[DISCUSSION] Application of the Defamation Rule

[Escade]

Sometimes it takes me a longer time than other people to realize or understand something.

I was given a warning for defamation and this thread seems to have arisen in response to how to deal with this issue in a way that is more beneficial to the community. These are my thoughts.

1. The post from which the link was removed:

This is an excuse. It is a cop-out, pure and simple. It is an abdication of responsibility.

Anybody who has read the thread on Europeia's forum - a thread that we cannot link here, a thread whose contents we cannot discuss here, a thread we can only reference obliquely, even though the perpetrator has admitted their guilt on this site can see that this is so.

The Europeian admins are to be commended for the extensive lengths they went to to authenticate the evidence they were provided - evidence that did not come from their forum, that did not come from their region, and that required extensive checking of RL records and even money - and verify the complaints against the perpetrator. It was a lot of work, and it took a lot of time, and they left no doubt that the allegations are true.

They left so little doubt, in fact, that the perpetrator had no choice but to confess. They did everything they have been accused of. They did everything for which they have been banned from the Europeian forum, and from many others to boot.

And what will the NS mods do, in the face of such overwhelming and verified evidence? In the face of an on-site confession?

Nothing.

Because it all happened off-site.

And what can we say about it, in the face of such overwhleming and verified evidence? In the face of an on-site confession?

Nothing.

Or we will be warned for "defamation".

The Europeian admins do not only investigate true complaints. Because they take sexual harassment seriously, they investigate all claims. Some are shown to be false. Some cannot be shown to be true. Some are a hell of a lot more work than others.

But what they don't do is throw up their hands just because it's hard.

It's my personal feeling that in the face of overwhelming evidence, of a community trying to figure out how to take care of our people - the vulnerable -that it is important to understand context:[b][link redacted by mod edit][/b]

I don't know what the solution is. I agree that this game isn't just a game and that there might be some people who try to politicize things. Only recently, people attempted to politicize and smear a well-respected player with allegations that were not only unfounded and untrue but also disgusting and repulsive and those that picked up on them for political gain as well are of the same ilk. There was no solution there. All anyone can do is pretend to be neutral or some bullshit like that or try to block those individuals not just in the game but mentally as well.

At this point, though enough actual disgusting behavior and documented behavior happens that the excuse "on-site" and "off-site" don't really make sense. This game isn't only played onsite. That is a fact. Many aspects of this game are conducted on forums or servers or chats. Maybe moderation can't police them all but on-site moderation can take into account the massive effort made by a cadre of well respected players and their community to do something and can help rather than reiterate the one statement that does nothing to help.

I don't need to know how to easily fix the problem to argue that there needs to be a fix and ignoring it won't make it go away. "Don't sexually harass people. Don't use sexual stuff to manipulate people for political and other fucking things in a game or real life. Be a decent human being or get lost."

Since it seems semantics is often a realm favored by some, I will begin with the appeal to semantics and legality:

2. This is the section of the The One Stop Rules Shop from which the warning was determined with the relevant portions in bold:

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.

What determines non-NationStates business? Forums and discords and IRCs and etc are all integral extensions of the game and arise from the nature of how NationStates functions. The safety of NationStates players who use these extensions seems to be critical to NationStates business.

The very idea that there is a thread where a players basically states, "I have enjoyed and loved this game but have to leave because of the sadistic behavior of another player who cleverly utilizes the extensions as avenues of psychological and sexual harassment" and respondents cheerfully or sadly or otherwise say "best wishes, have a good life!" to the player is a situation itself that should be impossible. Why are we not questioning the extremely flawed and unjust premise where the victim of a horrific situation is ostracized from the community? Instead of saying "sorry 4 ur loss, gl, enjoy life" we should be asking, "Is it NationStates business to protect its players from predators to the extent that it humanely can?"

That thread, in part, arose from the serious revelations in the Europeia thread in which everyone is obliquely talking about the problem but cannot directly state anything. What are we living under, Voldemort's regime where everyone must say "He Who Must Not Be Named." In this case, the only result from that kind of censorship is that the people who have read the forum thread are talking in circles about a serious issue that impacts people off and on site and that anyone who doesn't have access to that thread is confused and not elucidated on the matter at hand or the threat of predatory behavior.

It seems to me that more drama, investigations, and hoopla was made about the use of a program or script called Predator which was not engaging in torturing victims but when it comes to actual predatory harassment there is a gag order that only benefits those who can continue to use the site unimpeded, under other names, and target people.

