[Discussion] - The norms in regards to group aspersions

[Dread Lady Nathicana]

I think it also depends on which Moderator is dealing with it. Some can be far more hard-assed than others.

Say it ain't so! You're almost suggesting an unreliable result there, woman! Le gasp!

[Luminesa]

I think it also depends on which Moderator is dealing with it. Some can be far more hard-assed than others.

Say it ain't so! You're almost suggesting an unreliable result there, woman! Le gasp!

Meanwhile, Deadpool just sits back waiting for someone to bring him his chimichangas.

[Lady Scylla]

I think it also depends on which Moderator is dealing with it. Some can be far more hard-assed than others.

Say it ain't so! You're almost suggesting an unreliable result there, woman! Le gasp!

Admittedly, I've withheld posting reports depending on which Mod was active because of being worried they'd be too lenient or too harsh. Eventually just stopped posting reports entirely unless I felt it was absolutely needed. But that's another discussion.

[Luminesa]

Say it ain't so! You're almost suggesting an unreliable result there, woman! Le gasp!

Admittedly, I've withheld posting reports depending on which Mod was active because of being worried they'd be too lenient or too harsh. Eventually just stopped posting reports entirely unless I felt it was absolutely needed. But that's another discussion.

This is probably something I should do. I never thought of this. Huh.

[Lady Scylla]

Admittedly, I've withheld posting reports depending on which Mod was active because of being worried they'd be too lenient or too harsh. Eventually just stopped posting reports entirely unless I felt it was absolutely needed. But that's another discussion.

This is probably something I should do. I never thought of this. Huh.

That can work against you, mind. Posting reports with Mods that you know will rule in your favour is just wrong. There are a select few of the Moderation team that I wouldn't trust with my life if it came to it, and I avoid posting reports when they're active.

[Dread Lady Nathicana]

Say it ain't so! You're almost suggesting an unreliable result there, woman! Le gasp!

Meanwhile, Deadpool just sits back waiting for someone to bring him his chimichangas.

He ain't the only one, honey.

The posts about 'who is and isn't active' and 'have given up reporting' is not a new complaint either. Things of this nature may have been discussed by myself back in the day, as some may or may not recall, but the fact that it exists at all ought to be an indicator that there are some issues that may, perhaps, need addressing. Or at the least, acknowledging.

Granted, some players will complain about everyone and everything. And granted, there's no pleasing everyone. But when there's a pattern, or a trend, well ... maybe it isn't just the players. fwiw.

[Lady Scylla]

Meanwhile, Deadpool just sits back waiting for someone to bring him his chimichangas.

He ain't the only one, honey.

The posts about 'who is and isn't active' and 'have given up reporting' is not a new complaint either. Things of this nature may have been discussed by myself back in the day, as some may or may not recall, but the fact that it exists at all ought to be an indicator that there are some issues that may, perhaps, need addressing. Or at the least, acknowledging.

Granted, some players will complain about everyone and everything. And granted, there's no pleasing everyone. But when there's a pattern, or a trend, well ... maybe it isn't just the players. fwiw.

Moderation does need some work. It's slid the past few years for whatever reason -- a few worthwhile additions have been made to the team, and a few horrible ones. Change in policy has had mixed feelings from me. The fact I feel I can't trust some Moderators is an issue.

[Luminesa]

This is probably something I should do. I never thought of this. Huh.

That can work against you, mind. Posting reports with Mods that you know will rule in your favour is just wrong. There are a select few of the Moderation team that I wouldn't trust with my life if it came to it, and I avoid posting reports when they're active.

Indeed. So there are two sides to the coin. I see.

[Charlia]

Hmm. Maybe I don't have the right angle for this situation, since as far as I'm aware I've gotten a couple of unofficial warnings and that's it. Maybe if and when my record is less clean, I'll change my mind. Maybe I'll never change my mind, since I can be ridiculously black-and-white on... well, a lot of things. (My psychologist and I are working on it, and I am getting somewhere, but I still have a long way to go...) I have no idea.

But I've always been on the pro-mod side when people get in an uproar about things. Heck, even during the April/May Massacre, when pretty much everyone was going a little nuts, I was just sort of sitting back, looking around, and wondering what the big deal was. Again, probably because of the aforementioned 'ridiculously black-and-white' thing. Possibly the fact that I often have problems empathizing with others. Maybe because I didn't know that many of the people affected, and really had no idea what the scale of the offenses committed truly were. I don't know. The point is that I've never really understood when people freak out at the mods--they're not even getting paid, but they're taking time out of their lives to help out. (Sometimes I don't understand that, but most of the time, I get it. You're cool, guys.) Heck, there was a point where I wondered about the feasibility of a Mod Appreciation Thread, where depressed mods could come and read people's stories of appreciation to help them cheer up.

All of this is to say that I am pro-mod. Very pro-mod. And that is being said for the sake of contrast, seeing as I do actually understand where this is coming from, a bit. I'm a Christian myself. Never been the best of the lot, I'll say that freely. And by that, I don't mean I'm one of the 'God Hates X' people. I mean that, well, prayers often feel like they're bouncing off the ceiling, I don't really feel like I connect with God on a personal level a lot of the time, and there are some days where I just do not want to get out of bed and go to church. (The horror!) I'm not a Lumi--being a nun does not sound like the way I want to spend the rest of my life. I am not devout. I'll just say that. And... here it comes...

