[Petition/Discussion] Harassment and Off-Site Evidence

[Cogitation]

Just to give everyone a heads-up, The NationStates Moderation and Administration Teams are still in the process of drafting an official response to this petition. We are Almost Done™ and it will be posted Soon™. We cannot commit to having said response be posted by YYYY-MM-DD HH:MM:SS, but if you're checking this thread only to see if we've actually posted our response yet, then my suggestion is to check back every 12 hours.

--The Modified Democratic States of Cogitation
NationStates Game Moderator

[Greater Cesnica]

Just to give everyone a heads-up, The NationStates Moderation and Administration Teams are still in the process of drafting an official response to this petition. We are Almost Done™ and it will be posted Soon™. We cannot commit to having said response be posted by YYYY-MM-DD HH:MM:SS, but if you're checking this thread only to see if we've actually posted our response yet, then my suggestion is to check back every 12 hours.

--The Modified Democratic States of Cogitation
NationStates Game Moderator

Holy. I have not seen you in ages.

[Phydios]

Just to give everyone a heads-up, The NationStates Moderation and Administration Teams are still in the process of drafting an official response to this petition. We are Almost Done™ and it will be posted Soon™. We cannot commit to having said response be posted by YYYY-MM-DD HH:MM:SS, but if you're checking this thread only to see if we've actually posted our response yet, then my suggestion is to check back every 12 hours.

--The Modified Democratic States of Cogitation
NationStates Game Moderator

Nice to see you again, Cog! Thanks for the update.

[Ever-Wandering Souls]

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.

I'm not entirely sure what you're going for here, Codger. Going after regions who won't deal with harassers or other issues? That's already a thing, and I think personally a good one. A few regions have been shunned for who they let remain there unaddressed. Are you saying there'd be an issue where a community handles something internally, does not go to moderation *as well,* and then gets attacked for that? Besides the incredibly fringe nature of that, I don't think you'd see it being a huge issue if it did happen. If someone says "we're confident enough that this person is a risk to remove them ourselves, but not confident that we can prove the entire evidence trail to the site's standards for acting on it," that's a pretty understandable place to be in.

[The North Polish Union]

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.

I'm not entirely sure what you're going for here, Codger. Going after regions who won't deal with harassers or other issues? That's already a thing, and I think personally a good one. A few regions have been shunned for who they let remain there unaddressed. Are you saying there'd be an issue where a community handles something internally, does not go to moderation *as well,* and then gets attacked for that? Besides the incredibly fringe nature of that, I don't think you'd see it being a huge issue if it did happen. If someone says "we're confident enough that this person is a risk to remove them ourselves, but not confident that we can prove the entire evidence trail to the site's standards for acting on it," that's a pretty understandable place to be in.

I think Codger's point is more that regions which choose to allow NS moderators to access offsite evidence (assuming this happens at all) will try to politicize other regions' choice not to allow that and will try to create the impression that such regions are hiding something regardless of whether or not that is actually the case.

[Ever-Wandering Souls]

I'm not entirely sure what you're going for here, Codger. Going after regions who won't deal with harassers or other issues? That's already a thing, and I think personally a good one. A few regions have been shunned for who they let remain there unaddressed. Are you saying there'd be an issue where a community handles something internally, does not go to moderation *as well,* and then gets attacked for that? Besides the incredibly fringe nature of that, I don't think you'd see it being a huge issue if it did happen. If someone says "we're confident enough that this person is a risk to remove them ourselves, but not confident that we can prove the entire evidence trail to the site's standards for acting on it," that's a pretty understandable place to be in.

I think Codger's point is more that regions which choose to allow NS moderators to access offsite evidence (assuming this happens at all) will try to politicize other regions' choice not to allow that and will try to create the impression that such regions are hiding something regardless of whether or not that is actually the case.

I’m still not understanding that, though, given that we’re talking about considering temporary access on request of the offiste. No one is asking them to proactively request this, just to consider it if offered if it helps them verify a request for cooperation from an admin team. I just spoke about the very niche case where a team might act and not go to moderation, and explained how it’d be pretty understandable. I’m not understanding where in this someone other than moderation says no to moderation.

