A nationstates tribunal [suggestion]

[The Blaatschapen]

A tribunal is not happening.

There are a few simple reasons for this:

1. It probably will devolve into a popularity contest (for either being a tribunal member and for mob lynches)
2. Alternatively, the tribunal members just become extra mods.

3. Furthermore, to provide effective moderation from the tribunal, they'll need access to data which is currently only accessed by Moderators and Admins. This includes submitted content like telegrams, but also email addresses, etc. mods are under stringent rules regarding these (see http://www.nationstates.net/page=privacy ). So in effect, we (mods) either have to cross-check everything and ensure that the tribunal also follows the privacy rules. Which is what we also do with each other, but now also with a whole new bunch of people.

Which in effect makes them mods (both access to the 'back office', ability to rule on cases and compliance with our privacy and TOS, yeah, that's a mod).

I, for one, would not like my private data being read by the most popular user on the site (you know who you are)

Isn't considered pricey invasion to read other members telegrams then?

I suggest to read the linked privacy page, especially the part 'submitted content' .

[Salazarstan]

Isn't considered pricey invasion to read other members telegrams then?

I suggest to read the linked privacy page, especially the part 'submitted content' .

so your saying your free to make and break your own rules then? doesn't seem fair to the user population and it possibly breaks the tos. but come on what use are laws if the creators and peacekeepers are free to tweak and at times break there own laws regarding privacy, however i know for a fact that this protects me of having my privacy invaded due to the privacy act of 1974, for reference hers the privacy act. https://www.justice.gov/opcl/privacy-act-1974

[The Blaatschapen]

I suggest to read the linked privacy page, especially the part 'submitted content' .

so your saying your free to make and break your own rules then? doesn't seem fair to the user population and it possibly breaks the tos. but come on what use are laws if the creators and peacekeepers are free to tweak and at times break there own laws regarding privacy, however i know for a fact that this protects me of having my privacy invaded due to the privacy act of 1974, for reference hers the privacy act. https://www.justice.gov/opcl/privacy-act-1974

No, I am not saying that.

Also, read what it says:

The Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. § 552a, establishes a code of fair information practices that governs the collection, maintenance, use, and dissemination of information about individuals that is maintained in systems of records by federal agencies.

We're not a federal agency.

[The Forsworn Knights]

so your saying your free to make and break your own rules then? doesn't seem fair to the user population and it possibly breaks the tos. but come on what use are laws if the creators and peacekeepers are free to tweak and at times break there own laws regarding privacy, however i know for a fact that this protects me of having my privacy invaded due to the privacy act of 1974, for reference hers the privacy act. https://www.justice.gov/opcl/privacy-act-1974

No, I am not saying that.

Also, read what it says:

The Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. § 552a, establishes a code of fair information practices that governs the collection, maintenance, use, and dissemination of information about individuals that is maintained in systems of records by federal agencies.

We're not a federal agency.

Or anything in the general public's juristiction, for that matter.

[Drasnia]

The Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. § 552a, establishes a code of fair information practices that governs the collection, maintenance, use, and dissemination of information about individuals that is maintained in systems of records by federal agencies.

We're not a federal agency.

But I thought he had the UN WA

[The Blaatschapen]

We're not a federal agency.

But I thought he had the UN WA

The WA is confederal at best. A state can leave it at its own will.

[Wolfmanne2]

Can I be the gavel banger?

[Holy Marsh]

I suggest to read the linked privacy page, especially the part 'submitted content' .

so your saying your free to make and break your own rules then? doesn't seem fair to the user population and it possibly breaks the tos. but come on what use are laws if the creators and peacekeepers are free to tweak and at times break there own laws regarding privacy, however i know for a fact that this protects me of having my privacy invaded due to the privacy act of 1974, for reference hers the privacy act. https://www.justice.gov/opcl/privacy-act-1974

Do you read these things you post before you submit them?

[Common Territories]

No, I am not saying that.

Also, read what it says:



We're not a federal agency.

Or anything in the general public's juristiction, for that matter.