2. Then a legal definition of the word defamation from The People's Law Dictionary:

defamation
n. the act of making untrue statements about another which damages his/her reputation.

If the defamatory statement is printed or broadcast over the media it is libel and, if only oral, it is slander. Public figures, including officeholders and candidates, have to show that the defamation was made with malicious intent and was not just fair comment. Damages for slander may be limited to actual (special) damages unless there is malice. Some statements such as an accusation of having committed a crime, having a feared disease or being unable to perform one's occupation are called libel per se or slander per se and can more easily lead to large money awards in court and even punitive damage recovery by the person harmed. Most states provide for a demand for a printed retraction of defamation and only allow a lawsuit if there is no such admission of error.

For one thing linking to an off-site forum in which accusations are discussed is not the same as making an accusation on-site. If you're sticking to some sort of semantic on-site\off-site distinction then technically no accusation has been made onsite. Only a link provided to context to a topic being discussed obliquely.

Finally, to the latter point "Most [states] let's call it moderator jurisdictions "provide for a demand for a printed retraction of defamation." If we are trying to build in some checks and balances to the defamation rule - maybe we can use this. A limit on one thread on the topic and the player must provide evidence that is substantial and accepted by the mod community. If such evidence can't be provided that the OP must issue a retractment that can be placed in the thread OP and then locked.

There has to be a better way then what we have now.

[Malashaan Colony]

I've been hesitating on commenting here because, as one of the people who conducted the investigation that shall not be named, I am still somewhat raw and angry. Coming here and venting is not helpful, so I took a little time to reflect. I do think it is worth spending a brief moment to explain why I felt this way though. A large part of it is just the stress of the investigative process. Investigations of alleged misconduct are not easy things to do, and, having been through several, I can say I always come out feeling exhausted and a little jaded. However, there is also a significant element of frustration with NS moderation.

As others have said, off site admins face all of the same problems with verification that NS moderation face. Much of the time, all we can be sure of is the IP addresses that a forum account uses and an email address used to register the account (which is regularly a "burner" email). However, much of the alleged misconduct typically occurs through other mediums such as Discord, Skype, IRC, etc. Everything else, we have to figure out by a process of eliminating possibilities and drawing inferences. What typically happens is that we reach a point where we are confident in what is going on, and then we confront individual in question. Nominally, the confrontation is an opportunity to prove that we got something wrong, but I'm not aware of an instance of that happening. By the time we get to that point, we've always figured enough out that any possible explanation of the evidence is so outlandish that it is essentially impossible that there could be one. NS moderation has access to similar information that we do, IP address data and an email address. While it may be the case that in some instances, an investigation just can't provide reasonable evidence (I've been involved in several such investigations that were just dropped as a result), that doesn't mean that any attempt is futile. It would be entirely reasonable (in fact, it is required by fairness) for the rule to be that people will not be banned from NS without verifiable evidence, but the current policy goes much further; it says that NS moderation will not attempt to verify evidence.

That said, the main point of this thread is the current rule. I agree with the sentiment that the rule as written does not require the strict policy that has evolved. In fact, I think that the policy is in conflict with the rule to some degree. In the following paragraphs, I will break down several parts of the rule that I think deserve closer scrutiny.

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.

This part of the rule is entirely sensible. It really just states a truism, that NS moderators do not have jurisdiction over offsite properties not owned by NS. The concept of jurisdiction has been used to justify NS moderation not being able to take action over offsite behavior, but this is not an accurate use of the the concept of jurisdiction. The fact that NS moderation does not have jurisdiction over an offsite forum means that they cannot direct how the administrators of that offsite forum manage their community. In other words, the NS moderation does not have enforcement power over offsite forums. However, that lack of jurisdiction does not mean they cannot act over offsite behavior. To use the US and Canada example that has been raised, if a Canadian acts in a way that harms an American, the American legal system can take action against the Canadian, even if all of harmful actions occurred in Canada. The American court cannot require Canada to imprison the accused, but it can convict and sentence the accused itself. These kind of cross-border legal questions come up more and more with the increase in online activity, and it's a perfect analogy for what we have here. The "bad acts" may well be happening outside of NS jurisdiction, but they are causing harm within the NS community.

That leads into:

Please don't bring non-NationStates business to the NationStates forums, Getting Help page, or #themodcave.