[Proctopeo]

I have to respectfully disagree with this, for multiple reasons:

1. The biggest issue is that you can never be absolutely sure that a user on NationStates and a harasser on another site are the same person. When the harassment occurs on-site, it's very obvious who is doing it. When it occurs off-site, unless their NationStates account is specifically mentioned (and preferably, for validity, confirmed with the account), you can't know (especially if their IPs, emails, and MAC addresses are different).
2. Because of that issue, the standard of evidence must be lower for any action to be taken. This, of course, makes it exploitable. Which is, obviously, a bad thing.
3. It'd likely be more work than simply allowing site-wide blocking (which would be the Foe list, Telegram blocks, and an RMB ignore all in one, plus anything else if I missed it), and we don't want to run the moderation team ragged do we? Especially if people were to start abusing it.
4. Taking all the above into account, it would be better overall to not do anything - ignoring a problem, while bad, is better than a sloppy solution, which this is.

[Rostavykhan]

Huh, assuming this goes through (which it shouldn't because it's frankly a silly idea) I know a few well known posters who can be in trouble due to their own off-site shenanigans, considering some threats I've received.

Regardless, no, moderation moderates NS, other sites and programs have their moderation, and block/mute buttons exist for a reason.

[Tananat]

Taking all the above into account, it would be better overall to not do anything - ignoring a problem, while bad, is better than a sloppy solution, which this is.[/list]

Considering everything that's happened recently, I and many others would probably argue opposite. NS is essentially a safe haven for harassers to remain in the game, so long as do nothing on site, leaving them free to offend again in whatever off site that may unknowingly let that person into their community. That's not, for many, an acceptable solution.

[Proctopeo]

Taking all the above into account, it would be better overall to not do anything - ignoring a problem, while bad, is better than a sloppy solution, which this is.[/list]

Considering everything that's happened recently, I and many others would probably argue opposite. NS is essentially a safe haven for harassers to remain in the game, so long as do nothing on site, leaving them free to offend again in whatever off site that may unknowingly let that person into their community. That's not, for many, an acceptable solution.

A sloppy solution, especially if its handling is exceptionally poor, would likely make the problem worse in ways simply ignoring it until we come up with something cleaner couldn't.

[Consular]

I have to respectfully disagree with this, for multiple reasons:

1. The biggest issue is that you can never be absolutely sure that a user on NationStates and a harasser on another site are the same person. When the harassment occurs on-site, it's very obvious who is doing it. When it occurs off-site, unless their NationStates account is specifically mentioned (and preferably, for validity, confirmed with the account), you can't know (especially if their IPs, emails, and MAC addresses are different).
2. Because of that issue, the standard of evidence must be lower for any action to be taken. This, of course, makes it exploitable. Which is, obviously, a bad thing.
3. It'd likely be more work than simply allowing site-wide blocking (which would be the Foe list, Telegram blocks, and an RMB ignore all in one, plus anything else if I missed it), and we don't want to run the moderation team ragged do we? Especially if people were to start abusing it.
4. Taking all the above into account, it would be better overall to not do anything - ignoring a problem, while bad, is better than a sloppy solution, which this is.

Considering everything that's happened recently, I and many others would probably argue opposite. NS is essentially a safe haven for harassers to remain in the game, so long as do nothing on site, leaving them free to offend again in whatever off site that may unknowingly let that person into their community. That's not, for many, an acceptable solution.

A sloppy solution, especially if its handling is exceptionally poor, would likely make the problem worse in ways simply ignoring it until we come up with something cleaner couldn't.

This isn't a court of law. NS admins are entirely within their right to remove folks they decide are bad -- we just want them to consider more of the context than the narrow on site only view.

In the most recent case there was an almost worryingly thorough investigation done, and the person in question blatantly admitted guilt. Yet there are no repercussions.

I think your opinion betrays your inexperience with this. I think many of us who have dealt with such things would argue that the problem can't get an awful lot worse. An attempt at a solution is better than literally ignoring the problem and whacking people for talking about it.

[Lady Scylla]

Just to give everyone a heads-up, The NationStates Moderation and Administration Teams are still in the process of drafting an official response to this petition. We are Almost Done™ and it will be posted Soon™. We cannot commit to having said response be posted by YYYY-MM-DD HH:MM:SS, but if you're checking this thread only to see if we've actually posted our response yet, then my suggestion is to check back every 12 hours.

--The Modified Democratic States of Cogitation
NationStates Game Moderator

Holy. I have not seen you in ages.

Cog is like a unicorn. He only appears once in a blue moon, best to make a wish!

[Shazbotdom]

Coggy pops up every now and then. But he's mostly hiding right behind you, like a ninja.