Was a Business and personal law student for a while. Have to agree that's the correct purpose of the law. It protects you from the government, not the the public.

Blaat, is it me!? Am I the most popular user on NS!? God please tell me I am!

[CoraSpia]

The idea in the OP is illogical and fundamentally misunderstands the nature and breadth of moderation on this site. It is an irrational idea for a site of this size and activity. More importantly, this isn't a democracy and you don't have rights. You have what freedom is being given to you by the the site owner, those running it, and the rules.

We, as users, don't need or deserve powers over others, punishments, or moderation.

I'd actually disagree with you their. I think that their really does need to be some sort of open appeal system put in place. After all, we're told regularly that it's looked at by a panel of uninvolved moderators however we've got no ability to look at the logs of that conversation. For all I know, an appeal could be dealt with by 3 completely uninvolved moderators going '*sigh* I don't like him/her, so I don't want to repeal the decision.* Obviously I hope that that is not what happens, but I really do think that their would be no problems resulting from us being allowed to view the logs of our own appeals, or even participate in them.

[Common Territories]

The idea in the OP is illogical and fundamentally misunderstands the nature and breadth of moderation on this site. It is an irrational idea for a site of this size and activity. More importantly, this isn't a democracy and you don't have rights. You have what freedom is being given to you by the the site owner, those running it, and the rules.

We, as users, don't need or deserve powers over others, punishments, or moderation.

I'd actually disagree with you their. I think that their really does need to be some sort of open appeal system put in place. After all, we're told regularly that it's looked at by a panel of uninvolved moderators however we've got no ability to look at the logs of that conversation. For all I know, an appeal could be dealt with by 3 completely uninvolved moderators going '*sigh* I don't like him/her, so I don't want to repeal the decision.* Obviously I hope that that is not what happens, but I really do think that their would be no problems resulting from us being allowed to view the logs of our own appeals, or even participate in them.

Do you also think when the President is deciding to sign a bill that he thinks "Oh... *sighs* Guess we'll sign this to mess with that Coraspia dude."? You're suggesting the all volunteer staff here is so shallow that they have nothing better to do then make half-whimmed decisions based on the wind flow? You don't seem to know that there is an appeal process here that people use all the time. I've seen three levels of appeals and they often work too; each time there's a different Mod responding and if you got to final you'll for sure have it looked at by everyone on the Team. Not to mention just yesterday they internally repealed a ruling on a case I reported for someone - so to think they give random rulings based on their feelings and leave it at that is just total bull. It's clear here you just lack any trust for Moderation - that's the real issue you have here. As Blaat stated, we're not going to see this court system in place since it makes their jobs defunct and adds additional Mods, which risks your privacy and the site itself. If you think giving EVERYONE the ability to see their Mod only forums would be acceptable as a compromise then im afraid to tell you that wont ever happen either. You'd be making the increased size team idea into EVERYONE having powers probably.

[Chrinthanium]

Hmmmm.... the idea has no merit, no practical application, and would destabilize the form of management we currently have at NS. Seriously, in my years here I've seen plenty of people complain about unfair treatment and having ideas and thoughts suppressed, but the fact that they're able to offer those ideas in the first place without getting warned or banned should be the clue that said people are wrong in the first place. Even I got upset over something to which I had no right because I was completely wrong.

The fact of the matter is that this website is owned by a private individual. You have no control or ability to make decisions as to how it operates and polices itself. The owner makes the rules. That's how it works. His site, his rules, his procedures in which to enforce those rules. Quite honestly, if you don't like the rules or how they're enforced, use another site. That's all I have to say about it.

[CoraSpia]

I'd actually disagree with you their. I think that their really does need to be some sort of open appeal system put in place. After all, we're told regularly that it's looked at by a panel of uninvolved moderators however we've got no ability to look at the logs of that conversation. For all I know, an appeal could be dealt with by 3 completely uninvolved moderators going '*sigh* I don't like him/her, so I don't want to repeal the decision.* Obviously I hope that that is not what happens, but I really do think that their would be no problems resulting from us being allowed to view the logs of our own appeals, or even participate in them.

