Advertisement
by NERVUN » Mon Nov 13, 2017 3:13 am
by Ever-Wandering Souls » Mon Nov 13, 2017 3:33 am
NERVUN wrote:Aurum Raider wrote:
To use your metaphor: Actually ask the FBI to do an investigation?
I could be wrong here, but I doubt that the NS admin has ever asked for even partial administrative access to an offsite forum in order to even attempt an investigation.
From the way that NS Admin seems to handle these cases, the policy seems to be "Delete the messages and immediately decontaminate in the hopes that it goes away forever."
Would you guys be willing to grant us that?
Be careful how you answer... After all, the off site stuff is valuable because you don't have us and the OSRS breathing down your necks. We'd also run into the issues of Region X has given permissions, but Region Y hasn't. Thus if stuff is on Region Y, we're back to the drawing board. Also... there's protections for us built in. Let me explain, if I went into the controls right now and DEAT'ed you (No, I'm not gonna), that would be logged. Sooner or later someone is going to come asking me WHY I felt it necessary to squish your nation. If I said, "Well, he posted a threat on the RMB" I'd have to prove it. "Oh, I deleted it," would't work, there's a record of that as well. It's why the Mod team as a whole can trust each other because there's no way for us to cheat the system. It's all recorded and we can be called to account on it. I simply don't know your system if it has this kind back up on it. That too is something to consider. Finally, there's the problem of us sharing information too. Our TOS forbids us from sharing ANY information about our users with anyone who is not law enforcement acting within that system. So let's say your region comes to me to say they have someone and they want me to check to confirm that User X on your board is indeed Nation Xistan here and thus lower the boom... I couldn't do any such thing. In other words, we could take the info... but we couldn't really supply any. Is that too, ok?
This isn't to say that I, personally, wouldn't welcome a way to verify such information but I admit the climb is gonna be steep.
NERVUN wrote:Ever-Wandering Souls wrote:
What prevents changing the TOS, if necessary, to allow you to address this issue? It really seems like, from the perspective of the general public here, all the limits being named are limits...that the team and site owner control and can change.
The team cannot change the TOS. The TOS is set by the site owner through [violet] (And I could be wrong about that, [v] may as well be given marching orders). All of the rules are in response to THAT. Also... legal stuff from what I'm told. Parts of the TOS are set up due to various laws. How much, I dunno.
NERVUN wrote:Just as a general note, and then I've got to get back to work. I would like it known that while we cannot act here based on offsite evidence, that does not mean that we ignore it either. We do keep an eye out and/or investigate here to see if we CAN find something to act upon, so please do not think we just wash our hands and walk away. In many cases it is incredibly frustrating to see the work that goes on offsite and the care and the detail and... be unable to use it. But back in the day when the first Mods roamed the Earth and the rules came down written on stone tablets, the admins decided that Moderation cannot be done on a whim. Our site wouldn't operate based on who was friends with whom, but by set rules and rules of evidence of wrong doing that could be checked by every single Mod. That is, in cases like this, annoying as all hell. But it also means a system that is less based (hopefully) on favoritism and whim.
The Alicorns (Equestria) wrote:Let them stay, no need to badmouth them...From our view a bunch of nations just came in, seized the delegate position, and changed a few superficial things...we play NationStates differently...there's really no reason for us to be butthurt.
http://www.nationstates.net/page=rmb/postid=8944227
http://www.nationstates.net/page=rmb/postid=8951258
Reploid Productions wrote:Raiders are endlessly creative
by Todd McCloud » Mon Nov 13, 2017 3:50 am
NERVUN wrote:Aurum Raider wrote:
To use your metaphor: Actually ask the FBI to do an investigation?
I could be wrong here, but I doubt that the NS admin has ever asked for even partial administrative access to an offsite forum in order to even attempt an investigation.
From the way that NS Admin seems to handle these cases, the policy seems to be "Delete the messages and immediately decontaminate in the hopes that it goes away forever."
Would you guys be willing to grant us that?
