[Petition/Discussion] Harassment and Off-Site Evidence

[Roavin]

NationStates has programmatic means to verify the identity of a nation. Off-site forums and Discord servers could use those means to require verification of in-game nation when signing up to a forum. That way, when an off-site issue comes up, the identity of the individuals in question is clear. The Internationale already does this for their off-site forum and Discord server, for example. For Discord, a Bot that does the verification could then add a "Verified" mask, and only with that "Verified" mask would the user be allowed to access other channels. For forums, a similar system would be needed; I'm sure a Zetaboards plugin could do that.

[Tim-Opolis]

There's a difference from having a system that periodically falls short and fails to protect people, and having an entire segment of the game go effectively unregulated because there's nothing we can do / it's logistically hard / too much work etc.

Not sure when expecting an organized internet community to fight abuse became "silliness", or when actually protecting players from harassment became "extreme measures", but what do I know?

They're not a segment of the game. External forums need to be policed by separate moderators, simply because our moderation often barely has the resources to police *this* site. And yes, things being logistically very difficult and too much work for one set of volunteers to coordinate is a very good reason for things that happen away from here to be unregulated by our moderators. They literally can't do it. It's an unreasonable expectation. The complete refusal to see this and to instead stomp feet and make entitled demands is silly, absolutely.

They're most certainly a segment of the game. Are they official site-owned property, of course not, but it doesn't change the fact that they're endorsed by, frequently mentioned by, and very actively utilized by NS Staff themselves. Discord, for example, is full of various Moderators and Administrators at this point. Offsite Forums have Moderators too. Hell, Former GMs Crazy Girl and Sedgistan are a Root Admin and Admin respectively on The Rejected Realms forum. They've banned individuals from there for OOC harassment, so clearly the evidence was legitimate for even members of our staff to act on in that realm - despite it being offsite. NS Moderation does a fine job currently, and I think that HEM's framework provides for a way for this job to be continued to be done while preventing our game to be a safe haven for the type of people who'd commit sexual harassment. At present, it's a constant issue. The current status quo is simply not good enough, and I see it as grossly irresponsible to write off actions regarding that matter as "too difficult". The lack of action is directly endangering members of this community, and its doing so regularly.

[King HEM]

There's a difference from having a system that periodically falls short and fails to protect people, and having an entire segment of the game go effectively unregulated because there's nothing we can do / it's logistically hard / too much work etc.

Not sure when expecting an organized internet community to fight abuse became "silliness", or when actually protecting players from harassment became "extreme measures", but what do I know?

They're not a segment of the game. External forums need to be policed by separate moderators, simply because our moderation often barely has the resources to police *this* site. And yes, things being logistically very difficult and too much work for one set of volunteers to coordinate is a very good reason for things that happen away from here to be unregulated by our moderators. They literally can't do it. It's an unreasonable expectation. The complete refusal to see this and to instead stomp feet and make entitled demands is silly, absolutely.

Would gameplay, an accepted and popular way of enjoying Nationstates, exist in the same form without offsite properties? Absolutely not. Would R/D? Unlikely. Offsite properties are essential tenets of established ways of playing Nationstates - to the point where Max himself has talked about how he has joined various offsite forums and observed the game there for fun.

I don't think I'm the one stomping my feet here.

[Dumb Ideologies]

They're not a segment of the game. External forums need to be policed by separate moderators, simply because our moderation often barely has the resources to police *this* site. And yes, things being logistically very difficult and too much work for one set of volunteers to coordinate is a very good reason for things that happen away from here to be unregulated by our moderators. They literally can't do it. It's an unreasonable expectation. The complete refusal to see this and to instead stomp feet and make entitled demands is silly, absolutely.

They're most certainly a segment of the game. Are they official site-owned property, of course not, but it doesn't change the fact that they're endorsed by, frequently mentioned by, and very actively utilized by NS Staff themselves. Discord, for example, is full of various Moderators and Administrators at this point. Offsite Forums have Moderators too. Hell, Former GMs Crazy Girl and Sedgistan are a Root Admin and Admin respectively on The Rejected Realms forum. They've banned individuals from there for OOC harassment, so clearly the evidence was legitimate for even members of our staff to act on in that realm - despite it being offsite. NS Moderation does a fine job currently, and I think that HEM's framework provides for a way for this job to be continued to be done while preventing our game to be a safe haven for the type of people who'd commit sexual harassment. At present, it's a constant issue. The current status quo is simply not good enough, and I see it as grossly irresponsible to write off actions regarding that matter as "too difficult". The lack of action is directly endangering members of this community, and its doing so regularly.