Do you also think when the President is deciding to sign a bill that he thinks "Oh... *sighs* Guess we'll sign this to mess with that Coraspia dude."? You're suggesting the all volunteer staff here is so shallow that they have nothing better to do then make half-whimmed decisions based on the wind flow? You don't seem to know that there is an appeal process here that people use all the time. I've seen three levels of appeals and they often work too; each time there's a different Mod responding and if you got to final you'll for sure have it looked at by everyone on the Team. Not to mention just yesterday they internally repealed a ruling on a case I reported for someone - so to think they give random rulings based on their feelings and leave it at that is just total bull. It's clear here you just lack any trust for Moderation - that's the real issue you have here. As Blaat stated, we're not going to see this court system in place since it makes their jobs defunct and adds additional Mods, which risks your privacy and the site itself. If you think giving EVERYONE the ability to see their Mod only forums would be acceptable as a compromise then im afraid to tell you that wont ever happen either. You'd be making the increased size team idea into EVERYONE having powers probably.

No, not at all.

I admit, I'm not totally neutral when talking about the mods. I think I've been punished (in major ways) twice, neither of them warranted to the degree they occurred.
However, I am farely wellknown for appealing everything, and by that I mean every ruling that comes my way I don't agree with. I do seriously think that some moderators do consider appeals with far less scrutiny than they should. Of course, what I'd like to see is mods carefully examining context and details: and I'm sure if that was released, people whould feel like they had a fair hearing.

[The Nation of Ceneria]

Or anything in the general public's juristiction, for that matter.

Was a Business and personal law student for a while. Have to agree that's the correct purpose of the law. It protects you from the government, not the the public.

Blaat, is it me!? Am I the most popular user on NS!? God please tell me I am!

One word: No. It's clearly The Batman.

Edit: Right. Time to say something on-topic.

Do you also think when the President is deciding to sign a bill that he thinks "Oh... *sighs* Guess we'll sign this to mess with that Coraspia dude."? You're suggesting the all volunteer staff here is so shallow that they have nothing better to do then make half-whimmed decisions based on the wind flow? You don't seem to know that there is an appeal process here that people use all the time. I've seen three levels of appeals and they often work too; each time there's a different Mod responding and if you got to final you'll for sure have it looked at by everyone on the Team. Not to mention just yesterday they internally repealed a ruling on a case I reported for someone - so to think they give random rulings based on their feelings and leave it at that is just total bull. It's clear here you just lack any trust for Moderation - that's the real issue you have here. As Blaat stated, we're not going to see this court system in place since it makes their jobs defunct and adds additional Mods, which risks your privacy and the site itself. If you think giving EVERYONE the ability to see their Mod only forums would be acceptable as a compromise then im afraid to tell you that wont ever happen either. You'd be making the increased size team idea into EVERYONE having powers probably.

No, not at all.

I admit, I'm not totally neutral when talking about the mods. I think I've been punished (in major ways) twice, neither of them warranted to the degree they occurred.
However, I am farely wellknown for appealing everything, and by that I mean every ruling that comes my way I don't agree with. I do seriously think that some moderators do consider appeals with far less scrutiny than they should. Of course, what I'd like to see is mods carefully examining context and details: and I'm sure if that was released, people whould feel like they had a fair hearing.

I'd just like to point out that our volunteer moderation staff is just that: volunteer. They have lives, and don't make a living by smacking people with a banhammer here. They thus don't have infinite time to read over pages of spammish text to get the context and build-up for every flame. In many cases (correct me if I'm wrong here, someone), I feel like the mods tend to rule on the light side of things from not getting context for a situation.

Point being, if the mods were compelled to read the morass of OOC commentary that surrounds many actionable comments, the day would have to be thirty to forty hours long, lest the report backlog make any attempt at moderating us plebeians hopeless.

[Shazbotdom]

No, not at all.

