Advertisement
by The Land of Lil Bunnies » Sat Nov 18, 2017 1:30 pm
by Grand Britannia » Sat Nov 18, 2017 1:33 pm
The Land of Lil Bunnies wrote:I simply do not understand at all how they can say that and also force concerned players to stay silent onsite about serious offenses offsite.
by Frisbeeteria » Sat Nov 18, 2017 1:39 pm
Darcania wrote:When those of us without the full means to protect ourselves are told by those who can protect us that they won't
by Luna Amore » Sat Nov 18, 2017 1:40 pm
King HEM wrote:Ever-Wandering Souls wrote:
One of the better lines of comparison I’ve seen. You can go to HR with even say, texts of someone’s behavior and have it addressed, much less a group chat somewhere focused specifically on company work.
If NS doesn’t want to help here, or take any responsibility at all for the effects of the offsite community it has fed, then it logically really should promote them less. A “You are now leaving this site” Banner with a couple bullets and a link to another page somewhere like the FAQ or OSRS that goes into more detail, discusses that offsite generally are a thing and safe but what the risks can be, and some general internet safety/what to do if you feel uncomfortable tips would be...something, at least.
It's worth noting that too, that the official gameplay explanation thread posted by a former NS staff member promotes offsite forums as a way to engage in gameplay.
So, basically, NS staff is encouraging people to create/join offsite forums, get harassed, and then are claiming they have no responsibility for the predators who are unrooted because those properties are not related to NS (??).
I'd say more, but I think it's all been said.
by Ever-Wandering Souls » Sat Nov 18, 2017 1:43 pm
Grand Britannia wrote:The Land of Lil Bunnies wrote:I simply do not understand at all how they can say that and also force concerned players to stay silent onsite about serious offenses offsite.
Because they're not internet police and don't have to punish people here for things they do out of the website they're supposed to cover.
The Alicorns (Equestria) wrote:Let them stay, no need to badmouth them...From our view a bunch of nations just came in, seized the delegate position, and changed a few superficial things...we play NationStates differently...there's really no reason for us to be butthurt.
http://www.nationstates.net/page=rmb/postid=8944227
http://www.nationstates.net/page=rmb/postid=8951258
Reploid Productions wrote:Raiders are endlessly creative
by Greater vakolicci haven » Sat Nov 18, 2017 1:44 pm
Luna Amore wrote:King HEM wrote:
It's worth noting that too, that the official gameplay explanation thread posted by a former NS staff member promotes offsite forums as a way to engage in gameplay.
So, basically, NS staff is encouraging people to create/join offsite forums, get harassed, and then are claiming they have no responsibility for the predators who are unrooted because those properties are not related to NS (??).
I'd say more, but I think it's all been said.
If you want to host a huge party at my house, but I tell you I can't accommodate you and point you in the direction of a Best Western, is the bill going to come to me if someone at the party trashes the hotel room? No, that's ridiculous.
We point to offsite specifically because it would be a logistical nightmare to allow 21k (ok, I know reasonably not every region would use the feature, it would still be large enough to be unfeasible) separate regional forums on site.
*ninja'd by Fris
by The Black Forrest » Sat Nov 18, 2017 1:45 pm
Ethel mermania wrote:Where is the police matters need to be handled by police and not moderation, button?
by Ever-Wandering Souls » Sat Nov 18, 2017 1:46 pm
Frisbeeteria wrote:Darcania wrote:When those of us without the full means to protect ourselves are told by those who can protect us that they won't
Just to address this single point:
There are over 21,000 regions at the moment. More than 1700 of them have 10 or more member nations. I have no idea how many of them have offsite forums, or how many of our 20,000+ individual players use private channels such as Discord, but I can be absolutely certain that the 10 or so active NS Moderators can't cover all of them. Sure, officially we have 22 mods and 5 admins, but the actual fact is that most are in various degrees of inactivity.
I don't know from whence came the idea that we "had the full means to protect everyone", but I can assure you that the numbers simply aren't there. I'd be delighted if they were, but we've never had a team strong enough to take on this additional massive role in the more-than-a-decade I've been on the team. Expectations are quite simply exceeding reality at this point.
The Alicorns (Equestria) wrote:Let them stay, no need to badmouth them...From our view a bunch of nations just came in, seized the delegate position, and changed a few superficial things...we play NationStates differently...there's really no reason for us to be butthurt.
http://www.nationstates.net/page=rmb/postid=8944227
http://www.nationstates.net/page=rmb/postid=8951258
Reploid Productions wrote:Raiders are endlessly creative
by Greater vakolicci haven » Sat Nov 18, 2017 1:47 pm
Ever-Wandering Souls wrote:Grand Britannia wrote:Because they're not internet police and don't have to punish people here for things they do out of the website they're supposed to cover.