Be careful how you answer... After all, the off site stuff is valuable because you don't have us and the OSRS breathing down your necks. We'd also run into the issues of Region X has given permissions, but Region Y hasn't. Thus if stuff is on Region Y, we're back to the drawing board. Also... there's protections for us built in. Let me explain, if I went into the controls right now and DEAT'ed you (No, I'm not gonna), that would be logged. Sooner or later someone is going to come asking me WHY I felt it necessary to squish your nation. If I said, "Well, he posted a threat on the RMB" I'd have to prove it. "Oh, I deleted it," would't work, there's a record of that as well. It's why the Mod team as a whole can trust each other because there's no way for us to cheat the system. It's all recorded and we can be called to account on it. I simply don't know your system if it has this kind back up on it. That too is something to consider. Finally, there's the problem of us sharing information too. Our TOS forbids us from sharing ANY information about our users with anyone who is not law enforcement acting within that system. So let's say your region comes to me to say they have someone and they want me to check to confirm that User X on your board is indeed Nation Xistan here and thus lower the boom... I couldn't do any such thing. In other words, we could take the info... but we couldn't really supply any. Is that too, ok?
This isn't to say that I, personally, wouldn't welcome a way to verify such information but I admit the climb is gonna be steep.
by Todd McCloud » Mon Nov 13, 2017 4:02 am
NERVUN wrote:Just as a general note, and then I've got to get back to work. I would like it known that while we cannot act here based on offsite evidence, that does not mean that we ignore it either. We do keep an eye out and/or investigate here to see if we CAN find something to act upon, so please do not think we just wash our hands and walk away. In many cases it is incredibly frustrating to see the work that goes on offsite and the care and the detail and... be unable to use it. But back in the day when the first Mods roamed the Earth and the rules came down written on stone tablets, the admins decided that Moderation cannot be done on a whim. Our site wouldn't operate based on who was friends with whom, but by set rules and rules of evidence of wrong doing that could be checked by every single Mod. That is, in cases like this, annoying as all hell. But it also means a system that is less based (hopefully) on favoritism and whim.
by Unibot III » Mon Nov 13, 2017 5:34 am
NERVUN wrote:How?
"but in the case where behavior is such that prominent groups of individuals have seen fit to remove players from various regional offices" Who are these prominent people? How are they vetted or chosen? Why THIS group as opposed to THAT group? Is it going to be based on region size? How? What if that group's been compromised? And where is the line, if someone was removed for puppeting... that's not really our call, or anything we're interested in.
We're banging our collective heads on this now too, but it really does come down to we cannot vet the evidence because it's not on our site. It's... like the FBI calls up the Japan National Police Agency and asks them to arrest me and then convict me for a crime that happened in the US based on evidence that the FBI will fax over, but will not allow for the NPA to see, handle, or conduct its own investigation. I'd love for a way to get past that, but damned if I know how...
[violet] wrote:I mean this in the best possible way,
but Unibot is not a typical NS player.
Milograd wrote:You're a caring, resolute lunatic
with the best of intentions.
by Astarial » Mon Nov 13, 2017 5:41 am
by Kylia Quilor » Mon Nov 13, 2017 6:51 am
by Mousebumples » Mon Nov 13, 2017 8:41 am
Jurisdiction: NationStates moderators are responsible for problems and issue with the game and interactions on our Nationstates forum. We have no jurisdiction over any offsite forums, and make no guarantees about their content. While some Mods may also be channel ops on NationStates-related IRC channels, they are not operating in an official NationStates capacity in that role (with the exception of #themodcave on gamesurge.net). Please don't bring non-NationStates business to the NationStates forums, Getting Help page, or #themodcave. In particular, accusations of misconduct outside of NationStates do not belong in NationStates and will be punished as defamatory.
