[Petition/Discussion] Harassment and Off-Site Evidence

[Enfaru]

I can't back something like this. Nationstates has no jurisdiction elsewhere and activities done elsewhere should have no impact here without a relevant court order. Nationstates mods are not Internet police, they are nationstates police.

Edit:

Glancing a page back. I am happy with Situation 1. I don't feel it is NS responsibility to manage or moderator in anyway my forums. Nor do I want them to tell me about events happening on their site accusing my users of something. I'd bin it immediately.

[Astarial]

Thank you for the clarification, Reppy.

Or are you merely saying you won’t say why a DOS was issued?

This. Apologies if that wasn't clear.

I am satisfied with this. I understand the need to keep reasons unannounced; stating that someone is now DoS will work for me.

However, in the meantime, I do want to clarify as an official Moderator edict: if you have reason to believe that someone is a threat to NationStates.net or our users, then you may contact us by GHR with your evidence, including any relevant offsite material. Whether or not we'll do anything will be on a case-by-case basis (because some malicious players may try to file false reports this way to eliminate other players they don't like, so we need to filter between genuine concerns and attempted Mods-As-Weapons.) We can't know in advance exactly how this will work, but we intend to do our best to balance protecting players from each other's behavior with protecting players from false accusations.

Is there a way to have a private dialogue to help coordinate this? We don't know what has currently been reported to y'all and what hasn't, and if possible I'd like to avoid twenty different people filing basically the same report now that this clarification has been issued. I know this is a bit tricky because of course you're extremely limited in what information you can release about GHRs. Possibly something where we could ask if there exist any pending investigations against Nation X, and would just get a yes or no?

This is not something I would envision being open to anybody who might be curious, but just a select subset of players who are known and trusted. I also see it as a limited-time thing (a few days? a week?), so that we can coordinate on reporting everything we have right now, and then going forward we'd figure out who files a report as cases arise.

If something like this could work, let me know - I can suggest some names that I think would be trustworthy.

[Malashaan Colony]

Maybe Rep should do all the talking in the future. That post is significantly more reassuring than the original response.

I agree completely. Rep's response looks like real progress. I would also like to Echo Asta's point. With situations where evidence of serious misconduct is submitted, dialog would be very helpful for all involved. Investigations off-site see often long and complex, and discussion is often a much more efficient way of understanding them than a lengthy report.

[Frisbeeteria]

Apparently this needs clarification:

First, our thanks to everyone ...

Nervun wasn't posting using the 'Royal We'. His post was the consensus opinion put together by all the active mods, both Game and Forum, and including some points from the admins. It was not his personal opinion.

Maybe Rep should do all the talking in the future.

Rep's response looks like real progress.

There is no difference in policy between Reppy's posts and Nervun's posts. She just clarified some things that people were consistently misreading. Both Rep and Nerv have been participating in the consensus opinion. It was just a matter of who was online at the time to make an appropriate response.

I will also clarify that while I participated in the consensus discussion, my other posts in this thread were not consensus posts. I was simply addressing some specific points on my own.

[Unibot III]

I think people were getting encouraged by Reppy's statement because she was inviting information about offsite harassment cases, what was missing was the fact that, alas, inviting information is not a policy change provided NS Moderation does not do anything with said information.

[Malashaan Colony]

There is no difference in policy between Reppy's posts and Nervun's posts. She just clarified some things that people were consistently misreading. Both Rep and Nerv have been participating in the consensus opinion. It was just a matter of who was online at the time to make an appropriate response.

If this is the case, then I think we would all like a further clarification. Nervun's initial post stated "The NS Moderation and Admin teams simply cannot take action on the NationStates site based on something someone did on another site." That is an absolute with no exceptions. The next paragraph did mention special rulings, but in the context of having already stated that action can never be taken over off-site behavior, the only rationale interpretation is that the mods may be willing to ban people for on-site actions, even if a rule has noir been broken. This has long been the case, so does not represent any kind of change.