I admit, I'm not totally neutral when talking about the mods. I think I've been punished (in major ways) twice, neither of them warranted to the degree they occurred.
However, I am farely wellknown for appealing everything, and by that I mean every ruling that comes my way I don't agree with. I do seriously think that some moderators do consider appeals with far less scrutiny than they should. Of course, what I'd like to see is mods carefully examining context and details: and I'm sure if that was released, people whould feel like they had a fair hearing.

Honestly, seeing the threads and posts that have caused you to get the 'wrath of mod'; with many of them, you were rightfully moderated for your actions. But, this is not the thread to vet your warnings or anything to that effect.

[Iohann]

Do you also think when the President is deciding to sign a bill that he thinks "Oh... *sighs* Guess we'll sign this to mess with that Coraspia dude."? You're suggesting the all volunteer staff here is so shallow that they have nothing better to do then make half-whimmed decisions based on the wind flow? You don't seem to know that there is an appeal process here that people use all the time. I've seen three levels of appeals and they often work too; each time there's a different Mod responding and if you got to final you'll for sure have it looked at by everyone on the Team. Not to mention just yesterday they internally repealed a ruling on a case I reported for someone - so to think they give random rulings based on their feelings and leave it at that is just total bull. It's clear here you just lack any trust for Moderation - that's the real issue you have here. As Blaat stated, we're not going to see this court system in place since it makes their jobs defunct and adds additional Mods, which risks your privacy and the site itself. If you think giving EVERYONE the ability to see their Mod only forums would be acceptable as a compromise then im afraid to tell you that wont ever happen either. You'd be making the increased size team idea into EVERYONE having powers probably.

No, not at all.

I admit, I'm not totally neutral when talking about the mods. I think I've been punished (in major ways) twice, neither of them warranted to the degree they occurred.
However, I am farely wellknown for appealing everything, and by that I mean every ruling that comes my way I don't agree with. I do seriously think that some moderators do consider appeals with far less scrutiny than they should. Of course, what I'd like to see is mods carefully examining context and details: and I'm sure if that was released, people whould feel like they had a fair hearing.

And the time you broke the PG-13 rule in a major way, got the DEAT, and you were disciplined and banned by your region at the time, who had to deal with the fallout from that for months after, claimed that it "wasn't that bad?" How was that unwarranted?

Moderation isn't out to destroy NS like you and so many others think. In fact, they try to keep a massive community functioning while still making Google Ad money and while still allowing younger people who may want to explore politics to do so in a safe place.

This whole bullshit "tribunal" or "remove Moderation" movement only serves to weaken the community. We need moderation, in part because we have a large community that includes many groups that would be treated awfully in an unmoderated setting. The NSTT and MDT are great examples of this. Tell me how those threads would look without moderation, or under mob rule.

[Jetan]

What's more, the people bitching about moderation obviously have not frequented sites that actually do have arbitrary, opague and generally speaking plain bad moderation. There's of course always room for improvement, but for the most part NS is very reasonably moderated site and the people getting dinged usually deserve it.

[Gurori]

Well, a NS tribunal would take too much time for both the moderation team and the rest of the community and NS itself is a political simulator, not Courthouse Simulator 2016.

If you'd like a tribunal, just do it as a roleplay.

[CoraSpia]

No, not at all.

I admit, I'm not totally neutral when talking about the mods. I think I've been punished (in major ways) twice, neither of them warranted to the degree they occurred.
However, I am farely wellknown for appealing everything, and by that I mean every ruling that comes my way I don't agree with. I do seriously think that some moderators do consider appeals with far less scrutiny than they should. Of course, what I'd like to see is mods carefully examining context and details: and I'm sure if that was released, people whould feel like they had a fair hearing.

And the time you broke the PG-13 rule in a major way, got the DEAT, and you were disciplined and banned by your region at the time, who had to deal with the fallout from that for months after, claimed that it "wasn't that bad?" How was that unwarranted?