The framework is extremely demanding and there are not enough moderation resources to enact it. Current status quo is what is practical. Unpaid volunteers not being able to smash all of a much wider internet problem where it relates to a number of loosely affiliated splinter forums due to resource constraints does not make them responsible for it, and even implying that is really low.

[Dumb Ideologies]

They're not a segment of the game. External forums need to be policed by separate moderators, simply because our moderation often barely has the resources to police *this* site. And yes, things being logistically very difficult and too much work for one set of volunteers to coordinate is a very good reason for things that happen away from here to be unregulated by our moderators. They literally can't do it. It's an unreasonable expectation. The complete refusal to see this and to instead stomp feet and make entitled demands is silly, absolutely.

Would gameplay, an accepted and popular way of enjoying Nationstates, exist in the same form without offsite properties? Absolutely not. Would R/D? Unlikely. Offsite properties are essential tenets of established ways of playing Nationstates - to the point where Max himself has talked about how he has joined various offsite forums and observed the game there for fun.

I don't think I'm the one stomping my feet here.

You are the one demanding further unpaid, complex, emotionally demanding labour on sites that aren't what the moderators signed up to moderate or what they can practically moderate with the available resources. So yes, you are.

Regardless, at this point we're merely circling round the same points in ever-decreasing civility, so I will finish by saying that I hope the powers-that-be do not bow to pressure to rush into something poorly bounded and unrealistic that results in loss of experienced moderators who do not have the capacity to take the extra load in work and emotional demand, and consequent overworking of those who remain leading to a decline in moderation standards here.

[Ever-Wandering Souls]

Would gameplay, an accepted and popular way of enjoying Nationstates, exist in the same form without offsite properties? Absolutely not. Would R/D? Unlikely. Offsite properties are essential tenets of established ways of playing Nationstates - to the point where Max himself has talked about how he has joined various offsite forums and observed the game there for fun.

I don't think I'm the one stomping my feet here.

You are the one demanding further unpaid, complex, emotionally demanding labour on sites that aren't what the moderators signed up to moderate or what they can practically moderate with the available resources. So yes, you are.

I mean, I'm pretty sure at least a few folks around these topics both would volunteer to help and would be qualified to do so, but self-nominations for mod tend to go over poorly

[Dumb Ideologies]

You are the one demanding further unpaid, complex, emotionally demanding labour on sites that aren't what the moderators signed up to moderate or what they can practically moderate with the available resources. So yes, you are.

I mean, I'm pretty sure at least a few folks around these topics both would volunteer to help and would be qualified to do so, but self-nominations for mod tend to go over poorly

Rightly. I imagine some would find that their zeal and the constraints of moderation policy would be incompatible, and that the latter would be the point of breakage. I'm seeing a lot of reversed bans for microaggressions and unintentionally unwanted instances of flirting in that future, as the seniors repeatedly have to step in to put them back in their box. A good crusader does not necessarily make a good theologian.

[Phydios]

My point was that we should decide what our core beliefs are, and then move to how we practically implement them - not the other way around (i.e. think about how easy/hard something is, and then base what we should do around that).

I think I agree. We should start with what we can't change easily, and base a strategy around that. To use a war analogy, we may want to storm the enemy's base and capture it with few casualties from our side without destroying the base's assets. But if we don't have adequate men, equipment, communication, positioning, etc, that's not going to happen. Our strategy will be much easier to change than our circumstances. We can come up with a perfect strategy for eliminating this problem once and for all, but we can't snap our fingers and make it work for everyone. Therefore, start by deciding what the ideal solution is, add in the available resources that can go towards that solution, and then see what the best strategy is (which probably won't be everything that we want).

You say I am using "achingly emotional appeals," and I will say that this is an emotional issue. Again, not to wave my ego around, but I've been Chief Administrator of one of Nationstates' most active forums for a long time. When you see the stuff that happens to your friends, people you care about, it isn't a theoretical consideration anymore - It's real. The abuse is real. People get hurt. And when you juxtaposition that real harm against, "Well, there's nothing we can do"; "It will be too hard"; "This is how we've always done it", it doesn't quite sit right.

Yes, I care about my friends. It hurts me when they are hurt. Sometimes, though, it hurts so much that we are willing to do literally anything to stop or prevent their suffering. We can't see the forest for the trees. We become Anakin Skywalker, so focused on preventing his wife's suffering that he gave himself over to evil with no regard for the wider consequences of his decision. There is a balance to be struck between a detached, impersonal, "it's just numbers" viewpoint and an up-close, gritty, first-hand viewpoint. No one can make a wise decision when they are too far to either side. Understanding that not everything preferable may be possible is very important. This is a highly emotional issue, but the resources available to address it aren't affected by emotion.