In contest, Rep's post today takes a significantly different view. She stated:

I do want to clarify as an official Moderator edict: if you have reason to believe that someone is a threat to NationStates.net or our users, then you may contact us by GHR with your evidence, including any relevant offsite material. Whether or not we'll do anything will be on a case-by-case basis (because some malicious players may try to file false reports this way to eliminate other players they don't like, so we need to filter between genuine concerns and attempted Mods-As-Weapons.) We can't know in advance exactly how this will work, but we intend to do our best to balance protecting players from each other's behavior with protecting players from false accusations.

This approach is significantly different. The standard is no longer whether the conduct shown by evidence occurred off-site site or on-site, but rather whether it shows that "someone is a threat to NationStates.net or our users," which will judged "on a case-by-case basis." It doesn't take much creativity to come up with off-site behavior that woke demonstrate someone was a threat to Nationstates or users. I hate to keep falling back on this example, but it's a good one: an individual with a demonstrated pattern of behaviour of grooming minors and soliciting nude pictures from them is clearly a threat to nationstates users, regardless of whether that behavior occurred here, on a regional forum, on discord, or anywhere else.

Obviously, I prefer the latter policy, but either way, we as players need to know which is the official policy if we are going to meaningfully engage with it.

[NERVUN]

There is no difference in policy between Reppy's posts and Nervun's posts. She just clarified some things that people were consistently misreading. Both Rep and Nerv have been participating in the consensus opinion. It was just a matter of who was online at the time to make an appropriate response.

If this is the case, then I think we would all like a further clarification. Nervun's initial post stated "The NS Moderation and Admin teams simply cannot take action on the NationStates site based on something someone did on another site." That is an absolute with no exceptions. The next paragraph did mention special rulings, but in the context of having already stated that action can never be taken over off-site behavior, the only rationale interpretation is that the mods may be willing to ban people for on-site actions, even if a rule has noir been broken. This has long been the case, so does not represent any kind of change.

In contest, Rep's post today takes a significantly different view. She stated:

I do want to clarify as an official Moderator edict: if you have reason to believe that someone is a threat to NationStates.net or our users, then you may contact us by GHR with your evidence, including any relevant offsite material. Whether or not we'll do anything will be on a case-by-case basis (because some malicious players may try to file false reports this way to eliminate other players they don't like, so we need to filter between genuine concerns and attempted Mods-As-Weapons.) We can't know in advance exactly how this will work, but we intend to do our best to balance protecting players from each other's behavior with protecting players from false accusations.

This approach is significantly different. The standard is no longer whether the conduct shown by evidence occurred off-site site or on-site, but rather whether it shows that "someone is a threat to NationStates.net or our users," which will judged "on a case-by-case basis." It doesn't take much creativity to come up with off-site behavior that woke demonstrate someone was a threat to Nationstates or users. I hate to keep falling back on this example, but it's a good one: an individual with a demonstrated pattern of behaviour of grooming minors and soliciting nude pictures from them is clearly a threat to nationstates users, regardless of whether that behavior occurred here, on a regional forum, on discord, or anywhere else.

Obviously, I prefer the latter policy, but either way, we as players need to know which is the official policy if we are going to meaningfully engage with it.

The point is simply this, we will act to try to protect our players, but acting on offsite information is going to come down to case-by-case, thus the special rule.

[Kylia Quilor]

No one is asking for anything but case by case!

[Medma]

Opinion: NationStates Moderation Abdicates Moral Authority, Leaving Community Vulnerable with Latest Decision
By Writinglegend

EBC Radio Discussion with Asta, HEM, and Malashaan on the Tone-Deaf Decision

(Europeia – November 18, 2017) – The NationStates (NS) Moderation team upheld their failed policy regarding off-site evidence and defamation despite a player-led petition that has garnered over one hundred signatures in four days, abdicating moral authority within their own domain.

"The NS Moderation simply cannot take action on the NationStates site based on something someone did on another site," said Nervun in a statement by the NS Moderation. "We are not the Internet police."