As others have raised, "Nationstates business" is not necessarily clear, but it is undoubtedly broad. The earlier part of the rule defines jurisdiction over "the game and ... Nationstates forum." The rule could easily use the same construction, something along the lines of "do not bring complaints arising out of conduct that did not occur in the game or on the Nationstates forum to Nationstates moderation," but it doesn't. It uses the apparently broader term "Nationstates business." NS moderation appears to read the latter as equivalent to the former. However, a more reasonable reading would be more akin to "do not bring complaints that are not related to Nationstates to the NS moderation." It is not hard to delineate between conduct that occurs within communities that only exist due to NS, and which NS encourages the existence of, and conduct that as totally unrelated to NS. There may be a few borderline cases where two people meet through NS, become real life acquaintances, and then something happens, but they are rare, and a rule of reason can be applied. Furthermore, given the rarity, there really is no harm in those issues being heard, even if the decision is ultimately to not take action.

With all that as context, that brings us to the "controversial" part of the rule:

In particular, accusations of misconduct outside of NationStates do not belong in NationStates and will be punished as defamatory.

As a threshold matter, a similar construction issue as arises with "Nationstates business" applies. What is considered "outside of Nationstates"? The earlier portion of the rule refers to "the game" and "our Nationstates forum." This implies two important factors. First, this forum is not part of the game. In other words, this forum is "outside of the game." As conduct on this forum is subject to mod action, we can infer that "Nationstates" and "the game" are not the same thing. Rather, Nationstates is a broader concept that at least includes this forum as well. Second, the use of "our Nationstates forum" (rather than "the Nationstates forum") strongly implies that there are other Nationstates forums (which of course there are). It would be an entirely internally consistent reading of the rule to conclude that "outside of Nationstates," like "Nationstates business," refers to activity not connected to Nationstates. In other words, discussion between members of NS regions that just happens to occur through a third party platform is still within Nationstates. To me, it seems to be a more natural reading of the rule to conclude that it bans allegations that a person has been charged with a real life crime, rather than discussion of behavior that arises directly out of the game.

Leaving the nit-picky construction argument aside, the point others have raised about accusations is highly pertinent. To use Escade as an example of the wider point, there was no accusation in that post. Reporting that someone was banned from a region is a factual statement, not an accusation. This is particularly so where the person in question has admitted that the reasons behind the banning are accurate (on this site no less, so unquestionably verifiable). There was an argument earlier that the rule covers all accusations, not just unsubstantiated or false ones, but that does not change the conclusion. An accusation is "a claim that someone has done something wrong or illegal" (using Merriam-Webster because I have it to hand, but every definition I've seen on-line is similar). That is not what we have here. We have a true statement that a third party has concluded that someone did something wrong. Returning to the US/Canada example, the NS moderation interpretation of the rule is that a Canadian saying "Bernie Madoff was convicted of securities fraud in the US" is defamation because the Canadian court system has not verified the conviction. That is clearly not defamation, because the event did happen. Now it is possible that a conversation about that conviction may veer into dubious territory, particularly if the convicting authority is unreliable, but action should be taken against the defamation that results, not the true statement that underlies it. For example, Albania historically had a reputation for a corrupt judicial system. A statement that person X did Y premised entirely on a conviction in Albania might indeed be defamatory, but a statement that the conviction occurred followed by a discussion of how reliable it is and the impact it will have would not.

I also saw Mall asking for an enforceable standard. I think the above discussion provides one. There is a difference between identifying a ban and the reasons stated for that ban and treating those reasons as fact. This distinction is immediately apparent on a cursory review of any statement. There is a large corpus of real life defamation law out there that really gets into this distinction, but I think most people inherently understand it. There may be instances where an off-site event is used to harass somebody by repeatedly raising it out of context, but as someone noted, that can be addressed on the grounds of harassment in a targeted way, rather than a blanket ban on all discussion of offsite events that might reflect somebody in a bad light.

[Ever-Wandering Souls]

Exceedingly well put.

[The Gipper]

To use Escade as an example of the wider point, there was no accusation in that post. Reporting that someone was banned from a region is a factual statement, not an accusation.
...
I also saw Mall asking for an enforceable standard. I think the above discussion provides one. There is a difference between identifying a ban and the reasons stated for that ban and treating those reasons as fact.