I'm really not that upset about Monitor's post.

(Burn the heretic?)

I mean, the old ship's got a point. Just like we have crazy feminists, crazy anime fans, crazy Muslims, crazy minorities all over the place, we've got crazy Christians. (Although sometimes I doubt the veracity of that title--Westboro Baptist just seems to have missed the point by a mile.)

And there are Christians with persecution complexes. There are ones that overreact to everything. Yes, perhaps the phrasing on Monitor's post is a little bit poor, could have done with a little clarification that not all zealous Christians are like that, but overall I think the intent behind it wasn't to offend or to make an 'all X are Y' comparison. And I could be wrong. All I have to go by is face value and trying to use what I know about Monitor to extrapolate their intentions on this matter. I could very easily be wrong. But from what I know of Monitor, who I had the privilege of having a rather nice TG conversation with a while back when they took the initiative to clarify something that they had no obligation to clarify, they seem to be a generally decent old ship and a moderator who does their best to improve the community.

Would I like to have clarification on this matter, so that in the future, this can be referred back to in case similar situations arise again? Yes! As chaotic as I act a lot of the time, when it comes down to matters of JUSTICE (imagine that with fireworks, dramatic music, et cetera) I love having structure and set rules to work from. (Someday, criminals will learn to fear my name. Defense attorneys will quail at the merest glimpse of my face. But that's a while yet.)

But I do think people resorting to telling the mods how to do their jobs and questioning their ethics over the most minor of things(as I have seen occur several times, not just in this thread) is going a little overboard. The mods work hard, guys, for absolutely no pay whatsoever, and most of the thanks they get is backlash. And if you all knew how to do their jobs better than they did, well, then you'd be the mods. Have a little more faith in them, all right?


...Sheesh, maybe we really do need a Mod Appreciation Thread.



Oh, and I also might be talking complete nonsense to the rest of you, and if so, I am sorry. My mind works in very weird ways sometimes.

Charli out. o7

[Chrinthanium]

I think we're straying away from the real fact. The basics of this entire debate is does it violate a rule and, if not, is it simply bad form from a moderator. I suppose it does not break a rule because All X = Y was not used. Is it bad form from a moderator? No, they're human and have opinions and have the right to express those opinions. If we're going to get down to the nitty gritty on this, I don't believe Monitor did anything wrong and I do not believe she should be held to a higher standard because she has a red username. We can debate the merits of the actual statement in its own NSG thread at this rate. The fact is, at least from my own perspective, I have seen Mod ruling after ruling that unpopular opinions are not, in and of themselves, against the rules. It is the manner in which it is divulged. Perhaps people don't like the phraseology, but show me an NSG thread where everyone liked everyone else's phraseology.

I feel like this entire thread is devolving into a X vs Y here, pick which group is which variable. I will go off on a limb and assume that some of us, probably myself included, have all made statements on NS that were of a vaguely similar fashion and were not subjected to the debate we've putting Monitor through at this point. I feel like an asshat right now for even participating in this debate because, frankly, I like Monitor and have had plenty of friendly banter with her through TET. I consider her a Moderator of good standing and I believe she is as fair as any human being can be in her rulings. I also consider her a friend as I do many of the people posting in this thread. I do not believe she would have posted her statement if 1: she believed it violated the rules and 2: if it couldn't be ascertained by the casual reader that her comments were not lumping all 2 billion Christians into the same group. The moderators have ruled time and time again that, unless all X are Y is being used, they'll not take much action on it unless you can prove a different rule violation occurred.

I truly do not believe the Mods are anti-Christian or anti-Conservative. If they were, you'd never see a RWDT or a Christian Discussion Thread. I truly believe if I, for example, said all Christians were something derogatory, I would fully expect them to warn me for flaming. Yeah, I can save myself a warning by simply reducing the number being lumped together with the use of "a percentage" or "some elements" or some variant that shows that I am not, in fact, going All X Are Y. Even then, if I did it in a flamey kind of way, I'd expect a redbox warning. The fact is, as I have stated before, the phrase, "there is a percentage of Christians who believe X" is a statement that will fly on NS providing that statement doesn't break another rule.

[Dread Lady Nathicana]

I think we're straying away from the real fact. The basics of this entire debate is does it violate a rule and, if not, is it simply bad form from a moderator. I suppose it does not break a rule because All X = Y was not used. Is it bad form from a moderator? No, they're human and have opinions and have the right to express those opinions. If we're going to get down to the nitty gritty on this, I don't believe Monitor did anything wrong and I do not believe she should be held to a higher standard because she has a red username. We can debate the merits of the actual statement in its own NSG thread at this rate. The fact is, at least from my own perspective, I have seen Mod ruling after ruling that unpopular opinions are not, in and of themselves, against the rules. It is the manner in which it is divulged. Perhaps people don't like the phraseology, but show me an NSG thread where everyone liked everyone else's phraseology.