The administrators of Europeia recently banned a player after an extensive investigation revealed the individual operated multiple accounts with multiple identities within NationStates, as part of a larger scheme to initiate sexual exchanges with female members.

The petition was started by Admin of The North Pacific (TNP), and former TNP Delegate, Astarial, along with other prominent players, in an effort to persuade the NS Moderation to alter the rule. The petition demonstrated what was wrong with the current rule, why it was wrong, and what the signatories wanted.

"The current policy states that no "off-site" behavior, meaning behavior occurring on any online location that does not fall under the nationstates.net domain, will be punished by NS moderation," the petition reads. "We, the undersigned, believe that this policy and its justification are extremely flawed and represent an abdication of responsibility to the entire NS community."

Asta Explains the Flaws Within Current Rules (:50, YouTube)

The end-goal of the petition was to implore the NS Moderation to adopt a new policy for handling complaints of off-site harassment with a thorough investigation and on-site repercussions. Among the one-hundred and four signatories are Europeia's Delegate Aexnidaral, Grand Admiral Calvin Coolidge, Minister of Radio Cat, Vice President Darcness, and Admins Malashaan, HEM, r3n, Lethen, and NES.

Notable global names on the signatory list are The East Pacific Delegate Yuno, Emperor of the Lands of Kings and Emperors OnderKelkia, Admin of The North Pacific Lord Ravenclaw, Admin of Kantrias Kylia Quilor, Admin of Osiris Cormac, and Admin of The East Pacific Todd McCloud.

Founder of Europeia HEM called NS a 'dream' for predators due to the existing rule. "It is possible to infiltrate communities, cause tremendous abuse, and then fade into the night and re-emerge with a different persona."

Despite the strong support for the petition, it was futile in changing the current policy. "Anything we find that supports the information from off-site can and will be acted on here," stated the NS Moderations’ statement. "This has been standard practice for years and will remain so." Numerous case studies show that moderation has unequivocally failed to act on players who have filed a Get Help Request (GHR) to report off-site harassment by an on-site player. A continuance of this policy is a continuance of the status quo. All statements by moderation on filing GHR's so they can investigate are belie claims that hold no weight any longer.

Asta On the Double-Standard Usage of Offsite Evidence (:25, YouTube)

Furthermore, they have also called the current defamation rule ‘sufficient’ yet have failed to give their case on its sufficiency, even in the face of overwhelming agreement that the rule is an utter failure. "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," the NS Moderation statement reads.

By remaining complacent and keeping the status quo with this failed policy, NS Moderation is failing to protect community members from known sexual predators. The current failed policy allows known off-site harassers to post on the NS forums, interact with their victims, and infiltrate separate communities to search for new victims. When a concerned NS member warns these communities publicly of such an individual, they are warned for defamation due to the fact that such behavior took place on an off-site platform. Not only does this decision maintain an environment where harassers can keep their despicable behavior off-site to side-skirt rules, but victims and concerned players cannot publicly discuss such disgusting actions without being muzzled by 'defamation.'

The NS Moderation team attempted to justify their response by comparing NS and off-site forums and platforms to separate social media sites. Such an analogy is a red herring and ridiculous. Off-site forums and platforms are centered on NS, with the same player base and a mutual reliance. Off-site platforms would not exist without the game, rendering the social media analogy meaningless. There is one NS community, with its players inhabiting both off-site forums and the official NS site simultaneously. Indeed, NS officially recognizes off-site forums, and actions undertaken there such as World Assembly delegate elections and votes, as the legitimate forums of both Game Created Regions and User Created Regions. Yet, the moderation team distances itself from off-site forums and their role within the game when it comes time to protect the larger community from sexual predators.

HEM Discusses the Hypocrisy of the Social Media Argument (1:01, YouTube)

Furthermore, the statement maintaining the current policy states that a 'Delete-On-Sight (DOS)' is not a foolproof method that completely perfects its banning of all nations of an individual. This argument has not stopped NS Moderation from DOSing nasty players in the past. While it may not be perfect, it allows for communities to be aware and identify individuals who are deviants, predators, and nasty players. It allows for removal and identification from communities, stopping predators from damaging more victims. Surely, this is a similar reason why DOSing individuals for large-scale rule breaking exists.

