[Petition/Discussion] Harassment and Off-Site Evidence

[Ever-Wandering Souls]

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 given that some of the first things asked often are "what's your nation? Have you joined our region?" that's another case of a minor diminishing factor being used to downvote a generally helpful thing. We understand DOS' are not infallible, and that the site is still a publicly viewable website. You're "For Want of a Nail"ing this.

[Ever-Wandering Souls]

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.

Nothing new either. Lord Nuke admitted on the forums to his (present at the time) history. Didn't get banned.

EDIT: In case anyone does not believe me, here is proof - He's only CTE because he faded off the site again, nation is not soiled.

I've done terrible shit on NS. I'm not proud of it. The sexual harassment? Betraying a friend and deliberately hurting her is not something I just take in stride. I fucked up, I'm a predator, a monster, I'm everything you claim I am. I hurt an innocent girl, a friend out of my own selfish desires.

Was reported.

[Tim-Opolis]

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.

Nothing new either. Lord Nuke admitted on the forums to his (present at the time) history. Didn't get banned.

Yup. Meanwhile we can't even point out those individuals who made those public rule-tiptoeing admissions of guilt, by name, out of risk of being warned for defamation.

[Wopruthien]

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.

If a player is then deleted, there would be questions from the regional community why that was, which would undoubtedly show that the player was deleted for such and such a reason. It would become apparent that they were DoS, or at least had done something on NS that was extremely bad. It's unlikely mods would give a reason why, but I'm sure you would say such and such a player is DoS. That in turn would mean they'd be removed from the region and any access they have to off-site chats/forums. There are obviously exceptions, that some regions do allow DoS players to hang out in their off-site chats and forums. However most regions will actively help mods remove DoS players from this community. Most communities would help report DoS players if they suspect someone.

We are not claiming DoSing players is a magic bullet, just a step in the right direction to making this site safer for everyone.

[Consular]

Where on earth did you get this magic bullet argument from? I don't think we've ever suggested making someone DOS was a magical solution to all problems. It is at least though a repercussion, that stops these people from just walking around this town in plain sight acting like they've done nothing wrong. The magic bullet excuse to me looks like a strawman.

[Todd McCloud]

Well, all I can begin to say is I'm kind of disappointed. I'd like to see how the discussion went, and maybe there were points brought up that I haven't thought about or given consideration, but without that and the nuances of monitoring these forums, I have to accept things at face-value.

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.

Of course, the team will hear the information, but if there is nothing that can back it up "on-site", it will not be actionable. This was at least one of the points raised in the three or so recent threads on this.

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!

Yes, but all of this is centered about the game. Theeastpacific.com would not exist without nationstates.net, nor would Europeia, TNP, TSP, and so on. We, being the concerned NS members and offsite administrators and the likes, rely on each other when a known harasser has been found and sufficient evidence (even an admission) can cause action. That is something we take rather seriously and will act accordingly with each case. It would have been a step in the right direction to even consider our assessment and protect players on-site when these things occur under the game; that is, a site that pertains to NS.

In short, the off-site admins are supposed to continue to do their duty in protecting their communities while on-site continue to don their togas and do a Pontius Pilate washing of hands, not only that, but admonishing anyone who would dare speak of it in a more specific manner instead of, you know, weighing the evidence and realizing that certain circumstances have really placed a toll on some of the victims. Like it or not, a few books by an author out of Australia has generated a very diverse community with different goals and different values. To assume these individuals would never find other outlets to engage other players as it pertains to the game (within the scope of this site) is inane, and to outright refuse to deal with any of that poses a danger to those who are being targeted.

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.

Well, good job out of removing her warning. But let's get to the brass-tacks. This still remains a rather nebulous rule that, in my opinion, can still have a darn bit of fudging around and wiggle room. "General factual basis" - on what? And mentioning it in more than one thread? Really? And when does this cross the line from trying to be informative to being a flame? Furthermore, I think it borders on the insane that a general domain link cannot be included anywhere - all one would need to do is visit the regional page and follow the link to their forums. Is it really necessary to provide such an impedance?