Have to?
I don’t think anyone is saying they *have to.*
We’re saying they *should,* and that these are their users, on websites that they not just condone, but promote as peripheral to NS, in official mod posts and pinned guides.
These are not completely unrelated things.
Is it within the range that were expecting them to take proactive actions? Nope. But given the above, the request is that that cooperate a little in return with administrators of these places that again, they promote. Or, logically, though I don’t think anyone is a huge fan of this end logic, that they stop promoting them.
by USS Monitor » Sat Nov 18, 2017 1:48 pm
Ever-Wandering Souls wrote:Crushing Our Enemies wrote:If I were a mod, I would resign today.
I’d also look at it as “you’re making it a lot less likely that anyone from GP accepts an offer to be a mod whenever you get around to it, if they feel that they can’t sufficiently act to take on the issues more serious than a bit of forum flaming.”
by Northwest Slobovia » Sat Nov 18, 2017 1:48 pm
The Land of Lil Bunnies wrote:While I understand to some extent the mods' concerns as to how they could take offsite evidence and enforce onsite punishments, I simply do not understand at all how they can say that and also force concerned players to stay silent onsite about serious offenses offsite.
NERVUN wrote: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. [...]
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. [...]
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.
by Greater vakolicci haven » Sat Nov 18, 2017 1:48 pm
Ever-Wandering Souls wrote:Frisbeeteria wrote:Just to address this single point:
There are over 21,000 regions at the moment. More than 1700 of them have 10 or more member nations. I have no idea how many of them have offsite forums, or how many of our 20,000+ individual players use private channels such as Discord, but I can be absolutely certain that the 10 or so active NS Moderators can't cover all of them. Sure, officially we have 22 mods and 5 admins, but the actual fact is that most are in various degrees of inactivity.
I don't know from whence came the idea that we "had the full means to protect everyone", but I can assure you that the numbers simply aren't there. I'd be delighted if they were, but we've never had a team strong enough to take on this additional massive role in the more-than-a-decade I've been on the team. Expectations are quite simply exceeding reality at this point.
Seems like the ability to expand the team is something that lies within your hands, if the current team is not sufficient. As noted a bit above, there has been an open pin about doing so for what, about 1/4 of a year now with no results?
If you need more moderators, add more moderators. Though as I also stated above, people are gonna be a lot less likely to accept if the vibe is that they can’t do shit to improve the community in that position.
by Ever-Wandering Souls » Sat Nov 18, 2017 1:53 pm
USS Monitor wrote:Ever-Wandering Souls wrote:
I’d also look at it as “you’re making it a lot less likely that anyone from GP accepts an offer to be a mod whenever you get around to it, if they feel that they can’t sufficiently act to take on the issues more serious than a bit of forum flaming.”
And if people take that attitude, it will only make the problem worse since one of the obstacles is a lack of manpower.
The Alicorns (Equestria) wrote:Let them stay, no need to badmouth them...From our view a bunch of nations just came in, seized the delegate position, and changed a few superficial things...we play NationStates differently...there's really no reason for us to be butthurt.
http://www.nationstates.net/page=rmb/postid=8944227
http://www.nationstates.net/page=rmb/postid=8951258
Reploid Productions wrote:Raiders are endlessly creative
by Frisbeeteria » Sat Nov 18, 2017 1:54 pm
Ever-Wandering Souls wrote:Seems like the ability to expand the team is something that lies within your hands, if the current team is not sufficient. As noted a bit above, there has been an open pin about doing so for what, about 1/4 of a year now with no results?
If you need more moderators, add more moderators. Though as I also stated above, people are gonna be a lot less likely to accept if the vibe is that they can’t do shit to improve the community in that position.
by USS Monitor » Sat Nov 18, 2017 1:54 pm
Caelapes wrote:USS Monitor wrote:
Would that be genuinely helpful? If there ever comes a time where I am told that I am doing more harm than good -- and I believe it is being said in earnest and reflects the feeling of the community, not just one or two people speaking from anger -- I have no problem resigning. Right now I don't see that it would be good for the site.
it's not "just one or two people" speaking in—very righteous—anger about this. people aren't angry for the sake of being angry or contrarian, they're angry because this was a terribly cowardly stance to take on the part of this website's administration
by Eluvatar » Sat Nov 18, 2017 1:59 pm
by Greater vakolicci haven » Sat Nov 18, 2017 2:01 pm
Frisbeeteria wrote:Ever-Wandering Souls wrote:Seems like the ability to expand the team is something that lies within your hands, if the current team is not sufficient. As noted a bit above, there has been an open pin about doing so for what, about 1/4 of a year now with no results?