Despite the NS Moderation team having a policy for ‘removing a user for any reason not outlined,' this rule goes largely unused by their own admission. Their claim that it is to defend the wider community if needed rings hollow, as the current NationStates gameside community is rampant with off-site convicted harassers who have coasted by unpunished by the NS Moderation team.

Many other users feel similarly. Todd McCloud, Admin of The East Pacific and The World Fair, told the EBC that the decision was 'disappointing' and the petition merited a 'change in policy.' "It was a chance for players to not only outline harassers on-site, but to potentially work with administration in order to ultimately become a safer community."

Malashaan Explains Why He Is Disappointed (:20, YouTube)

President Rach of Europeia also noted her distaste with the decision. "Rather than protect the most vulnerable, NS moderation has instead punished those who have sought to bring such issues to light."

While it is undoubted that NS Moderation cares for the players and their security, the maintenance of the status quo can only be described as a colossal blunder. The tone-deaf response is compounded by the real world discussion currently underway regarding sexual harassment.

Rather than realizing the harm of this policy, NS Moderation has maintained it while continuing to admonish players who dare speak of it on-site. Every player in NS should be disappointed by the actions of those who are entrusted with the stewardship of our larger community. Rather than making a logical decision that would protect current and future victims, NS Moderation has decided to rely on a technicality to sidestep their responsibility. In the process, they have enabled sexual predators and left the community at risk.

Failing to take in the full evidence, allowing deviants to maintain an active status in-game, and muzzling players who dare speak of such nasty behavior is not protecting any player but the predators who utilize this outdated policy to target new victims.

Perhaps NS Administration and Moderation will soon see the error in their ways and reverse their utterly tone-deaf decision. When those who are charged with protecting the broader community abdicate their responsibilities, it is up to grassroot administrators and the NS user-base to stand up against such policies and make our community a safer place for all.

[Reploid Productions]

A region's embassy thread in the Gameplay forum is not the appropriate venue for discussion of Moderation matters. As such the above post has been relocated to the appropriate location.


~Evil Forum Empress Rep Prod the Ninja Admin
~She who wields the Banhammer; master of the mighty moderation no-dachi Kiritateru Teikoku

[Consular]

Apparently this needs clarification:

Nervun wasn't posting using the 'Royal We'. His post was the consensus opinion put together by all the active mods, both Game and Forum, and including some points from the admins. It was not his personal opinion.

There is no difference in policy between Reppy's posts and Nervun's posts. She just clarified some things that people were consistently misreading. Both Rep and Nerv have been participating in the consensus opinion. It was just a matter of who was online at the time to make an appropriate response.

I will also clarify that while I participated in the consensus discussion, my other posts in this thread were not consensus posts. I was simply addressing some specific points on my own.

Then what our response should tell you is that the first response by moderation was remarkably poorly considered.

No one is asking for anything but case by case!

Pretty much this.

We were never demanding you just take our word on whether someone is bad or not and ban them. We just want you to stop hiding your heads in the sand and consider it.

[Unibot III]

A region's embassy thread in the Gameplay forum is not the appropriate venue for discussion of Moderation matters. As such the above post has been relocated to the appropriate location.

(Image)
~Evil Forum Empress Rep Prod the Ninja Admin
~She who wields the Banhammer; master of the mighty moderation no-dachi Kiritateru Teikoku

Errr, it’s a GP government article with a GP government logo. How on earth could that be considered appropriate for the Moderation forum and not Gameplay?

The aim of moving the threads is really about keeping the discussion as separated from NS Gameplay as possible (where the relevant community focuses on), burying the article in a fast moving OP (which sucks the oxygen out of GP news), and handing out warnings to people sympathetic to the cause on procedural grounds if they disobey the order to keep the subject ‘local’ to the NS Moderation forum. It’s why NS Moderation always forces discussions on community issues to cease in the relevant community subforums and brought to Moderation. It’s the same trick every time.