Also, where does this fall in line with respect to other NS media branches, like RMB, bulletins, dispatches, NSwiki (the site that NS runs but whenever there's a problem it doesn't run), the likes?

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.

Well, I don't think anyone else is claiming to be as such. But what we do have are folks who can assess things and get to the point. For instance, maybe TEP doesn't have a whole grasp on all that X player did, but we can remove our pride and accept a valid investigation after looking it over objectively and drawing thoughtful conclusions. And, perhaps that team doesn't have all the tools it needs to complete an investigation. Hence why (I think I remember reading this) ensay esay essay was brought on as a temp admin to try and sort some research out on XXXX site (trying to not get a warning here, I guess). In the several times this has come up, that's what I envisioned. I guess it's just a bit disappointing to know that will have to continue to be the way off-site operates.

Also... DOS is some kind of magic bullet? Look, either DOSing works or it doesn't, because from what I've read in the last few pages is it doesn't work, and if that's the case then that necessitates a change in of itself. Either develop better tools or hire on more mods or something to that effect (I mean, how long has Reppy's announcement been up? Since August?). I get the whole 'well they could make another account', but eventually they'll be found out. If it's a paper tiger, then it's a paper tiger. But don't say it's a paper tiger.

Nothing has changed, and until this seemingly becomes a bigger issue, nothing will.

[Pentaga Giudici]

I personally am pretty damn confident this couldn't been a lot worse, but it's confusing how it sounds like we can't get anything.

Like something, even if it's small and token, would really help things out.

It just seems like we can't do even that.

Perhaps a version of "Help us, help you" is just not being offered to us anytime soon?

[Pollaetorian]

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.

My conclusion from Moderation's statement is that NS moderation shouldn't consider off-site actions because they see offsite activites as something that is allowed but against the design of the game. Like their stance on nation sharing, it is something actively discouraged but technically allowed on the understanding it is not discussed publically and the players assume all the risk.

It appears using offsite follows a similiar logic that if your region is big and complex enough to require offsite services, then you are acting in a way outside our design, so while the game will allow it, you assume all the risk. If you are uncomfortable with that, stick to playing in the way that is manageable using in game services.

To be clear I'm not saying that is my view of how it should be handled, but that is the justification I am drawing from the statement.

[Pentaga Giudici]

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.

My conclusion from Moderation's statement is that NS moderation shouldn't consider off-site actions because they see offsite activites as something that is allowed but against the design of the game. Like their stance on nation sharing, it is something actively discouraged but technically allowed on the understanding it is not discussed publically and the players assume all the risk.

It appears using offsite follows a similiar logic that if your region is big and complex enough to require offsite services, then you are acting in a way outside our design, so while the game will allow it, you assume all the risk. If you are uncomfortable with that, stick to playing in the way that is manageable using in game services.

To be clear I'm not saying that is my view of how it should be handled, but that is the justification I am drawing from the statement.

Wouldn't the solution then, be to allow us to talk about stuff like harassment without fear, on this site?

Or, you could arrange the site little by little so that people start doing their stuff here and not offsite.

[Ever-Wandering Souls]

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.

My conclusion from Moderation's statement is that NS moderation shouldn't consider off-site actions because they see offsite activites as something that is allowed but against the design of the game. Like their stance on nation sharing, it is something actively discouraged but technically allowed on the understanding it is not discussed publically and the players assume all the risk.

It appears using offsite follows a similiar logic that if your region is big and complex enough to require offsite services, then you are acting in a way outside our design, so while the game will allow it, you assume all the risk. If you are uncomfortable with that, stick to playing in the way that is manageable using in game services.

To be clear I'm not saying that is my view of how it should be handled, but that is the justification I am drawing from the statement.

That's a bit ridiculous, considering how the site encourages offsite forums, to the point of telling people to make one instead of using Gameplay for region business and making it a regional tag.

[Pollaetorian]

My conclusion from Moderation's statement is that NS moderation shouldn't consider off-site actions because they see offsite activites as something that is allowed but against the design of the game. Like their stance on nation sharing, it is something actively discouraged but technically allowed on the understanding it is not discussed publically and the players assume all the risk.