I feel like this entire thread is devolving into a X vs Y here, pick which group is which variable. I will go off on a limb and assume that some of us, probably myself included, have all made statements on NS that were of a vaguely similar fashion and were not subjected to the debate we've putting Monitor through at this point. I feel like an asshat right now for even participating in this debate because, frankly, I like Monitor and have had plenty of friendly banter with her through TET. I consider her a Moderator of good standing and I believe she is as fair as any human being can be in her rulings. I also consider her a friend as I do many of the people posting in this thread. I do not believe she would have posted her statement if 1: she believed it violated the rules and 2: if it couldn't be ascertained by the casual reader that her comments were not lumping all 2 billion Christians into the same group. The moderators have ruled time and time again that, unless all X are Y is being used, they'll not take much action on it unless you can prove a different rule violation occurred.

I truly do not believe the Mods are anti-Christian or anti-Conservative. If they were, you'd never see a RWDT or a Christian Discussion Thread. I truly believe if I, for example, said all Christians were something derogatory, I would fully expect them to warn me for flaming. Yeah, I can save myself a warning by simply reducing the number being lumped together with the use of "a percentage" or "some elements" or some variant that shows that I am not, in fact, going All X Are Y. Even then, if I did it in a flamey kind of way, I'd expect a redbox warning. The fact is, as I have stated before, the phrase, "there is a percentage of Christians who believe X" is a statement that will fly on NS providing that statement doesn't break another rule.

Welcome to the Wonderful World of How Things Work TM on NationStates. Been on both sides of this. Been on a number of sides if you get right down to it. We all have a tendency to feel certain ways about various situations depending on what our own experiences are, what our interactions have been concerning who's at question, etc.

What it really boils down to is Consistency. And that's been a creature hard to nail down, much as the lip service may be at any given time. There has often been a waffling on that, depending who from what group at what time is on the hot seat. Not going to point out this, that, or the other, just state outright that there has not always been as even-handed a handling as might be considered ideal. Yes, this is a longstanding argument of mine, no I have not changed my mind on it, and yes this was in part some of what got me shitcanned, so there's that.

Now perfection is something that we're unlikely to achieve. Everyone here is human, top on down, and mistakes will be made. On the whole, the moderation team has made a good effort at owning those mistakes, and attempting as fair a treatment as can be managed. However, over the course of the what, nearly 15 years this has been up and going, there have been instances that have caused some kerfuffle amongst this group or that on some changes, challenges, or actions that have not felt quite 'on'. Where there is a prevailing current of opinion, there may very well be an underlying problem. When leadership refuses to take an honest look at that and prefers echo-chamber ethics, not much can be done, and not much will change. Does that mean we need player group oversight? Hell no. That's one clusterfuck we absolutely do not need, nor want, folks. Trust me on the 'popularity contest power is bad' bit, because that's what it'd boil down to. Already have enough of that dynamic to one degree or other in the various play areas on the game as is, neh? Between players.

Solution is likely more along the lines of that good hard honest look at things, and maybe get some neutral outside opinions if possible - though how, not really sure off the bat, be sure that on the mod side they're not getting lost in an us vs them mindset, and the same on the player side, while we recognize that they too are people, will occasionally screw up, and ought to be given as much a pass as they're willing to give us on those things.

Equal treatment, consistent rulings, a lack of implied or inferred favoritism or clemency due to whatever factor, clear-cut answers rather than vague 'you ought to know what you did' anonymous VoM tgs (ie: be as informative as possible when someone asks a question, don't be snarky or dismissive, we've seen that happen and be talked about), patience and better behavior on the part of the player base overall, and trying to keep any grudges out of reports made ... yeah, all that sort of thing.

Sure, there's efforts made to one degree or other depending on the moderator in question, everyone has their own methods and mannerisms and quirks, same with players, but yeah. All comes back to consistency. Not all of us see or have seen the same sides to things, depending on our experiences, so it makes perfect sense that some would have different viewpoints even outside different attitudes on issues, but one way or another, that's what folks are going to look for. Fairness, consistency, and seeing that regardless of who someone is, or thinks they are, if they misstep, they'll get properly called on it. And if someone else does something parallel to it, and gets nailed harder, or smacked at all if it were allowed a pass prior, we probably ought to have some sort of valid explanation, all in the name of transparency as they say.

[Herskerstad]

I think it also depends on which Moderator is dealing with it. Some can be far more hard-assed than others.

Say it ain't so! You're almost suggesting an unreliable result there, woman! Le gasp!

Being hard-assed, or bone-nosed, or any such aspect is not so much the issue as there is a general standard of taste, and I will speak openly in this regard.

It is not only an issue which appertains to an individual mod, but rather the system as a whole. The variety of mods should if anything exist as a network to check eachothers for the inevitable biases some would have. Now some mods have the class of recusing themselves beyond just the normal rules, but also in regards for areas where they may hold particular sympathetic or antagonistic views. At times however this more feels like an echo chamber which is avoids self-correction, and the only GHR I've gotten in my own regards was appealingly bad, taking no care as to answer arguments and just slapping down a controversial sentence which, above all, did not intend malice.