I thought that’s already how it worked,? I thought that it would have been totally fine to name a name and make the factual statement that they were banned from *Specific-Forum* because of *Very-Non-Specific-Description*. As I (a non-Mod) recall, it isn’t illegal to state that someone has been banned, and that the ban was in relation to OOC conduct that crossed a line. (Or at least it wasn’t called on this.) From my non-Mod prospective, I thought what Escade did wrong was posting very detailed accounts of the bad behavior instead of using very vague terms. And even though she didn’t type the words into NS.net, as Mall said in the thread I linked to:

A further reminder that a link to an offsite forum thread post containing rulebreaking material can be treated as if the poster of that link had stated the things in that post themselves.

A comparison between how these two bannings were handled seems fitting for this thread. In one case, the region in question named the alleged offender (and for the record I have NO idea what he may have done back then) but made no specific references to what happened - but did give enough non-specific ominousness to make me concerned. Once the person was named no one ever put any detail anywhere on the proper site about what happened. In the more recent case, fairly specific details about what happened have already wound up in - or at least the type of conduct was named. So now everyone seems to be very cautious about saying who since we already know what.

Maybe I’m just rambling at nothing, but it seems like the current rules do not prevent us from discussing who did something bad (or at least they didn’t before). And the current rules clearly don’t prevent us from discussing what was done. But the rules do prevent us from doing both, so we can reveal who or what but not both.

@Mods: Am I understanding the rule correctly? Would it have been legal for someone to post in that embassy thread a one liner that said:

“%nation% is permanently banned from %region% and %forum% because of OOC conduct that severely crossed the line.”

And I know you don’t rule on hypotheticals but this isn’t a hypothetical, fill in the blanks with the specific words and assume I posted that precisely. And if it would have been legal, does it change anything that the post two posts before mine was someone else saying “someone” was banned for sexual harassment / deception / whatever you want to call what happened?

[Mallorea and Riva]

@Mods: Am I understanding the rule correctly? Would it have been legal for someone to post in that embassy thread a one liner that said:

“%nation% is permanently banned from %region% and %forum% because of OOC conduct that severely crossed the line.”

And I know you don’t rule on hypotheticals but this isn’t a hypothetical, fill in the blanks with the specific words and assume I posted that precisely. And if it would have been legal, does it change anything that the post two posts before mine was someone else saying “someone” was banned for sexual harassment / deception / whatever you want to call what happened?

If you look in the thread that my quote comes from you will see a post announcing the expulsion of a specific player for reasons explicitly stated to be OOC in nature. That post is vague enough that it doesn't run afoul of the rules. Once you get into the specifics of the violation you enter dangerous territory under the rules.

The defense that Escade has is the post stating "It's true" which creates an onsite piece of evidence to counter claims of falsehood. That's one of the things being discussed. That having been said there are still a host of other issues at play here which are being discussed.

[Guy]

The defense that Escade has is the post stating "It's true" which creates an onsite piece of evidence to counter claims of falsehood. That's one of the things being discussed. That having been said there are still a host of other issues at play here which are being discussed.

I would like to focus, very briefly, on this narrow point.

Whatever the outcomes are regarding the defamation rule and punishing players for offsite misconduct more generally, it should be as clear as anything that this should be a full defence for Escade, and the warning is to be retracted.

If Player X is banned for reason Y from region Z, I can see the argument that even reporting it could be unfair to the player, even though it represents factual reporting. Do I necessarily agree with such a warning? No. But I can at least understand the reasoning. If Player X did no such thing, then the report would propagate a false accusation against them.

In the context where the player has fully admitted the truth of the allegations, I see no possible reason to forbid other players from referring to the allegations.

[USS Monitor]

The defense that Escade has is the post stating "It's true" which creates an onsite piece of evidence to counter claims of falsehood. That's one of the things being discussed. That having been said there are still a host of other issues at play here which are being discussed.

I would like to focus, very briefly, on this narrow point.

Whatever the outcomes are regarding the defamation rule and punishing players for offsite misconduct more generally, it should be as clear as anything that this should be a full defence for Escade, and the warning is to be retracted.

If Player X is banned for reason Y from region Z, I can see the argument that even reporting it could be unfair to the player, even though it represents factual reporting. Do I necessarily agree with such a warning? No. But I can at least understand the reasoning. If Player X did no such thing, then the report would propagate a false accusation against them.

In the context where the player has fully admitted the truth of the allegations, I see no possible reason to forbid other players from referring to the allegations.