It appears using offsite follows a similiar logic that if your region is big and complex enough to require offsite services, then you are acting in a way outside our design, so while the game will allow it, you assume all the risk. If you are uncomfortable with that, stick to playing in the way that is manageable using in game services.

To be clear I'm not saying that is my view of how it should be handled, but that is the justification I am drawing from the statement.

That's a bit ridiculous, considering how the site encourages offsite forums, to the point of telling people to make one instead of using Gameplay for region business and making it a regional tag.

I'm not saying Moderation is consistent (we've seen enough of that), but just saying that if they want to justify their stance and still be consistent then they should start changing all those things you listed there. Maybe those encouragements and tags need bigger disclaimers?

I clearly know how out of step this is to how people actually play the game. But by drawing it to its "logical" conclusion maybe they'll see the ridiculousness of it and see all your point actually make more sense.

[Greater vakolicci haven]

Since moderation appears to be unlikely to do anything, perhaps we should set up a web forum for regional forum/chat admins to highlight things that the rest of that community needs to know? It wouldn't address the whole problem, but it would at least improve communication.

[Todd McCloud]

Since moderation appears to be unlikely to do anything, perhaps we should set up a web forum for regional forum/chat admins to highlight things that the rest of that community needs to know? It wouldn't address the whole problem, but it would at least improve communication.

This has been discussed before, and the argument seems to boil down to three things: 1. Who can be trusted to present it without any bias or what not, 2. It might actually make the victims more of a target, and 3. It might give the harassers unwarranted attention.

[Crushing Our Enemies]

This is just disgraceful. If, after everything that has happened to NationStates players, the moderation team is still abdicating their responsibility to protect us, I don't even know what to say. The defamation rule is still in place, unchanged. It is still legal for a NationStates player to lure another player to an off-site forum or chat for the purposes of harassing, abusing, and intimidating them. To add insult to injury, it is still illegal for the rest of us to talk about it.

If I were a mod, I would resign today.

[The Derpy Democratic Republic Of Herp]

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.

Nothing new either. Lord Nuke admitted on the forums to his (present at the time) history. Didn't get banned.

EDIT: In case anyone does not believe me, here is proof - He's only CTE because he faded off the site again, nation is not soiled.

I've done terrible shit on NS. I'm not proud of it. The sexual harassment? Betraying a friend and deliberately hurting her is not something I just take in stride. I fucked up, I'm a predator, a monster, I'm everything you claim I am. I hurt an innocent girl, a friend out of my own selfish desires.

Was reported.

What the hell is going on in gameplay that this shit happens? And I thought General was the worst.

[Greater vakolicci haven]

Since moderation appears to be unlikely to do anything, perhaps we should set up a web forum for regional forum/chat admins to highlight things that the rest of that community needs to know? It wouldn't address the whole problem, but it would at least improve communication.

This has been discussed before, and the argument seems to boil down to three things: 1. Who can be trusted to present it without any bias or what not, 2. It might actually make the victims more of a target, and 3. It might give the harassers unwarranted attention.

Since I'm serious about this proposal, I'm going to answer your points.

1. I am proposing that I host/maintain the forum, but honestly it could be anyone trustworthy, I'm just volunteering. The forum would not be a general discussion board for regional admins by any stretch, rather it would be a place for reports to be made and advice to be shared between admins.

2. I have considered this. The forum would strictly be for regional admins to use, and the general memberbase would not be given access. Regional admins, for the most part have been given the power to administrate their regions for a reason, and for the most part are probabl be trustworthy. Obviously I am not claiming that all regional admins are trustworthy or good people, much as there will be the odd nightline or samaratans volunteer who goes and tells his friends and family about the calls he's just received; however the percentage of 'bad eggs' is unlikely to be high.

3. It does give the harassers more attention, a big whole truckload of attention. Attention is exactly what these people need; they operate under the silence that is afforded by regions not sharing information between one another. These people need to be named and shamed, though only of course after the due process afforded by regional administrators working together in order to pool our resources on a particular player/incident.

[Greater vakolicci haven]

Nothing new either. Lord Nuke admitted on the forums to his (present at the time) history. Didn't get banned.