If you need more moderators, add more moderators. Though as I also stated above, people are gonna be a lot less likely to accept if the vibe is that they can’t do shit to improve the community in that position.
The community wants moderators it can trust to be fair and non-corrupt. The bulk of the nominations we get are from players with warning histories out the wazoo; or newbies who have been playing for a month or two. Others have been involved in RP or GP, and have large numbers of 'enemies' on the site, or are unwilling to give up their gameplay activities in order to accept this thankless job.
Should we drop our standards and let just anyone be a moderator? We need viable candidates with a mostly clean history and a decent reputation for fairness. Adding team members isn't easy, or we'd have picked more than just Ransium from the recent submissions. It's not exclusively in our hands, EWS.
by Ever-Wandering Souls » Sat Nov 18, 2017 2:01 pm
Frisbeeteria wrote:Ever-Wandering Souls wrote:Seems like the ability to expand the team is something that lies within your hands, if the current team is not sufficient. As noted a bit above, there has been an open pin about doing so for what, about 1/4 of a year now with no results?
If you need more moderators, add more moderators. Though as I also stated above, people are gonna be a lot less likely to accept if the vibe is that they can’t do shit to improve the community in that position.
The community wants moderators it can trust to be fair and non-corrupt. The bulk of the nominations we get are from players with warning histories out the wazoo; or newbies who have been playing for a month or two. Others have been involved in RP or GP, and have large numbers of 'enemies' on the site, or are unwilling to give up their gameplay activities in order to accept this thankless job.
Should we drop our standards and let just anyone be a moderator? We need viable candidates with a mostly clean history and a decent reputation for fairness. Adding team members isn't easy, or we'd have picked more than just Ransium from the recent submissions. It's not exclusively in our hands, EWS.
The Alicorns (Equestria) wrote:Let them stay, no need to badmouth them...From our view a bunch of nations just came in, seized the delegate position, and changed a few superficial things...we play NationStates differently...there's really no reason for us to be butthurt.
http://www.nationstates.net/page=rmb/postid=8944227
http://www.nationstates.net/page=rmb/postid=8951258
Reploid Productions wrote:Raiders are endlessly creative
by Greater vakolicci haven » Sat Nov 18, 2017 2:04 pm
Luna Amore wrote:Split off a post as bad faith. Come on guys.
by Frisbeeteria » Sat Nov 18, 2017 2:08 pm
Ever-Wandering Souls wrote:Then maybe don’t rely entirely on nominations?
Ever-Wandering Souls wrote:Why should anyone have to give up gameplay activity anyways? RP sourced mods can continue to RP, etc etc,
Ever-Wandering Souls wrote:You can even consider going a bit looser on standards, using the forum mod trial period as exactly that,
by The Land of Lil Bunnies » Sat Nov 18, 2017 2:08 pm
Northwest Slobovia wrote:The Land of Lil Bunnies wrote:While I understand to some extent the mods' concerns as to how they could take offsite evidence and enforce onsite punishments, I simply do not understand at all how they can say that and also force concerned players to stay silent onsite about serious offenses offsite.
That's not what NERV said
NERVUN wrote:
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.
Northwest Slobovia wrote:NERVUN wrote: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.
So: concerned players can file a GHR with evidence and can post announcements saying "read all about X offsite". That's not being forced to remain silent. And, as bolded, they will ban people if they get good enough evidence. What they're not doing is saying "We'll DoS people just because somebody accuses them of something bad offsite."
by Frisbeeteria » Sat Nov 18, 2017 2:11 pm
Greater vakolicci haven wrote:How in gods name was that post bad faith?
by Greater vakolicci haven » Sat Nov 18, 2017 2:11 pm
Frisbeeteria wrote:Ever-Wandering Souls wrote:Then maybe don’t rely entirely on nominations?
We don't. We've made offers and some have been rejected. Still, we're a small team, and we don't know everyone on site. If you don't post on NS forums, we have no real basis to judge your actions.Ever-Wandering Souls wrote:Why should anyone have to give up gameplay activity anyways? RP sourced mods can continue to RP, etc etc,
Are you suggesting that active raiders or defenders should have the ability to use back room data for an in-game advantage? That's not a problem with RP or GA or Issues - it's purely a gameplay advantage.Ever-Wandering Souls wrote:You can even consider going a bit looser on standards, using the forum mod trial period as exactly that,
We do use the forum mod trial period, but FM tools are pretty toothless. The activity requested in this petition require access to the Game Moderator toolbox. You also need to be an active forumite to be a FM, and my understanding is that a lot of potential candidates have no real interest in the forums, much less moderating them.
by Greater vakolicci haven » Sat Nov 18, 2017 2:12 pm
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: No registered users
Advertisement