The link that Escade was warned for also violated another player's privacy by providing information about their geographical location, and the confession that people keep pointing to is very vague. It just says "It is true" without specifying what it is talking about. People have guessed based on the timing, but that's not the same as coming out and posting one of those detailed apology threads that we sometimes get in GP.

We are discussing rescinding the warning on the grounds that the post says more about how confused and upset Escade was than about what kind of person she is or what kind of behavior we can expect from her in the future. However, the link she posted absolutely did break site rules and it can't be reposted.

[Republic of Keshiland]

I think that defamation should only be applied if they either a) use the person's real name or info (then that goes into more serious things as well) or if they make unfounded criminal accusations.

[The New California Republic]

I think that defamation should only be applied if they either a) use the person's real name or info (then that goes into more serious things as well) or if they make unfounded criminal accusations.

No. Absolutely not. I could not possibly disagree more. Defamatory statements that do not mention names - but make it blindingly obvious who it refers to - is still defamatory. Also, why should defamation only apply to "unfounded criminal accusations"? Like the first "get-out clause" that you suggested, this would also be giving people carte blanche to defame others, with the exception of criminal acts.

[Republic of Keshiland]

I think that defamation should only be applied if they either a) use the person's real name or info (then that goes into more serious things as well) or if they make unfounded criminal accusations.

No. Absolutely not. I could not possibly disagree more. Defamatory statements that do not mention names - but make it blindingly obvious who it refers to - is still defamatory. Also, why should defamation only apply to "unfounded criminal accusations"? Like the first "get-out clause" that you suggested, this would also be giving people carte blanche to defame others, with the exception of criminal acts.

Well, this is the legal definition of Libal a published false statement that is damaging to a person's reputation; a written defamation. (In the US)

[The New California Republic]

No. Absolutely not. I could not possibly disagree more. Defamatory statements that do not mention names - but make it blindingly obvious who it refers to - is still defamatory. Also, why should defamation only apply to "unfounded criminal accusations"? Like the first "get-out clause" that you suggested, this would also be giving people carte blanche to defame others, with the exception of criminal acts.

Well, this is the legal definition of Libal a published false statement that is damaging to a person's reputation; a written defamation. (In the US)

Notice that the definition doesn't say that the person's name needs to be mentioned for it to be libel, nor does it say that it only needs to be about unfounded criminal accusations.

[Republic of Keshiland]

Well, this is the legal definition of Libal a published false statement that is damaging to a person's reputation; a written defamation. (In the US)

Notice that the definition doesn't say that the person's name needs to be mentioned for it to be libel, nor does it say that it only needs to be about unfounded criminal accusations.

Well unless you are going around telling the world that you are your username that should not damage your real life reputation.

[The New California Republic]

Notice that the definition doesn't say that the person's name needs to be mentioned for it to be libel, nor does it say that it only needs to be about unfounded criminal accusations.

Well unless you are going around telling the world that you are your username that should not damage your real life reputation.

No, but defamation on Nationstates can certainly damage someone's reputation on Nationstates. Also, just because a person doesn't go around telling people their username, that doesn't mean that the defamatory comments are not going to follow them into real life.

[Guy]

I would like to focus, very briefly, on this narrow point.

Whatever the outcomes are regarding the defamation rule and punishing players for offsite misconduct more generally, it should be as clear as anything that this should be a full defence for Escade, and the warning is to be retracted.

If Player X is banned for reason Y from region Z, I can see the argument that even reporting it could be unfair to the player, even though it represents factual reporting. Do I necessarily agree with such a warning? No. But I can at least understand the reasoning. If Player X did no such thing, then the report would propagate a false accusation against them.

In the context where the player has fully admitted the truth of the allegations, I see no possible reason to forbid other players from referring to the allegations.

The link that Escade was warned for also violated another player's privacy by providing information about their geographical location, and the confession that people keep pointing to is very vague. It just says "It is true" without specifying what it is talking about. People have guessed based on the timing, but that's not the same as coming out and posting one of those detailed apology threads that we sometimes get in GP.

We are discussing rescinding the warning on the grounds that the post says more about how confused and upset Escade was than about what kind of person she is or what kind of behavior we can expect from her in the future. However, the link she posted absolutely did break site rules and it can't be reposted.

There is absolutely no ambiguity around the confession. I really want to be sensitive around this obviously difficult area for everyone (including mods), but that is utterly concocted nonsense whose only purpose is to make the warning appear reasonable.

With regards to geographical location, it is extremely generalised.