by Kylia Quilor » Mon Nov 13, 2017 8:48 am
If I remember correctly, the current defamation rule came about because one player was following a different player from thread to thread and saying stuff along the lines of, "Why should anyone believe you when you say X since you've done Y in your home region?" (i.e. using defamation to discredit political opponents)
by Ever-Wandering Souls » Mon Nov 13, 2017 9:08 am
The Alicorns (Equestria) wrote:Let them stay, no need to badmouth them...From our view a bunch of nations just came in, seized the delegate position, and changed a few superficial things...we play NationStates differently...there's really no reason for us to be butthurt.
http://www.nationstates.net/page=rmb/postid=8944227
http://www.nationstates.net/page=rmb/postid=8951258
Reploid Productions wrote:Raiders are endlessly creative
by Unibot III » Mon Nov 13, 2017 10:32 am
[violet] wrote:I mean this in the best possible way,
but Unibot is not a typical NS player.
Milograd wrote:You're a caring, resolute lunatic
with the best of intentions.
by Mallorea and Riva » Mon Nov 13, 2017 10:50 am
Ever-Wandering Souls wrote:Hey mouse, Canada may not prosecute you for crimes in America, but they also won’t let you cross the border if you have a criminal record, and have no fear of extradition. You know, in order to protect the people over in their country.
It’s more comparable to asking for a little border control, after you’ve been given the opportunity to verify the evidence.
by Ever-Wandering Souls » Mon Nov 13, 2017 10:58 am
Mallorea and Riva wrote:Ever-Wandering Souls wrote:Hey mouse, Canada may not prosecute you for crimes in America, but they also won’t let you cross the border if you have a criminal record, and have no fear of extradition. You know, in order to protect the people over in their country.
It’s more comparable to asking for a little border control, after you’ve been given the opportunity to verify the evidence.
Mouse has asked that people take a try at writing a new defamation rule, so I'll make a parallel request: what would the rule you're asking us to enforce actually look like?
The Alicorns (Equestria) wrote:Let them stay, no need to badmouth them...From our view a bunch of nations just came in, seized the delegate position, and changed a few superficial things...we play NationStates differently...there's really no reason for us to be butthurt.
http://www.nationstates.net/page=rmb/postid=8944227
http://www.nationstates.net/page=rmb/postid=8951258
Reploid Productions wrote:Raiders are endlessly creative
by Mallorea and Riva » Mon Nov 13, 2017 11:02 am
Ever-Wandering Souls wrote:Mallorea and Riva wrote:Mouse has asked that people take a try at writing a new defamation rule, so I'll make a parallel request: what would the rule you're asking us to enforce actually look like?
I’ve already detailed my idea of a workable process above in reply to Nerv. I don’t imagine you’d need a specifically worded lawyerable rule for it beyond noting that staff reserves the right to remove players from the game for any other reasons it may deem necessary (again, common TOS-speak catchall for other cases where action is appropriate that do not explicitly fall under the rule set), and then deem such cases special cases worthy of special action to protect the safety of players of this game.
by The North Polish Union » Mon Nov 13, 2017 11:15 am
Hakinda Herseyi Duymak istiyorum wrote:keep your wet opinions to yourself. Byzantium and Ottoman will not come again. Whoever thinks of this wet dream will feel the power of the Republic's secular army.
Minskiev wrote:You are GP's dross.
Petrovsegratsk wrote:NPU, I know your clearly a Polish nationalist, but wtf is up with your obssession with resurrecting the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth?
The yoshin empire wrote:Grouping russians with slavs is like grouping germans with french , the two are so culturally different.
by Swith Witherward » Mon Nov 13, 2017 12:09 pm
Mousebumples wrote:This is definitely a discussion thread, so I guess my question for the general crowd is as follows:
In the interest of being more productive in our discussion - i.e. less gnashing of teeth that X is not currently allowed - do any of you have suggestions on how the current phrasing of the rule in the OSRS should be rephrased?Jurisdiction: NationStates moderators are responsible for problems and issue with the game and interactions on our Nationstates forum. We have no jurisdiction over any offsite forums, and make no guarantees about their content. While some Mods may also be channel ops on NationStates-related IRC channels, they are not operating in an official NationStates capacity in that role (with the exception of #themodcave on gamesurge.net). Please don't bring non-NationStates business to the NationStates forums, Getting Help page, or #themodcave. In particular, accusations of misconduct outside of NationStates do not belong in NationStates and will be punished as defamatory.