[Luziyca]

Holy. I have not seen you in ages.

Cog is like a unicorn. He only appears once in a blue moon, best to make a wish!

Nah. Cog is that unimportant cog in the machine...

[NERVUN]

First, our thanks to everyone for a respectful and helpful discussion. There has been a lot of behind the scenes discussion of the points raised both in the discussion thread and the petition.

To start, there seems to be some confusion over NS Moderation's handling of off-site information and our ability to take action on off-site activities. These are not the same and we will address them separately.

Acting on off-site information: We do act on off-site information to the extent that when we receive such information we often start our own investigation here. Anything we find that supports the information from off-site can and will be acted on here. This has been standard practice for years and will remain so. Any such information can be submitted via Getting Help.

Acting on off-site actions: The NS Moderation and Admin teams simply cannot take action on the NationStates site based on something someone did on another site. We are not the internet police. Facebook does not punish you for what you may have done on Twitter, Twitter does not take action against you for something you may have done on Instagram, etc. The moderators and admins on the other sites are the people to whom you should go to report abuse. And of course if you feel that a law has been broken or someone is in immediate danger, contact law enforcement!

That said, per the site rules stating "Max and the Admins may invoke special rulings as they see a need," site staff has the right to remove a user for any reason not already outlined in the Terms of Service, the Frequently Asked Questions, or the One Stop Rules Shop. We try to avoid invoking that clause, but it is there and can be invoked when it is absolutely necessary for the protection of our players and the site. It should be noted that a DOS order is not a magic bullet however. The important part of "Delete On Sight" is "sight." While we have tools to help us identify DOS players trying to sneak back in, it still comes down to Moderators using their analog MK I eyeballs and making a judgement. There is no guarantee that removing someone here will keep them away and we certainly cannot affect that person's ability to join other sites.

With regards to the request to publicly announce when such individuals have been declared "Delete on Sight", that will not be happening as they often entail legal liabilities that we cannot comment on. We have never made such announcements and we will continue to not do so. As with all DOS players, it is enough to know that the team has determined that they are no longer welcome to play NationStates.

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.

Finally, to the admins and moderators of other boards, we hear you and we understand. We've been struck by how often it's been said that the admins of other sites are small teams, unprepared and struggling to deal with these kinds of incidents. That's us, too. We're not trained crisis staffers, law enforcement agents, or psychologists but we do have experience, some of us, with dealing with these kinds of issues and we're more than willing to offer advice or to just talk about how to handle such cases; including how to file reports with law enforcement agencies. Please do not hesitate to get in touch.

Thank you all for your patience in waiting for this. As you may have guessed, this was not an easy one.

--The NationStates Moderation and Administration Teams

Some related links:

Reporting abuse on Discord: https://support.discordapp.com/hc/en-us ... se-Support

Reporting abuse on Skype: https://support.skype.com/en/faq/FA1048 ... ws-desktop

[Tim-Opolis]

Honestly, I'm just beyond disappointed that this basically reads as a lot of words to say "we're not going to do anything about the clear and present problem happening in game-endorsed extensions of the NS community". It's a complete injustice to the victims of the individuals which have engaged in predatory actions off-site - moving from offsite community to offsite community because they know there's nothing that NS Moderation will ever do about it. Furthermore, the continued gag order of being unable to warn people on-site about those individuals is just further endangerment of communities, because there is no way to actually state the dangers those individuals pose. Frankly, this feels and looks like continued willful ignorance of a problem that we are all - including site staff - very much aware of. I see this as nothing more than what it is - failing to take the possible steps to protect our communities from these types of individuals.

I lost a lot of respect for our Moderation Team today, and I can't see myself regaining that any time soon.

[Tananat]

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.

Would this (the bold) apply to telegrams as well as forum or other public posts?

[NERVUN]

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.

Would this (the bold) apply to telegrams as well as forum or other public posts?

To be honest, I'm not aware that it has applied to anything non-public.

[NERVUN]

Honestly, I'm just beyond disappointed that this basically reads as a lot of words to say "we're not going to do anything about the clear and present problem happening in game-endorsed extensions of the NS community". It's a complete injustice to the victims of the individuals which have engaged in predatory actions off-site - moving from offsite community to offsite community because they know there's nothing that NS Moderation will ever do about it. Furthermore, the continued gag order of being unable to warn people on-site about those individuals is just further endangerment of communities, because there is no way to actually state the dangers those individuals pose. Frankly, this feels and looks like continued willful ignorance of a problem that we are all - including site staff - very much aware of.