[Kylia Quilor]

Here's a question for the mods. We've been talking about defamation re: harassment and other behaviors that are bad beyond NS, but what about offsite terrorism? Or In-game espionage/Treason?

I mean, technically, if I go around telling everyone that player A committed forum destruction, I could be seen as defaming them and relying on "offsite evidence"... so wouldn't that be defamation? Same with treason and espionage. I mean, they can defend themselves (as much as someone could defend themselves from more serious charges) but I am defaming them, since it is all offsite evidence, and hurts their reputations?

Is that punishable behavior too? If not, then I'm not sure how your logic bears up on harassment, which equally can't be attached to a real person via their NS identity unless they went around advertising their real identity.

[Mallorea and Riva]

Here's a question for the mods. We've been talking about defamation re: harassment and other behaviors that are bad beyond NS, but what about offsite terrorism? Or In-game espionage/Treason?

I mean, technically, if I go around telling everyone that player A committed forum destruction, I could be seen as defaming them and relying on "offsite evidence"... so wouldn't that be defamation? Same with treason and espionage. I mean, they can defend themselves (as much as someone could defend themselves from more serious charges) but I am defaming them, since it is all offsite evidence, and hurts their reputations?

Is that punishable behavior too? If not, then I'm not sure how your logic bears up on harassment, which equally can't be attached to a real person via their NS identity unless they went around advertising their real identity.

"X player is a traitor to their region!" and "X player is a predator IRL" are such fundamentally different statements that I don't think we've ever considered the need to explain why one is a problem and the other isn't. Don't pretend you can't see the difference.

[The Gipper]

There is absolutely no ambiguity around the confession. I really want to be sensitive around this obviously difficult area for everyone (including mods), but that is utterly concocted nonsense whose only purpose is to make the warning appear reasonable.

With regards to geographical location, it is extremely generalised.

Not to be overly difficult, but I do want to backup the mods here. It took me a long time to figure out what people were calling a confession as well. If you were reading the GP thread without knowing what was going on offsite then the thread still made sense.

Ike: Does this mean I can come back?
>No.
Ike: Ouch.
>It is true.
Ike (further down, responding): Looks like you won’t ... something something.

Looking at the times and now having read what was happening elsewhere I can see how I read it wrong, but the very fact Ike responded to that post seems to confirm for me that I wasn’t the only one who saw it as a continuation of the above exchange. And even when you see that it isn’t, it isn’t specifically confirming anything. It is literally ambiguous.

[Ever-Wandering Souls]

Here's a question for the mods. We've been talking about defamation re: harassment and other behaviors that are bad beyond NS, but what about offsite terrorism? Or In-game espionage/Treason?

I mean, technically, if I go around telling everyone that player A committed forum destruction, I could be seen as defaming them and relying on "offsite evidence"... so wouldn't that be defamation? Same with treason and espionage. I mean, they can defend themselves (as much as someone could defend themselves from more serious charges) but I am defaming them, since it is all offsite evidence, and hurts their reputations?

Is that punishable behavior too? If not, then I'm not sure how your logic bears up on harassment, which equally can't be attached to a real person via their NS identity unless they went around advertising their real identity.

"X player is a traitor to their region!" and "X player is a predator IRL" are such fundamentally different statements that I don't think we've ever considered the need to explain why one is a problem and the other isn't. Don't pretend you can't see the difference.

I hope you can understand the confusion, though.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Too Long; Didn't Read:

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

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

Note the bit about accusations of offsite behavior that'd break NS rules, and is not relevant to NS gameplay activities.

Why do I bring this up?

viewtopic.php?p=32366873#p32366873
We've seen, for example, an unofficial to cease discussion of the Lazarene Resistance trying to bribe Gameplay support with stamp money, an NS rules violation that a) IS relevant to gameplay activites (state of the resistance), and b) which was reported, and moderation refused to act on, because obviously those given the offer rejected it and reported it, meaning there was no one site trail of stamps actually being bought or anything.

You can't say that the lines of how this ruling has been enforced have not been blurry and arguably overreaching before. There are plenty of inconsistencies present - I've never seen anyone shut down for accusing other people of having used predator who were not punished, or mentioning that someone worked with frak, but then someone gets smacked for daring to mention that a player tried to bribe another with stamps.

[Mallorea and Riva]

"X player is a traitor to their region!" and "X player is a predator IRL" are such fundamentally different statements that I don't think we've ever considered the need to explain why one is a problem and the other isn't. Don't pretend you can't see the difference.