★ Madhouse ★
Role Play
& Writers Group
Anti-intellectual elitism: the dismissal of science, the arts,
and humanities and their replacement by entertainment,
self-righteousness, ignorance, and deliberate gullibility. - sauce
by Ever-Wandering Souls » Mon Nov 13, 2017 1:10 pm
The Alicorns (Equestria) wrote:Let them stay, no need to badmouth them...From our view a bunch of nations just came in, seized the delegate position, and changed a few superficial things...we play NationStates differently...there's really no reason for us to be butthurt.
http://www.nationstates.net/page=rmb/postid=8944227
http://www.nationstates.net/page=rmb/postid=8951258
Reploid Productions wrote:Raiders are endlessly creative
by USS Monitor » Mon Nov 13, 2017 1:23 pm
Swith Witherward wrote:This needs work:Please don't bring non-NationStates business to the NationStates forums, Getting Help page, or #themodcave. In particular, [b][u]accusations of misconduct outside of NationStates do not belong in NationStates and will be punished as defamatory.
What qualifies as non-NationStates? What qualifies as NationStates business? There is too great a grey area here, and that makes it easily exploitable. Further, it sounds as though misconduct can not be reported at all. This means that players can not report staff abuse of power offsite without fear of reprisal. It also means that someone can not alert the Mod team to potentially harmful activity or behavior brought from another site (stalking, for example).
What I suggest:Personal grievances arising from off-site activity have no place on NationsStates. Publicly aired grievances will be held to the standards outlined in the OSRS. In particular, public accusations of misconduct outside of NationStates may be punished as defamatory. Frivolous complaints may be actionable.
This gives users the ability to privately report or alert without fear of reprisal, provided the claims are not frivolous.
The North Polish Union wrote:I don't know that the defamation rule needs to be rewritten at all.
However, is is important to note that the Defamation Rule as it stands only prohibits "accusations of misconduct outside of NationStates" and not "any and all discussion of proven misconduct outside of NationStates." I feel that the Moderation team has interpreted the word "accusations" as being far broader than it is and this has created a paradigm where individuals cannot be as easily be publicly held to account for very real instances of misconduct as they could be otherwise, thereby creating an environment where such misconduct is more easily enabled.
by Aurum Raider » Mon Nov 13, 2017 1:29 pm
Swith Witherward wrote:What I suggest:Personal grievances arising from off-site activity have no place on NationsStates. Publicly aired grievances will be held to the standards outlined in the OSRS. In particular, public accusations of misconduct outside of NationStates may be punished as defamatory. Frivolous complaints may be actionable.
This gives users the ability to privately report or alert without fear of reprisal, provided the claims are not frivolous.
The North Polish Union wrote:Additionally, virtually all founderless regions are viewed as falling under the defenders' allegedly protective purview. This is a form of colonialism that the great imperialist regions of NS history could only dream of.
by Ever-Wandering Souls » Mon Nov 13, 2017 1:32 pm
USS Monitor wrote:I'd prefer "public accusations of misconduct outside of NationStates will be punished as defamatory" rather than "may be." Letting people air their offsite drama on the forums is too open to abuse and witch hunts, and I don't want to be dragged into judging which accusations are legit.
The Alicorns (Equestria) wrote:Let them stay, no need to badmouth them...From our view a bunch of nations just came in, seized the delegate position, and changed a few superficial things...we play NationStates differently...there's really no reason for us to be butthurt.
http://www.nationstates.net/page=rmb/postid=8944227
http://www.nationstates.net/page=rmb/postid=8951258
Reploid Productions wrote:Raiders are endlessly creative
by Eluvatar » Mon Nov 13, 2017 1:40 pm
Aurum Raider wrote:I could be wrong here, but I doubt that the NS admin has ever asked for even partial administrative access to an offsite forum in order to even attempt an investigation.
by The North Polish Union » Mon Nov 13, 2017 2:12 pm
USS Monitor wrote:The North Polish Union wrote:I don't know that the defamation rule needs to be rewritten at all.