I lost a lot of respect for our Moderation Team today, and I can't see myself regaining that any time soon.

Tim, let me ask you this. Just what do you did a DOS order would actual do? If they are smart enough to mask their behavior on site, and make a new nation without any identifying information... How did you think we were going to stop them?

I'm honestly curious because the point being made about popping up again and again is... what DOS'ers do. We don't stop them unless we can identify them here, they (normally) don't go around announcing themselves. So what did you think we could do?

[Wopruthien]

Honestly, I'm just beyond disappointed that this basically reads as a lot of words to say "we're not going to do anything about the clear and present problem happening in game-endorsed extensions of the NS community". It's a complete injustice to the victims of the individuals which have engaged in predatory actions off-site - moving from offsite community to offsite community because they know there's nothing that NS Moderation will ever do about it. Furthermore, the continued gag order of being unable to warn people on-site about those individuals is just further endangerment of communities, because there is no way to actually state the dangers those individuals pose. Frankly, this feels and looks like continued willful ignorance of a problem that we are all - including site staff - very much aware of.

I lost a lot of respect for our Moderation Team today, and I can't see myself regaining that any time soon.

Tim, let me ask you this. Just what do you did a DOS order would actual do? If they are smart enough to mask their behavior on site, and make a new nation without any identifying information... How did you think we were going to stop them?

I'm honestly curious because the point being made about popping up again and again is... what DOS'ers do. We don't stop them unless we can identify them here, they (normally) don't go around announcing themselves. So what did you think we could do?

So am I reading this correctly... you are saying that DoSing anyone is pointless? Regardless of who or what they have done because the player can just get around it anyway?

[Ever-Wandering Souls]

Honestly, I'm just beyond disappointed that this basically reads as a lot of words to say "we're not going to do anything about the clear and present problem happening in game-endorsed extensions of the NS community". It's a complete injustice to the victims of the individuals which have engaged in predatory actions off-site - moving from offsite community to offsite community because they know there's nothing that NS Moderation will ever do about it. Furthermore, the continued gag order of being unable to warn people on-site about those individuals is just further endangerment of communities, because there is no way to actually state the dangers those individuals pose. Frankly, this feels and looks like continued willful ignorance of a problem that we are all - including site staff - very much aware of.

I lost a lot of respect for our Moderation Team today, and I can't see myself regaining that any time soon.

Tim, let me ask you this. Just what do you did a DOS order would actual do? If they are smart enough to mask their behavior on site, and make a new nation without any identifying information... How did you think we were going to stop them?

I'm honestly curious because the point being made about popping up again and again is... what DOS'ers do. We don't stop them unless we can identify them here, they (normally) don't go around announcing themselves. So what did you think we could do?

Though they may not be perfect, you have tools to at least try. If they do slip up, bam. If someone has a suspicion that someone is a banned player, then they can report that, and maybe bam. Is it perfect? Sure, no, it's not. But "what would it do, they could just evade it?" is pretty shit logic for not banning, eh? Why ban cora or scieca or frak if they're gonna evade it anyways? Why should TBH continue to root out whichever account a certain player sneaks in under every other month or so and ban it? Why should anyone ban anyone ever?

If the world only attempted to take action with flawless methods, no progress would ever be achieved.

[Reploid Productions]

Tim, let me ask you this. Just what do you did a DOS order would actual do? If they are smart enough to mask their behavior on site, and make a new nation without any identifying information... How did you think we were going to stop them?

I'm honestly curious because the point being made about popping up again and again is... what DOS'ers do. We don't stop them unless we can identify them here, they (normally) don't go around announcing themselves. So what did you think we could do?

So am I reading this correctly... you are saying that DoSing anyone is pointless? Regardless of who or what they have done because the player can just get around it anyway?

He is saying that a DOS is not the magic bullet people seem to think that it is. It is not perfect. It will do nothing to keep banned individuals from joining the myriad offsites/chats where the problem behaviors take place. It will not stop them from looking at and browsing the NS forums or RMBs, as those are viewable to anyone.

And to reiterate a part that seems to have been missed:

That said, per the site rules stating "Max and the Admins may invoke special rulings as they see a need," site staff has the right to remove a user for any reason not already outlined in the Terms of Service, the Frequently Asked Questions, or the One Stop Rules Shop. We try to avoid invoking that clause, but it is there and can be invoked when it is absolutely necessary for the protection of our players and the site.