I hope you can understand the confusion, though.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Too Long; Didn't Read:

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

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

Note the bit about accusations of offsite behavior that'd break NS rules, and is not relevant to NS gameplay activities.

Why do I bring this up?

viewtopic.php?p=32366873#p32366873
We've seen, for example, an unofficial to cease discussion of the Lazarene Resistance trying to bribe Gameplay support with stamp money, an NS rules violation that a) IS relevant to gameplay activites (state of the resistance), and b) which was reported, and moderation refused to act on, because obviously those given the offer rejected it and reported it, meaning there was no one site trail of stamps actually being bought or anything.

You can't say that the lines of how this ruling has been enforced have not been blurry and arguably overreaching before. There are plenty of inconsistencies present - I've never seen anyone shut down for accusing other people of having used predator who were not punished, or mentioning that someone worked with frak, but then someone gets smacked for daring to mention that a player tried to bribe another with stamps.

On my phone right now, so I can't reply substantively other than to say that while things can of course be difficult in the middle ground, the example given in the post I was responding to was absurd and implicated a lack of understanding on even a fundamental level.

[Gregoryisgodistan]

I should point out that accusing someone of defamation when they have not, in fact, committed defamation, is itself defamation. And truth is an absolute defense to defamation.

[Sierra Lyricalia]

I should point out that accusing someone of defamation when they have not, in fact, committed defamation, is itself defamation. And truth is an absolute defense to defamation.

...in the United States. Do you know Australian law? The overwhelming concern that the moderation team has w/r/t the defamation rule, narrowly speaking, is preventing Max Barry from being sued. I don't know Australian libel law, I don't know Australian liability-for-content-on-your-hosted-internet-forum law, and I don't know Australian legal definitions of defamation. I would hazard a guess that you probably don't either (do correct me if I am wrong).

The long and short of it is that you cannot assume your own local circumstances are even remotely related to the advice given to Mr. Barry by his attorney(s), which is then filtered down to Moderation to apply to the NS forums and TG system. I'm not saying don't lobby the mods for a very necessary change in how harassment is dealt with and discussed on-site, but there is actual expertise involved in deciding these things, which most of us aren't in a position to take issue with (even though some undoubtedly will).

[Frisbeeteria]

Mr. Barry by his attorney(s)

Can we please stop talking about Max Barry's legal team as if he's the scion of some massive publishing house or conglomerate? As I understand it, he's a moderately successful author who supports his family by writing books in his home office, in a decent home in a nice suburb of a fair sized city. Every once in a while, he gets an invite to the movie set of a moderately unsuccessful movie and gets to say "I met Johnny Depp and Amber Heard, whoopee!" He's not Mr. Moneybags.

[Ethel mermania]

Mr. Barry by his attorney(s)

Can we please stop talking about Max Barry's legal team as if he's the scion of some massive publishing house or conglomerate? As I understand it, he's a moderately successful author who supports his family by writing books in his home office, in a decent home in a nice suburb of a fair sized city. Every once in a while, he gets an invite to the movie set of a moderately unsuccessful movie and gets to say "I met Johnny Depp and Amber Heard, whoopee!" He's not Mr. Moneybags.

in this thread not so much, but in the off site thread there are potential legal consequences to the what site does. Even if the lawyers opinion letter turns out to be "ethel is an idiot" (if so i would like a copy for my wall). It is much more prudent for site ownership to have that in hand than not seeking it and dealing with potential ramifications later

[The North Polish Union]

Regarding the defamation rule: We feel that the rule is sufficient as written but we would clarify it to say that stating general factual accounts of things happening off-site are allowable. For instance, “Nationstan was removed from his admin position on the Regionboards for reasons detailed on them” is allowable. “Nationstan was removed from his admin position on the Regionboards because his thing about Hot Springs penguins is outside of nature’s laws” would not be, nor would “Nationstan was removed from his admin position on the Regionboards and you can read all about it at www.somedamnlink.somedomain.” Players are allowed to reply to such posts, again on general factual basis, in the thread. Behavior that can be seen as harassment (Mentioning it within multiple threads), flaming, or releasing private information is still against the rules.

In light of this, the warning for Escade is rescinded, though the link will still remain redacted.

So in light of this are we to assume that no changes will be made to the defamation rule and that it will remain delightfully vague?