Then there is the issue of sacred cow-topics. Areas of debate in which users are given to a particular protection and which hold particular heavy-handed approaches in dealing with, such as the issue of transgenderism. I can put up numerous examples in regards where mods have been slow, quite lenient, and otherwise defaulted to behaviours which could be construed as sympathetic, and to illustrate the point as to where such matters may cross the line, thus illuminating a different set of priority. I'll allow myself to make another corruption which I stress, serves the purpose of acting like a hypothetical.

It's not the fact that we are talking about someone who is transgendered. It's the fact that it's one of the first things that he or the author of the article picked to describe him.

If someone happens to be transgender, but they don't make a big deal about it, that's different from someone whose transgender identity is front and center every time they talk about themselves. Transgendered individuals who put their gender front and center are NOT a majority, and compared to those who do not engage in such and crossdressers, they are more likely to be snowflaked morons. If it's the news source that made that decision rather than him, that's a red flag that the source may have a left-wing bias.

Example X is an avid traveler and self-described trans-gendered individual, but does this sound like it could have been a story about him in his younger days? I have a hard time imagining it. There are transgendered people who go to meetings and believe whatever, and then there are transgendered individuals that make a big stink about being transgendered and have a giant persecution complex. This type of story usually involves the latter.

Even if this does turn out to be one of the rare occasions that a transgendered individual is moaning about identity persecution has a legitimate complaint, you can't blame people for being skeptical after all the times left-wing transgendered individuals have cried wolf.

Now I am a simple person who can be convinced of many things, I could be convinced that the moon is a big ball of cheese, that Trump is a secret Nazi who votes for Satan, that the anglos are a race of space lizards, but there is no way in hell that a person who would have made such a statement would have gained or in all likelyhood kept mod-hood. I cannot imagine that in a billion years. So group X who is a life-invested group face no such considerations, but group Y does and can even have it's voice elevated to the zenith of the site. I could bring up numerous cases to which particular attention to members of said group have been given all the benefit of the doubt and then some, and I could bring up examples where say the people at the RWDT, have been given warnings, bans, and ect, of an extremely questionable nature. Where discourse and discussion has been shut down, and where the GHR has been about as helpful electric machinery to the Hindenburg to which even neutral onlookers questioned the handling of the matter. Where judgements were based upon inferences on statements that any normal person could have spotted as inocious, and even after being told so continued the same conduct of bans to that which held no malice. Now, would this hypothetical cross into the realm of flaming? I've seen warnings for less, and I'd make the assertion that someone who identifies strongly as a Christian invests at least as much energy into their identity. Yet you won't find mods cracking down on say the CDT if a Catholic refuses to call a protestant a Christian or vice versa. There is no identity enforcement on that point and since we tend to go by gender as a social construct, one would imagine it to follow the rules that all other normative constructs are treated with. From what I've understood this applies to agendered and nonbinary people as well, though it was never made formally apparent if it would extent to other identities which touch upon an individual from an existentialist perspective. It's not an argument as for what the site-runners can do with the site, they can do as they want within judicial norms, but it is an argument against the fairness and the general zeitgeist it helps encourage on the site, and it has become problematic as of late.

Now most of this would not be an issue if there was a standard of taste, there are some that I have greater confidence in and mods whom I have had disputes with before, but since has applied in my view a higher standard, but needless to say, the original statement to me shows both a lack in a standard of taste, as well as how acceptable it is to approach a matter which does touch upon a large group with an appealingly low standard of consideration. If I had made such a statement even in spite, I would have apologised in retrospect even if the side I argued with was something I viewed as detrimental to humanity as a whole. Now I've invested some time into this, and the great irony is that people have approached me rather than other mods for aid and I believe at that point something has turned awry. I get that mods are not there to be a daycare center or that every solution will at all times be to everyones desired outcome, but I think it's time for a re-approchement on holding to a standard of taste, a level of discord which, aside from just checks and balances, are satisfactory to the degree of treatment, consideration of arguments, and really when malice is not the goal reconsiderations.

Then again, it's not as if we have much power in this regard. I do not intend to sound condescending more than peeved, but since the last couple threads which broached on similar topics got locked when mods were 'considering' and 'asking for patience' with little communication to follow after that, I don't have a great deal of confidence. It feels like a velvet gauntlet that constantly applies the soft side to one group and the iron knuckles to the other and this comes from someone without much of a history in terms of warnings.

[Luminesa]

Say it ain't so! You're almost suggesting an unreliable result there, woman! Le gasp!

Being hard-assed, or bone-nosed, or any such aspect is not so much the issue as there is a general standard of taste, and I will speak openly in this regard.

It is not only an issue which appertains to an individual mod, but rather the system as a whole. The variety of mods should if anything exist as a network to check eachothers for the inevitable biases some would have. Now some mods have the class of recusing themselves beyond just the normal rules, but also in regards for areas where they may hold particular sympathetic or antagonistic views. At times however this more feels like an echo chamber which is avoids self-correction, and the only GHR I've gotten in my own regards was appealingly bad, taking no care as to answer arguments and just slapping down a controversial sentence which, above all, did not intend malice.