We cannot comment any further on discussions pertaining to said invocations, but there is quite a bit of it still ongoing.

One idea that is very solid is the creation of a sort of "Internet Common Sense 101" thread, akin to the suicide/depression resources thread to help better equip users to 1) Avoid giving out too much identifying info in the first place, and 2) Recognizing creeper behavior and "What do?" when encountering it. Such a project is the sort of thing that players, NS mods, offsite mods, etc can all chip in on, though drafting such a document is probably better off in its own thread.

[Tim-Opolis]

Honestly, I'm just beyond disappointed that this basically reads as a lot of words to say "we're not going to do anything about the clear and present problem happening in game-endorsed extensions of the NS community". It's a complete injustice to the victims of the individuals which have engaged in predatory actions off-site - moving from offsite community to offsite community because they know there's nothing that NS Moderation will ever do about it. Furthermore, the continued gag order of being unable to warn people on-site about those individuals is just further endangerment of communities, because there is no way to actually state the dangers those individuals pose. Frankly, this feels and looks like continued willful ignorance of a problem that we are all - including site staff - very much aware of.

I lost a lot of respect for our Moderation Team today, and I can't see myself regaining that any time soon.

Tim, let me ask you this. Just what do you did a DOS order would actual do? If they are smart enough to mask their behavior on site, and make a new nation without any identifying information... How did you think we were going to stop them?

I'm honestly curious because the point being made about popping up again and again is... what DOS'ers do. We don't stop them unless we can identify them here, they (normally) don't go around announcing themselves. So what did you think we could do?

The DOS order would actually do something, and allow for the removal and identification of these individuals from our community. Right now, Moderation is doing the equivalent of putting their feet up and washing their hands of this, or at least that's what it certainly perceives like. I mean, for fucks sake, taking action would actually establish a precedent that this type of disgusting behavior cannot and will not be tolerated as part of Nationstates, which would in itself cut down it. These individuals want power over their victims, they want them to know that they can get away with it without consequence. If you establish a clear consequence, based around a responsible evidence submission framework, such as the one suggested by HEM, you can ensure that perhaps far less of these twisted people will try to make Nationstates their sandbox.

What we have right now is known off-site harassers, some even facing off-site bans established by Game Moderators, being able to freely post on the forums, interact with people including their victims, and know that there's not shit people can do about it because the second an individual is warned about their actions it's defamation - even in circumstances with overwhelming verified evidence. Hell, we've even seen public admissions of guilt in the last few days that weren't taken action on because they were just possibly vague enough that they tiptoed the rules and didn't see punishments for the actions they were admitting to - even though it's pretty clear and present given those circumstances what exactly they were admitting to.

It's the difference between showing Moderation actually cares for this community, and effectively telling victims that they're shit out of luck because it didn't happen on NS Main.

Any other thoughts I have, HEM sums up better. I might not be a 10+ like him, but I'm nearly 8 and that's not shabby. If serious action can't be taken to protect the community, this site's not worth having around anymore.

To be painfully direct: If it proves to be logistically impossible to protect our members - as has been suggested by some - this website should shut down. If it is too hard, too stressful, too challenging to even try to protect our members, we need to call it quits. I've invested over a decade in this game, I care for it more than any person should over a game, but if it is literally impossible to stop predators from abusing members here, it's not worth it.

[Ever-Wandering Souls]

First, our thanks to everyone for a respectful and helpful discussion. There has been a lot of behind the scenes discussion of the points raised both in the discussion thread and the petition.

To start, there seems to be some confusion over NS Moderation's handling of off-site information and our ability to take action on off-site activities. These are not the same and we will address them separately.

Acting on off-site information: We do act on off-site information to the extent that when we receive such information we often start our own investigation here. Anything we find that supports the information from off-site can and will be acted on here. This has been standard practice for years and will remain so. Any such information can be submitted via Getting Help.

I know I'm grinding an old ax here, but you know what would help with this? A more informative GHR process. I've said for years that this site should use something more akin to a support ticket system for years, where filers can see opened/closed/notes proactively, as well as access their originally submitted text. It may seem like a minor thing, but something as simple as "seen and noted" rather than an copypasta reply and silence goes a long way. That goes in general, as well.

