using and when you published it, definitions and standards change all the time) but really, it comes down to precedent. The rule of thumb for most judges is, "I don't know the definition, but I know what it is when I see it". This was pretty much summed up with US Supreme Court Justice regarding Hard Core pornography. In that manner the definition of misconduct can be set up by looking at past modly decisions regarding misconduct and what the moderators then considered misconduct and any subsequent appeals.

Now, if you could tie case precedent into the definitions by using hyperlinks maybe, I think people could get a better idea of what misconduct actually means in terms of NS if they're unclear for whatever reason. Nothing like showing by example. Of course, for things like "obscenity" you can't really show examples, instead you can point to real laws that you use as guidelines to form your decisions and if people *really* want to investigate, then they can.

That said, I don't think misconduct is unclear... >_> everyone knows what misconduct is and those that don't probably shouldn't be using this site anyway.

Okay, here's the clarifying statement promised by NERVUN. Once again, we are recalcitrant to bindingly codify specific examples. However, we are willing to provide some general guidelines, with the standard caveat already given by my associate: "It is a matter of degree, always has been, always will be."

Note that in the guidelines below, when I say "crime", I'm referring to a clearly serious real-world crime: something that would get someone put on trial in the vast majority of jurisdictions where NationStates players are located.

If one player is posting an accusation here on NationStates that another player has committed a real-world crime (or something similarly heinous) outside of NationStates.net (such as "He sent me a private message on an offsite forum saying that I should kill myself" or "He sent me an offsite forum PM with pictures of my daughter leaving her school, yesterday, and demanded that I hand over the Delegacy" or "He Distributed-Denial-Of-Service attacked our offsite forums"), then there is a high probability of falling afoul of this rule. This is essentially about accusations that could reasonably get real-world police involved, if they could be proven; don't post them here, go call the cops instead.

If the accusation is about offsite misconduct that doesn't constitute a real-world crime, but would constitute a serious NationStates rules violation had it happened on NationStates.net (such as "He called me a filthy godless slut in an offsite forum post" or "He posted on the offsite forum saying I was a psychotic lunatic just because I keep a gun collection for skeet shooting"), then there is a moderate probability of falling afoul of this rule. This is essentially about accusations that besmirch a person's reputation AND have nothing whatsoever to do with legitimate NationStates game activities.

If the accusation is about offsite misconduct that isn't comparable to a crime or a NationStates rule violation (such as "Our offsite admin broke our offsite forum" or "He leaked our upcoming raiding plans to defenders on an offsite forum"), then it most likely will not fall afoul of this rule.

Once again, the above are non-binding guidelines. It is a matter of degree, always has been, always will be. We reserve the right to punish, or let slide, particular cases that we didn't anticipate in advance. Attempting to game Moderation is hazardous to your stay on NationStates.net. Play Nice. Don't be a jerk.

Too Long; Didn't Read:

• Don't make accusations of offsite criminality.
• Don't make accusations of offsite bad behavior that's irrelevant to the game.
• Accusations of legit gameplay-related actions are kosher.
• Don't go poking around at the edge cases; you might fall off those edges.

--Modified Democratic States of Cogitation
"Think about it for a moment."
NationStates Game Moderator

I'm not sure you used "recalcitrant" right....

Thank you very much for this clarification - it's about as much as I could have asked for, given this situation. o7