Then there is the issue of sacred cow-topics. Areas of debate in which users are given to a particular protection and which hold particular heavy-handed approaches in dealing with, such as the issue of transgenderism. I can put up numerous examples in regards where mods have been slow, quite lenient, and otherwise defaulted to behaviours which could be construed as sympathetic, and to illustrate the point as to where such matters may cross the line, thus illuminating a different set of priority. I'll allow myself to make another corruption which I stress, serves the purpose of acting like a hypothetical.

It's not the fact that we are talking about someone who is transgendered. It's the fact that it's one of the first things that he or the author of the article picked to describe him.

If someone happens to be transgender, but they don't make a big deal about it, that's different from someone whose transgender identity is front and center every time they talk about themselves. Transgendered individuals who put their gender front and center are NOT a majority, and compared to those who do not engage in such and crossdressers, they are more likely to be snowflaked morons. If it's the news source that made that decision rather than him, that's a red flag that the source may have a left-wing bias.

Example X is an avid traveler and self-described trans-gendered individual, but does this sound like it could have been a story about him in his younger days? I have a hard time imagining it. There are transgendered people who go to meetings and believe whatever, and then there are transgendered individuals that make a big stink about being transgendered and have a giant persecution complex. This type of story usually involves the latter.

Even if this does turn out to be one of the rare occasions that a transgendered individual is moaning about identity persecution has a legitimate complaint, you can't blame people for being skeptical after all the times left-wing transgendered individuals have cried wolf.

Now I am a simple person who can be convinced of many things, I could be convinced that the moon is a big ball of cheese, that Trump is a secret Nazi who votes for Satan, that the anglos are a race of space lizards, but there is no way in hell that a person who would have made such a statement would have gained or in all likelyhood kept mod-hood. I cannot imagine that in a billion years. So group X who is a life-invested group face no such considerations, but group Y does and can even have it's voice elevated to the zenith of the site. I could bring up numerous cases to which particular attention to members of said group have been given all the benefit of the doubt and then some, and I could bring up examples where say the people at the RWDT, have been given warnings, bans, and ect, of an extremely questionable nature. Where discourse and discussion has been shut down, and where the GHR has been about as helpful electric machinery to the Hindenburg to which even neutral onlookers questioned the handling of the matter. Where judgements were based upon inferences on statements that any normal person could have spotted as inocious, and even after being told so continued the same conduct of bans to that which held no malice. Now, would this hypothetical cross into the realm of flaming? I've seen warnings for less, and I'd make the assertion that someone who identifies strongly as a Christian invests at least as much energy into their identity. Yet you won't find mods cracking down on say the CDT if a Catholic refuses to call a protestant a Christian or vice versa. There is no identity enforcement on that point and since we tend to go by gender as a social construct, one would imagine it to follow the rules that all other normative constructs are treated with. From what I've understood this applies to agendered and nonbinary people as well, though it was never made formally apparent if it would extent to other identities which touch upon an individual from an existentialist perspective. It's not an argument as for what the site-runners can do with the site, they can do as they want within judicial norms, but it is an argument against the fairness and the general zeitgeist it helps encourage on the site, and it has become problematic as of late.

Now most of this would not be an issue if there was a standard of taste, there are some that I have greater confidence in and mods whom I have had disputes with before, but since has applied in my view a higher standard, but needless to say, the original statement to me shows both a lack in a standard of taste, as well as how acceptable it is to approach a matter which does touch upon a large group with an appealingly low standard of consideration. If I had made such a statement even in spite, I would have apologised in retrospect even if the side I argued with was something I viewed as detrimental to humanity as a whole. Now I've invested some time into this, and the great irony is that people have approached me rather than other mods for aid and I believe at that point something has turned awry. I get that mods are not there to be a daycare center or that every solution will at all times be to everyones desired outcome, but I think it's time for a re-approchement on holding to a standard of taste, a level of discord which, aside from just checks and balances, are satisfactory to the degree of treatment, consideration of arguments, and really when malice is not the goal reconsiderations.

Then again, it's not as if we have much power in this regard. I do not intend to sound condescending more than peeved, but since the last couple threads which broached on similar topics got locked when mods were 'considering' and 'asking for patience' with little communication to follow after that, I don't have a great deal of confidence. It feels like a velvet gauntlet that constantly applies the soft side to one group and the iron knuckles to the other and this comes from someone without much of a history in terms of warnings.

And if a person was to say such things about someone who was trans, attacking them in such a way and accusing them of having a "persecution complex", they would get the banhammer rather quickly. Which is fair, as bullying a person for their personal struggles like that is uncalled-for.

[Herskerstad]

I don't read this as X=Y -- is it perhaps an unpopular opinion? Sure. But I'd like to point out that Lumi, and Hersker (to my knowledge) are Christians, and so it makes sense why you might have an issue. This doesn't make it right, but in itself, I think you're jumping over the ledge here. Lumi was upset at me a little while ago because I said something that was unpopular in opinion among Christians and had stepped on some toes. And I'd have to question if there's any underlying issues with Hersker bringing this up just to rule out any potential libel or 'vendetta'.

It should be noted among Christians on this site, that there are people who don't like Christians. There are people who don't like their beliefs. Assuming they can argue these without trying to be malicious -- there's no rule breaking; just opinions that Christians on this site might not like. That's a fact that one will have to deal with, and a general fact of life. Zealotry is often attributed with being a negative personality trait as is. So I don't see that as an argument.