I'm not here to be rabble-rouser. I don't want a revolt against the admins or start some insane populist revolt of the local admins. I trust our game staff, and I know they work their tails off to make this game a fun place. I don't doubt their integrity, and I know they want the best for all of us. I don't like the rule they are following here. I speak out only against the rule, not against any person - be it player or game staff.

I truly do think there are strong ways forward here. I would love to discuss more ideas with people who have ideas of their own.

Good. I too have great faith in the staff, and I hope that they will be able to find a workable idea that adequately addresses the problem.

[Lady Scylla]

On the one hand, as far as I can understand, the policy exists because off-site evidence and its reliability in making decisions involving onsite incidents is questionable since it can be edited. On the other hand, NationStates does not exist in a vacuum, and I feel incidents where off-site evidence, even if it isn't sufficient, deserves at least some consideration. In cases of claims for harassment, I think evidence providing context or showing where users have chosen to agree on bullying someone onsite, is an onsite issue, and therefore such evidence deserves consideration. With that being said, I'm behind this petition. A redress for the policy is needed in my opinion, especially to help users who might not know what to do in such situations.

[Lady Scylla]

You are the one demanding further unpaid, complex, emotionally demanding labour on sites that aren't what the moderators signed up to moderate or what they can practically moderate with the available resources. So yes, you are.

I mean, I'm pretty sure at least a few folks around these topics both would volunteer to help and would be qualified to do so, but self-nominations for mod tend to go over poorly

As they should. Anyone that offers themselves up to be a moderator, isn't likely to be a good candidate in being a moderator. Regardless of whether they feel like volunteering or feel they're qualified.

[Ethel mermania]

Once again, this is an issue for max and his legal leam in what can and can not be done safely

That said I want to acknowledge that the folks pushing for this sort of thing are acting out of what they see as the best interest of the game and the players in it. It is nice to see.

[Greater vakolicci haven]

Hello,

I am a victim of sexual harassment, though with nothing to do with ns or its community; luckily I have not seen this particular dark side of it yet.
I support the petition, however I must question what could be done if a regional community refuses to give ns moderation access to their offsite venues? For example, an ns moderator is more than welcome to join any of the regions I am in; they're experienced players. However, I'd not feel comfortable giving them admin rights to our forum based on one report. And so you'd probably have to end up asking regional admins to sift through info to find particular things and verify them, which creates a whole separate issue: it spreads the name of the accused (who may be totally innocent) throughout multiple regions. Although this is a terrible and traumatic crime that I myself have suffered, I am conscious that it would have to be handled very carefully.

[Miedzymorse]

Can I sign this petition as a Concerned NS User?

[The Derpy Democratic Republic Of Herp]

Can I sign this petition as a Concerned NS User?

To be added as a signer of this petition, please contact Astarial directly. Posts within this thread should be substantive.

[Grand Britannia]

NS isn't the center of the planet so I don't see why mods need to moderate things from what can be considered outside their jurisdiction.

[Miencraft]

Harassment is terrible, but it's not NS's business to get involved in things that don't happen on their website.

[Ever-Wandering Souls]

I must question what could be done if a regional community refuses to give ns moderation access to their offsite venues?

Nothing happens. No one is asking moderation to chase down harassment occurring offsite proactively, just to actually do something when it's dropped in their lap that a player is likely to use their service to target more individuals, rather than dismiss it. It's about whoever's on top allowing the team to work with the admins of NS-specific areas, when those admins reach out, to cooperate on handling these threats.

[Flanderlion]

On site evidence can be verified, and off site evidence can't. It's not like people don't make up stuff to get players they don't like banned. You can go with reasonable doubt, but the thing is, there have been people going to extremes of faking logs/screenshots. I don't have a magic solution for this, accepting off site evidence is dodgy, while not doing so continues with status quo, which tbh. isn't really alright judging by some of the stuff I've had to deal with.

Having had people try and get me banned from every region I was in due to in game things, I don't have the greatest faith that other NSers wouldn't make up stuff and try and get me, or someone I like, banned as a creep when they're innocent and the accusers just want them banned due to in game actions.

Things like keeping edit histories, promoting using onsite stuff rather than saying 'take it to an offsite forum', allowing chat threads or RMBs the founder lets every player in the game post on the RMB no matter if they had an embassy or not (with increased ban limits), more onsite tools to make offsite tools less relevant etc. so players aren't forced to go offsite etc. NS isn't offsite so mods shouldn't have jurisdiction over separate stuff, but players shouldn't be forced to go offsite where mods can't deal with dodgy peeps.