Acting on off-site actions: The NS Moderation and Admin teams simply cannot take action on the NationStates site based on something someone did on another site. We are not the internet police. Facebook does not punish you for what you may have done on Twitter, Twitter does not take action against you for something you may have done on Instagram, etc. The moderators and admins on the other sites are the people to whom you should go to report abuse. And of course if you feel that a law has been broken or someone is in immediate danger, contact law enforcement!

This is a disappointment, for reasons well covered. This is not Facebook to Twitter. This is NS, to NS-specific sites, that NS promotes the existence of, and which frankly, major portions of the game could not exists without, given how much NS-related stuff gets told "take it to an offsite." We're talking about directly relevant and peripheral sites, not somewhere else random online. We've also covered that the law doesn't do crap 9+ times out of ten in these cases, and while I understand that's not your fault, I hope you understand that "contact law enforcement" is about as useful as "tell your priest" in terms of solving anything.

That said, per the site rules stating "Max and the Admins may invoke special rulings as they see a need," site staff has the right to remove a user for any reason not already outlined in the Terms of Service, the Frequently Asked Questions, or the One Stop Rules Shop. We try to avoid invoking that clause, but it is there and can be invoked when it is absolutely necessary for the protection of our players and the site. It should be noted that a DOS order is not a magic bullet however. The important part of "Delete On Sight" is "sight." While we have tools to help us identify DOS players trying to sneak back in, it still comes down to Moderators using their analog MK I eyeballs and making a judgement. There is no guarantee that removing someone here will keep them away and we certainly cannot affect that person's ability to join other sites.

It's something. I'll not hold my breath on y'all suddenly starting to use this, given the tone of the rest of it. If applied a bit more liberally, this could help a good deal though. *If.*

With regards to the request to publicly announce when such individuals have been declared "Delete on Sight", that will not be happening as they often entail legal liabilities that we cannot comment on. We have never made such announcements and we will continue to not do so. As with all DOS players, it is enough to know that the team has determined that they are no longer welcome to play NationStates.

Entirely understandable, personally.

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.

Not super satisfied with this. It's something, *if* it's actually enforced this way, but I am jaded already by seeing this ruling used to hammer down anything remotely controversial. Prove me wrong.

Finally, to the admins and moderators of other boards, we hear you and we understand. We've been struck by how often it's been said that the admins of other sites are small teams, unprepared and struggling to deal with these kinds of incidents. That's us, too. We're not trained crisis staffers, law enforcement agents, or psychologists but we do have experience, some of us, with dealing with these kinds of issues and we're more than willing to offer advice or to just talk about how to handle such cases; including how to file reports with law enforcement agencies. Please do not hesitate to get in touch.

Thank you all for your patience in waiting for this. As you may have guessed, this was not an easy one.

--The NationStates Moderation and Administration Teams

Some related links:

Reporting abuse on Discord: https://support.discordapp.com/hc/en-us ... se-Support

Reporting abuse on Skype: https://support.skype.com/en/faq/FA1048 ... ws-desktop

And yet we are fighting this a lot harder than y'all seem to be. We've risen to it, despite the personal costs at times. We've gotten all to experienced with trying to work with the police as well, to little avail, not to mention the FBI at least once. We've grown incredibly jaded with reporting things to chat services - it's still done as a formality, but no one knows a single user that skype has actually removed following a report.

"Feel free to come to use for help" really is disappointing. We're coming for meaningful help with this, and not getting much of it. We don't need more advice on how to handle our end of it, because we've grown all to unfortunately practiced at dealing with it.

We need help stopping it from happening again.

[Guy]

Prior to this post being made, I told a few people that I do not think that moderation will agree to take action against off-site harassers and abusers, and that I can see the reasonableness of some arguments regarding the feasibility (or lack thereof) of doing so.

It seems that moderation either does not have the requisite intelligence or honesty to adequately justify it (or, perhaps, it has neither). The two arguments are essentially:

1) NS moderation is not the Internet policy: It is not incumbent on moderation to police what goes outside of nationstates.net.

2) DoS players could ban-evade.

Neither argument is particularly good. Indeed, both are entirely unreasonable to the point of being plainly illogical and capricious.

The first argument does not justify why NS moderation shouldn't consider off-site actions. Presumably, NS moderators should do what is right; and presumably people who are known to be harassers (leaving practicalities aside) should not be allowed to use NS to find new victims.

The second argument is an argument against ever punishing any player.