Yes, Herskerstad is Calvinist.

Vult quod Deus vult.

[Chrinthanium]

Okay, I believe in fair treatment for all NSers. If you're being flamed, let the flamer be punished, so forth and so on. I wouldn't want to see Christian persecuted on NS anymore than I wouldn't want to see LGBTQ+ persecuted on NS or Atheists or Muslims or Jewish people, etc... I tend to believe NS does this pretty effectively. Can arguments be made that X Mod made Y ruling that contradicts my statement? Obviously. I've seen it myself. I think, more often than not, NS Mods get it right.

[Herskerstad]

I don't read this as X=Y -- is it perhaps an unpopular opinion? Sure. But I'd like to point out that Lumi, and Hersker (to my knowledge) are Christians, and so it makes sense why you might have an issue. This doesn't make it right, but in itself, I think you're jumping over the ledge here. Lumi was upset at me a little while ago because I said something that was unpopular in opinion among Christians and had stepped on some toes. And I'd have to question if there's any underlying issues with Hersker bringing this up just to rule out any potential libel or 'vendetta'.

It should be noted among Christians on this site, that there are people who don't like Christians. There are people who don't like their beliefs. Assuming they can argue these without trying to be malicious -- there's no rule breaking; just opinions that Christians on this site might not like. That's a fact that one will have to deal with, and a general fact of life. Zealotry is often attributed with being a negative personality trait as is. So I don't see that as an argument.

The distinction made in the original post goes a bit beyond the issue of taste and more into the controversy, which is not an X=Y controversy which I have to frequently stress. It's more intricate, and feels more malevolent to me perhaps from such.

But the distinction that was attributed to zeal in this case served the purpose perhaps better characterised as investment, and if we are to attribute ultimately unrelated traits onto the strata which they fufill by proxy of probability, it allows for many uncomfortable statements which should break any manner of discourse. I can see now forum surviving in a semi-formal state if they adopt it. " Strict Christians are more likely to be Islamophobic asshats." The two latter elements which has nothing to do with Christianity itself. Meaning that one could make nonsensical, but hurtful statements, like. " Valedictorians are more likely to be elitist degenerates." unless of course one adds justification by stereotype, as if that will improve matters.

But to give some perspective as to my noumenon and in the spirit of full disclosure. I am not going to claim that if this was done to a group I was not sympathetic towards that I'd go to these levels on the issue of fairness as a user. Perhaps for ultimately selfish designs in time-management. I have given advice to people whom I do not agree with in the past and sometimes not just for selfish gain, but it does not mean that I am a universal arbiter of standards. I've enjoyed watching a few trainwrecks in the past, so there are any number of deficiencies that may follow. And it would be a correct observation that since this did indeed touch upon a group and category I consider to be fully inside, that it contributed in making me to make this inquiry and discussion to begin with.

[The Archregimancy]

This is precisely what Discussion threads are for, and we should welcome Herskerstad's attempts to outline his position clearly and reasonably.

For the record, regardless of Monitor's status as a mod, but acknowledging my own status as an Orthodox Christian, had the post outline by Herskerstad in the OP of this thread been reported as a formal report (as opposed to a moderation discussion), and had that report ended up as my responsibility, I would not have found it actionable.

The key point is that Monitor's post posits that members of a specific group is more likely to engage in a particular pattern of behaviour. This is not the same as making an all X are Y argument. Saying that a particular type of Christian is more likely to be an Islamophobic asshat is not the same as stating that all of that particular type of Christian are Islamophobic asshats. It's an argument for partial correlation, not total overlap.

On the same logic, I also wouldn't have found the hypothetical second example actionable.

However, since I'm specifically named as a counter example of a different type of the nominated group in the post that was considered potentially problematic, I'll openly acknowledge that my opinion possibly don't amount to a hill of beans in this crazy world.

[Herskerstad]

This is precisely what Discussion threads are for, and we should welcome Herskerstad's attempts to outline his position clearly and reasonably.

For the record, regardless of Monitor's status as a mod, but acknowledging my own status as an Orthodox Christian, had the post outline by Herskerstad in the OP of this thread been reported as a formal report (as opposed to a moderation discussion), and had that report ended up as my responsibility, I would not have found it actionable.

The key point is that Monitor's post posits that members of a specific group is more likely to engage in a particular pattern of behaviour. This is not the same as making an all X are Y argument. Saying that a particular type of Christian is more likely to be an Islamophobic asshat is not the same as stating that all of that particular type of Christian are Islamophobic asshats. It's an argument for partial correlation, not total overlap.

On the same logic, I also wouldn't have found the hypothetical second example actionable.

However, since I'm specifically named as a counter example of a different type of the nominated group in the post that was considered potentially problematic, I'll openly acknowledge that my opinion possibly don't amount to a hill of beans in this crazy world.

Now that is fascinating and answers the inquiry in itself.

The followup question that immediately comes to mind would then be, are you certain the site could survive it? It accomplishes the goal of just about any flaming by allowing to do so in a nuanced proxy, and given that a variety of people on the forums are not beyond engaging in bad-faith arguments, the results for . .. giving sanction to that model could be more significant than one would imagine.