In about two weeks time or shorter, you’ll offer concessions that aren’t concessions and lock this thread - and say the matter has been addressed. If the matter is brought up again in NS Gameplay, you’ll tell them to post the matter in NS Moderation, where you’ll say the matter has already been addressed and threaten them with a warning for evading a lock.

I’ve seen this sideshow probably two dozen times. Some part of me hoped that Moderation would have rose above the usual stall tactics for an issue as important as harassment and abuse.

[Zaolat]

For clarity, does this mean that any criticism of moderation, must be via GHR or the Moderation forum and/or discussion that may relate with Moderation?

[El Fiji Grande]

I vote against this petition.

[Glen-Rhodes]

My concerns about this petition aside, that kind of boneheaded mod action is actually what triggered the defamation discussion in the first place. Is it really that hard to act with some semblance of context when moderating?

[Kylia Quilor]

Apparently not.

[McChimp]

Is banning perpetrators onsite the only solution? They are reliant on offsite media to commit this crime-at the moment it's usually discord. These usually have their own abuse/harassment services. Discord definitely does. Would reporting them there not at least be a significant start?

[The Empire of Pretantia]

If they harass people on this site, then Moderation can ban them. If they're doing it on another site, then they can ban them. It's that easy.

[Consular]

If they harass people on this site, then Moderation can ban them. If they're doing it on another site, then they can ban them. It's that easy.

Do you speak from any experience with this?

[The Empire of Pretantia]

If they harass people on this site, then Moderation can ban them. If they're doing it on another site, then they can ban them. It's that easy.

Do you speak from any experience with this?

I don't see how that's relevant for anything but invoking seniority. This is basic logic. Can't complain about somebody being on this site if they're not harassing you on this site.

[Canton Empire]

Do you speak from any experience with this?

I don't see how that's relevant for anything but invoking seniority. This is basic logic. Can't complain about somebody being on this site if they're not harassing you on this site.

Yes you can, because them staying on site allows them to find new victims to lure offsite.

[Pentaga Giudici]

Do you speak from any experience with this?

I don't see how that's relevant for anything but invoking seniority. This is basic logic. Can't complain about somebody being on this site if they're not harassing you on this site.

So what happens if we have a considerable community here on NS, that revolves around someone who gets people on Discord to harass them?

Do you not remember how many times something like that has happened in the past year?

[Hirota]

I don't see how that's relevant for anything but invoking seniority. This is basic logic. Can't complain about somebody being on this site if they're not harassing you on this site.

So what happens if we have a considerable community here on NS, that revolves around someone who gets people on Discord to harass them?

Do you not remember how many times something like that has happened in the past year?

Discord has it's own capacity for dealing with harassment. You've not said anything that makes Pretantia's observation invalid.

[Tananat]

So what happens if we have a considerable community here on NS, that revolves around someone who gets people on Discord to harass them?

Do you not remember how many times something like that has happened in the past year?

Discord has it's own capacity for dealing with harassment. You've not said anything that makes Pretantia's observation invalid.

It's irrelevant to the issues being brought up. These players are enabled to continue their harassment by their presence on this site, where they can get into new and developing regions without many or any people knowing their history, free to repeat their actions. That's what the complaint is, that NS is doing nothing to protect members of their site from this happening.

[Kylia Quilor]

Discord has it's own capacity for dealing with harassment. You've not said anything that makes Pretantia's observation invalid.

It's irrelevant to the issues being brought up. These players are enabled to continue their harassment by their presence on this site, where they can get into new and developing regions without many or any people knowing their history, free to repeat their actions. That's what the complaint is, that NS is doing nothing to protect members of their site from this happening.

And they make it impossible to share that information effectively or allow its discussion in anything but the most tangential and hushed senses, as if we're trying to avoid saying the forbidden words and summoning the evil demons.