It would. My warning against Escade is consistent with the OSRS as currently written.However, is is important to note that the Defamation Rule as it stands only prohibits "accusations of misconduct outside of NationStates" and not "any and all discussion of proven misconduct outside of NationStates." I feel that the Moderation team has interpreted the word "accusations" as being far broader than it is and this has created a paradigm where individuals cannot be as easily be publicly held to account for very real instances of misconduct as they could be otherwise, thereby creating an environment where such misconduct is more easily enabled.
It doesn't say "false accusations" or "unsubstantiated accusations." It just says "accusations."
Aurum Raider wrote:Swith Witherward wrote:What I suggest:Personal grievances arising from off-site activity have no place on NationsStates. Publicly aired grievances will be held to the standards outlined in the OSRS. In particular, public accusations of misconduct outside of NationStates may be punished as defamatory. Frivolous complaints may be actionable.
This gives users the ability to privately report or alert without fear of reprisal, provided the claims are not frivolous.
Under this clause, public accusations of misconduct will be punished as defamatory, and whether or not their viewed as frivolous will be irrelevant.
My suggestion would be more along the lines of
Public accusations of misconduct outside of NationStates, that are made with clear intent of bringing harm to another person, will be punished as defamatory. Furthermore, accusations that can be certifiably proven false will also be punished as defamatory.
Hakinda Herseyi Duymak istiyorum wrote:keep your wet opinions to yourself. Byzantium and Ottoman will not come again. Whoever thinks of this wet dream will feel the power of the Republic's secular army.
Minskiev wrote:You are GP's dross.
Petrovsegratsk wrote:NPU, I know your clearly a Polish nationalist, but wtf is up with your obssession with resurrecting the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth?
The yoshin empire wrote:Grouping russians with slavs is like grouping germans with french , the two are so culturally different.
by Todd McCloud » Mon Nov 13, 2017 3:25 pm
Eluvatar wrote:Aurum Raider wrote:I could be wrong here, but I doubt that the NS admin has ever asked for even partial administrative access to an offsite forum in order to even attempt an investigation.
As I understand matters, following the NS++ botnet incident Afforess was asked to permit an admin to log into the VM that was then running the 'assembly' backend for NS++ to look around. I was not a NationStates administrator nor a maintainer of NS++ at that time, so my knowledge is only second hand and I don't have the relevant records in front of me so take this as you will. I submit this not of argumentativeness but to make sure the record is clear.
by Unibot III » Mon Nov 13, 2017 3:39 pm
Jurisdiction: NationStates moderators are responsible for problems and issue with the game and interactions on our Nationstates forum. We have no jurisdiction over any offsite forums, and make no guarantees about their content. While some Mods may also be channel ops on NationStates-related IRC channels, they are not operating in an official NationStates capacity in that role (with the exception of #themodcave on gamesurge.net). Please don't bring non-NationStates business to the NationStates Moderation subforum(s), Getting Help page, or #themodcave. Discussion of player misconduct from outside of NationStates will be subject to a greater standard of rule enforcement, including thread hijacking and defamation, than regular discussion. If you wish to bring something to the community's attention, one thread, not five, will do. At their discretion (and theirs alone), please respect the confidentiality of victims of harassment and abuse.
[violet] wrote:I mean this in the best possible way,
but Unibot is not a typical NS player.
Milograd wrote:You're a caring, resolute lunatic
with the best of intentions.
by Fartsniffage » Mon Nov 13, 2017 5:41 pm
USS Monitor wrote:It would. My warning against Escade is consistent with the OSRS as currently written.
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: Countriopia
Advertisement