[Chrinthanium]

This is precisely what Discussion threads are for, and we should welcome Herskerstad's attempts to outline his position clearly and reasonably.

For the record, regardless of Monitor's status as a mod, but acknowledging my own status as an Orthodox Christian, had the post outline by Herskerstad in the OP of this thread been reported as a formal report (as opposed to a moderation discussion), and had that report ended up as my responsibility, I would not have found it actionable.

The key point is that Monitor's post posits that members of a specific group is more likely to engage in a particular pattern of behaviour. This is not the same as making an all X are Y argument. Saying that a particular type of Christian is more likely to be an Islamophobic asshat is not the same as stating that all of that particular type of Christian are Islamophobic asshats. It's an argument for partial correlation, not total overlap.

On the same logic, I also wouldn't have found the hypothetical second example actionable.

However, since I'm specifically named as a counter example of a different type of the nominated group in the post that was considered potentially problematic, I'll openly acknowledge that my opinion possibly don't amount to a hill of beans in this crazy world.

Now that is fascinating and answers the inquiry in itself.

The followup question that immediately comes to mind would then be, are you certain the site could survive it? It accomplishes the goal of just about any flaming by allowing to do so in a nuanced proxy, and given that a variety of people on the forums are not beyond engaging in bad-faith arguments, the results for . .. giving sanction to that model could be more significant than one would imagine.

Ah, words I can understand gooder To be honest, the bar is "Are all X being called Y" and, if the answer be a resounding "No," then no action is taken. As I have stated in this very discussion, you can save yourselves the redbox by taking the nuanced approach with "I believe that a percentage of" or "this group of people may be more likely to" as Arch just stated as it removes the violation of All X are Y. It is easy for any one of us to believe and prove that any fraction of a group is likely to be an asshat. Even the groups to which I belong.

[Herskerstad]

double post, ignore.

[Herskerstad]

Ah, words I can understand gooder To be honest, the bar is "Are all X being called Y" and, if the answer be a resounding "No," then no action is taken. As I have stated in this very discussion, you can save yourselves the redbox by taking the nuanced approach with "I believe that a percentage of" or "this group of people may be more likely to" as Arch just stated as it removes the violation of All X are Y. It is easy for any one of us to believe and prove that any fraction of a group is likely to be an asshat. Even the groups to which I belong.

I will rectify that clarity momentarily.

The problem is that the two derogatory elements are not inherently connected to the subject, which in this case was Christianity, and that the likelihood being in this case far more likely indicates leniency towards how one can phrase it. Another question that immediately comes to mind is will there then be a hard cap on the quantity that is indirectly inferred in case of a bad-faith argument? Probability is on the up, but if a person where to infer " A majority of hardcore Christians are islamophobic asshats" or "Millions of Christians are islamophobic asshats." would then it violate from having gone to probability inducing to numbers, in said case over 50%? Or is only probability the sanctioned model?

I just see a hundred ways said sanction can turn out horrible for forum discourse.

[USS Monitor]

This is precisely what Discussion threads are for, and we should welcome Herskerstad's attempts to outline his position clearly and reasonably.

For the record, regardless of Monitor's status as a mod, but acknowledging my own status as an Orthodox Christian, had the post outline by Herskerstad in the OP of this thread been reported as a formal report (as opposed to a moderation discussion), and had that report ended up as my responsibility, I would not have found it actionable.

The key point is that Monitor's post posits that members of a specific group is more likely to engage in a particular pattern of behaviour. This is not the same as making an all X are Y argument. Saying that a particular type of Christian is more likely to be an Islamophobic asshat is not the same as stating that all of that particular type of Christian are Islamophobic asshats. It's an argument for partial correlation, not total overlap.

On the same logic, I also wouldn't have found the hypothetical second example actionable.

However, since I'm specifically named as a counter example of a different type of the nominated group in the post that was considered potentially problematic, I'll openly acknowledge that my opinion possibly don't amount to a hill of beans in this crazy world.

Now that is fascinating and answers the inquiry in itself.

The followup question that immediately comes to mind would then be, are you certain the site could survive it? It accomplishes the goal of just about any flaming by allowing to do so in a nuanced proxy, and given that a variety of people on the forums are not beyond engaging in bad-faith arguments, the results for . .. giving sanction to that model could be more significant than one would imagine.

The site has survived it for 15 years or so. This isn't a change of policy.

I really think it's my garish red name tag that's making this controversial. Gotta admit, it is a really obnoxious shade of red.

[Chrinthanium]

Ah, words I can understand gooder To be honest, the bar is "Are all X being called Y" and, if the answer be a resounding "No," then no action is taken. As I have stated in this very discussion, you can save yourselves the redbox by taking the nuanced approach with "I believe that a percentage of" or "this group of people may be more likely to" as Arch just stated as it removes the violation of All X are Y. It is easy for any one of us to believe and prove that any fraction of a group is likely to be an asshat. Even the groups to which I belong.

I will rectify that clarity momentarily.