I'm against mods accepting offsite evidence as rational for bans due to how easy it is to fake, and how individuals/groups already do try it. But at present, something needs to change, so if we can't reduce the need to go offsite, I'll grudgingly accept that mods will take offsite evidence and hope that NSers won't use it to settle scores.

[Consular]

I think since NS has repeatedly encouraged us to take large segments of the game offsite, they have some responsibility for the behaviour that occurs offsite.

We're not asking mods to accept all offsite evidence and act on it -- we're just asking that they consider it, instead of hiding from it. If there is strong evidence that someone is a horrible person offsite, moderation should at least consider preventing them from using NS. A little border control would do us some good.

The rules lawyering is a bit silly. I don't expect a hard rule here. I expect a slightly relaxed policy that allows mods to consider the full context.

[Pollaetorian]

I must question what could be done if a regional community refuses to give ns moderation access to their offsite venues?

Nothing happens. No one is asking moderation to chase down harassment occurring offsite proactively, just to actually do something when it's dropped in their lap that a player is likely to use their service to target more individuals, rather than dismiss it. It's about whoever's on top allowing the team to work with the admins of NS-specific areas, when those admins reach out, to cooperate on handling these threats.

Players definitely would make it political though, going after regions who won't and accusing them that they have nothing to hide, why don't they give access to Mods etc.

[The Atlae Isles]

I'd like to sign my name to this petition.

-The Atlae Isles, Minister of Foreign Affairs in TEP, Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs in TWP, Deputy Minister of Home Affairs in TNP, Concerned NS Player, etc.

[Pentaga Giudici]

What I don't understand about people opposing this, is they fail to understand that having a trial doesn't mean you have to devote 100% of your resources to finding out what happened.

If 3 sexual predators in one year are caught because they are really really sloppy and lots of people know about their behavior, which is very likely knowing what I know, then this will be a productive thing with minimal strain for solid effects.

A system where someone who may or may not be a victim, is silenced, while the accused doesn't even have a glance in their direction.... That incentives really horrible behavior.

I might be wrong about this, but I am fairly certain that certain forums know your IP and the mods for this site have to know your IP as well.

If someone claims to be me on a regional forums and they don't have my IP.... and that is shown to someone who knows my actual IP... They would know that person isn't me.

I will admit I am not an expert, but there are still things to think about.

[Fire Bunnies]

I definitely commend those who wrote this up. I too have a few concerns. While I do agree that we need some form of accountability onsite for these matters, especially when dealing with sexual harassment, gathering evidence is quite taxing. I think placing the burden on mods for the NS site to seek offsite evidence and verify it alone might be too strenuous, but I see nothing impossible about players who operate offsite communication platforms working with and handing evidence over to the mods for them to deliberate. While false claims are made about harassment, this is a rare occurrence. It is usually possible to verify evidence with very little doubt and go from there. Whether or not the admin team of NS choose to change their policies, I'm just glad this is being discussed.

[Luziyca]

I definitely commend those who wrote this up. I too have a few concerns. While I do agree that we need some form of accountability onsite for these matters, especially when dealing with sexual harassment, gathering evidence is quite taxing. I think placing the burden on mods for the NS site to seek offsite evidence and verify it alone might be too strenuous, but I see nothing impossible about players who operate offsite communication platforms working with and handing evidence over to the mods for them to deliberate. While false claims are made about harassment, this is a rare occurrence. It is usually possible to verify evidence with very little doubt and go from there. Whether or not the admin team of NS choose to change their policies, I'm just glad this is being discussed.

Indeed.

I especially like the area that I bolded. However, I think we should restrict that to sites that are connected to NS (i.e. regional discords, regional IRCs, IIwiki, NSwiki, offsite fora, Facebook groups), since if the sites are just tangentially connected to NS (like say, if an NSer was found to harass people on 4chan), it will be more difficult to verify said evidence.

[Fire Bunnies]

I especially like the area that I bolded. However, I think we should restrict that to sites that are connected to NS (i.e. regional discords, regional IRCs, IIwiki, NSwiki, offsite fora, Facebook groups), since if the sites are just tangentially connected to NS (like say, if an NSer was found to harass people on 4chan), it will be more difficult to verify said evidence.

I agree. I think that would be a rare case anyways and if they did that on a seemingly unrelated site they probably would do it on a semi-related site.