Moderation isn't out to destroy NS like you and so many others think. In fact, they try to keep a massive community functioning while still making Google Ad money and while still allowing younger people who may want to explore politics to do so in a safe place.

This whole bullshit "tribunal" or "remove Moderation" movement only serves to weaken the community. We need moderation, in part because we have a large community that includes many groups that would be treated awfully in an unmoderated setting. The NSTT and MDT are great examples of this. Tell me how those threads would look without moderation, or under mob rule.

I'm not sure what Sondria's rather shameful treatment of me has to do with anything, if I'm honest with you, so i'll leave it their.
In fact, how anything you stated was at all relevant to what I said (that people should be able to see their own appeal logs) is rather beyond me. I'm never going to get my wish of an ns with either very lax rules or moderators who barely work. I'm not asking for that. However, I do think allowing for people to see their own appeal logs would be reasonable and would reassure people that appeals are actually being looked into seriously.

[Nanatsu no Tsuki]

Hmmmm.... the idea has no merit, no practical application, and would destabilize the form of management we currently have at NS. Seriously, in my years here I've seen plenty of people complain about unfair treatment and having ideas and thoughts suppressed, but the fact that they're able to offer those ideas in the first place without getting warned or banned should be the clue that said people are wrong in the first place. Even I got upset over something to which I had no right because I was completely wrong.

The fact of the matter is that this website is owned by a private individual. You have no control or ability to make decisions as to how it operates and polices itself. The owner makes the rules. That's how it works. His site, his rules, his procedures in which to enforce those rules. Quite honestly, if you don't like the rules or how they're enforced, use another site. That's all I have to say about it.

Pretty much. I don't think anyone on NS, save the moderators who have the appropriate tools to judge infractions and rule-breaking, is equipped or truly adept at passing judgement over other players.

[G-Tech Corporation]

It's fair daft to think your average poster is capable of Moderating, or to even consider giving out Appeal logs to posters. Those logs are for unbiased judgement, in the knowledge that what is said in them is protected information. Releasing said logs would only push the layer of discussion back a level of secrecy, and have no real effect. I've watched Moderation for years- the amount of justified Appeals lodged probably falls under ~5%, easily. I'm certain 98% of Appeal judgements are literally just a second Mod looking at the original logic, saying "yup, makes sense" and denying the Appeal. What does releasing that knowledge to the general public profit the community, aside from pissing off more people who think the Mods have a hatchet sharpened just for them for some undeclared reason?

[CoraSpia]

It's fair daft to think your average poster is capable of Moderating, or to even consider giving out Appeal logs to posters. Those logs are for unbiased judgement, in the knowledge that what is said in them is protected information. Releasing said logs would only push the layer of discussion back a level of secrecy, and have no real effect. I've watched Moderation for years- the amount of justified Appeals lodged probably falls under ~5%, easily. I'm certain 98% of Appeal judgements are literally just a second Mod looking at the original logic, saying "yup, makes sense" and denying the Appeal. What does releasing that knowledge to the general public profit the community, aside from pissing off more people who think the Mods have a hatchet sharpened just for them for some undeclared reason?

I never suggested releasing it to the general public, only to the person concerned. Like they don't release punishment reasons to the general public.

[Esternial]

Frankly you should be glad they allow appeals and second opinions.

[Twilight Imperium]

What's more, the people bitching about moderation obviously have not frequented sites that actually do have arbitrary, opague and generally speaking plain bad moderation. There's of course always room for improvement, but for the most part NS is very reasonably moderated site and the people getting dinged usually deserve it.

^ this

I continue to be baffled by just how many people don't seem to get what Moderation is around here. They're not actually beholden to the users, only Max. Like that guy dancing around the lines earlier saying "neener neener you can't touch me because I'm not technically violating the rules" - NO. They can and would if it was necessary. The mods rule with an iron fist from on high, and most of us prefer it that way. That's how the community has survived for what, 15 years now?

Keep on keepin' on, Mods.

[Cerillium]

Frankly you should be glad they allow appeals and second opinions.

Exactly. Most sites don't.