The problem is that the two derogatory elements are not inherently connected to the subject, which in this case was Christianity, and that the likelihood being in this case far more likely indicates leniency towards how one can phrase it. Another question that immediately comes to mind is will there then be a hard cap on the quantity that is indirectly inferred in case of a bad-faith argument? Probability is on the up, but if a person where to infer " A majority of hardcore Christians are islamophobic asshats" would then it violate from having gone to probability inducing to numbers, in said case over 50%? Or is only probability the sanctioned model?

I just see a hundred ways said sanction can turn out horrible for forum discourse.

I don't think that argument is in bad faith. I don't think that argument causes chaos and a "legal loophole" for those to engage in more pointed attacks by simply prefacing a statement. I tend to see Mods attempting to take the post as a whole into consideration and, sometimes, even reviewing a few posts back to gauge whether such a statement is a thinly-veiled attempt to circumvent the rules. I would tend to believe that it would be hard for someone trying to circumvent All X Are Y by using such prefacing because they would, at some point, forget to actually use the qualifying statement.

The site has survived it for 15 years or so. This isn't a change of policy.

I really think it's my garish red name tag that's making this controversial. Gotta admit, it is a really obnoxious shade of red.

Perhaps a nice maroon? Also, to be frank, I do agree with your comment.

[Dread Lady Nathicana]

There have always been loopholes and ways of getting around the rules. This is how we get 'teflon trolls' and the like on the site. Folks savvy enough to circumvent those general strictures, and keep things juuuuuust this side of allowable to not get nailed repeatedly. Nuance, a subtle change here or there, a shifting of words, a more careful phrasing, and damned if we haven't had to put up with the fallout from that. Folks can get downright offensive, prickly, and otherwise unlikable in the course of it all, and in spite of a pattern of behavior, can 'get away with it' because they manage to keep it within the letter of the law - if not the spirit of it.

As to the comments about mods keeping mods in check, yes, that is the idea in theory. In practice, I can't really speak for how it is these days as I'm not privy to those discussions anymore. I think I can say, without breaking old trust, that there have been times when we have not agreed at all, but one side or another has been outvoted, or the boss has put his foot down, and that was that regardless of mod opinions. No, not about to say on which or what - that /would/ be out of bounds, but in the past, such things have happened. Rarely, but happened. As others have said, overall? Generally seems to work out ok. There's a lot of work done that folks on this side are never aware of, and never have to give a thought to because its caught and sorted before many, if any at all, notice. Just as there's lots of players who go along blissfully unaware of the occasional drama some of us get caught up in.

All the more reason to be clear on some of the calls, and the reasonings for them. And all the more reason to attempt to keep oneself above reproach if at all possible. (Unlikely, but hey - most of us eventually have our breaking points.) Doubt the 'squeaking by the rules' bit is ever going to change - that's why we so often see the response of 'up to moderator discretion', good or bad. And trying to micromanage everyone's posts would likely drive all of us batty, so ... meh. Perhaps a bit of lightening up all around is a better solution, with folks not getting offended at all the things, and mods easing up in like manner to keep it for the real offenses. Which of course is up to conjecture again.

Yep. Fun and games all around, folks.

[The Archregimancy]

This is precisely what Discussion threads are for, and we should welcome Herskerstad's attempts to outline his position clearly and reasonably.

For the record, regardless of Monitor's status as a mod, but acknowledging my own status as an Orthodox Christian, had the post outline by Herskerstad in the OP of this thread been reported as a formal report (as opposed to a moderation discussion), and had that report ended up as my responsibility, I would not have found it actionable.

The key point is that Monitor's post posits that members of a specific group is more likely to engage in a particular pattern of behaviour. This is not the same as making an all X are Y argument. Saying that a particular type of Christian is more likely to be an Islamophobic asshat is not the same as stating that all of that particular type of Christian are Islamophobic asshats. It's an argument for partial correlation, not total overlap.

On the same logic, I also wouldn't have found the hypothetical second example actionable.

However, since I'm specifically named as a counter example of a different type of the nominated group in the post that was considered potentially problematic, I'll openly acknowledge that my opinion possibly don't amount to a hill of beans in this crazy world.

Now that is fascinating and answers the inquiry in itself.

The followup question that immediately comes to mind would then be, are you certain the site could survive it?

Yes; I'm fairly certain.

After all, we've survived over 14 years of people trying to argue their way out of similar situations on the basis of semantics and a particular reading of individual rules.

In the end, the moderation team are going to make judgement calls on this sort of thing on the basis of our understanding of intent, track record of the poster, and context of the post. Perhaps we don't always get it right, and sometimes it take a little while for a poster to build the necessary track record and reputation (either positively or negatively) that helps facilitate a judgement of intent - but we can generally tell the difference between someone making a constructive if controversial argument, and someone who's trying to use semantics to deliberately weasel their way out of being held to account for breaking the rules. We can also generally identify people who are deliberately tapdancing just this side of openly actionable behaviour.

Not everyone will always agree with us when we make those decisions - which I'm comfortable with - but it's precisely because these things can be judgement calls that we often stress the need to consider the particular context of a post before deciding whether a post is actionable or not. Some decisions are clear cut; but the majority require some level of judgement on all of these factors. And because those judgements will necessarily involve a level of subjectivity, not everyone will always agree with a decision (at which point this paragraph is becoming dangerously circular). For better or for worse, that's an inevitable part of the process.