EDIT: In case anyone does not believe me, here is proof - He's only CTE because he faded off the site again, nation is not soiled.

Was reported.

What the hell is going on in gameplay that this shit happens? And I thought General was the worst.

Unfortunately gameplay features a whole lot more methods of people getting in contact with each other that aren't as well-regulated. Often a region/community might only have a few admins or moderators, and regional politics may act as a hinderence to them acting to solve a given situation. Similarly, the necisary communication between regions and communities that would make it much harder for people to simply melt away into the shadows and join another group, rinsing and repeating as they go, does not occur.
Their is also a far higher likelihood that players will talk in one-on-one communication with each other, such as in skype or discord.

[Aenglaland]

So basically NS Moderation is just washing their hands from the issue. I'm disappointed, honestly. You Mods are simply allowing these situations to go on. Nothing changed. It's up to the off-site communities to do their best to ensure safety and keep away the creeps, since you obviously won't do anything. I've been so many years in this game, and I always respected the Moderation team. They were doing their best, despiste not being paid, because deep down you're just players like us, giving away some of your personal time and attention to our complains. And for that, I thank you all, seriously.

But this is disappointing, there's no other way of saying it. It's up to us NS members to watch over ourselves and protect our off-site communities. I will do anything I can, with the hope that you Mods will change this, that will actually do something. Until then, you have lost my trust.

[Miedzymorse]

I'm dissapointed in the mod's actions.

[Darcania]

When those of us without the full means to protect ourselves are told by those who can protect us that they won't, and that we can't even tell others about the predators in out midst so that we can all at least be informed and do our best to protect ourselves... Well. You, NS moderation, put a lot of emphasis on what you're supposed to do about situations like this, but what about us? What are we supposed to do? Be left in the dark, with the predators who are given free reign here so long as they can lure their prey to their grounds?

Truly a disgrace. What's the point in trying to maintain a safe, positive community if those who are trusted by the community to keep it safe abdicate all responsibility?

[Luziyca]

Where on earth did you get this magic bullet argument from? I don't think we've ever suggested making someone DOS was a magical solution to all problems. It is at least though a repercussion, that stops these people from just walking around this town in plain sight acting like they've done nothing wrong. The magic bullet excuse to me looks like a strawman.

Indeed. We may as well get rid of DOS-status altogether, because it will do nothing to stop anyone from coming back onto the game.

I think what we, the NSers, need to do, if the mods can not fulfill their responsibilities, is encourage all regions with off-site forums/IIwiki/Discords/IRCS/etc cooperate informally, by having a Google document listing IP addresses and the nations proven to have harassed other NSers, so that if they ever go to another region, they could be punished accordingly by the relevant administrations.

Of course, the problem is that some will either turn a blind eye to the document or make false accusations to advance their agenda.

But considering the scope of the problem, if we must punish 100, 1,000, 10,000 innocents for every predator by banning them from regions and from offsite fora/IIwiki/et cetera, then so be it. If it drives these predators off the game and makes the game safer, then I am fine with those odds.

[USS Monitor]

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?

We're discussing this.

My take on it is that we aren't going to go out of our way to look for TGs, and a few TGs between friends is not an issue, but a mass TG or a sustained campaign to drag someone's name through the mud would be a problem. A couple of other mods have said similar things.

If I were a mod, I would resign today.

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.

What the hell is going on in gameplay that this shit happens? And I thought General was the worst.

NSG has heated arguments, but they're usually more ideological rather than personal. I get the feeling that GP has more close friendships, but also more personal grudges and dysfunctional relationships, because relationships between players are an essential part of the game.

[USS Monitor]

Or, you could arrange the site little by little so that people start doing their stuff here and not offsite.

That idea has come up in our discussions. It is a possibility, but would be a long-term thing, not an immediate fix.

[Malashaan Colony]

Like others, I am very disappointed in this statement. It feels like a side-step rather than a decision. However, I'm going to limit my substantive comments to one particular contradiction that the moderation team should address. In the statement, it says:

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.

However, the defamation rule appears to directly contradict this assertion. In particular, it states:

Please don't bring non-NationStates business to the NationStates forums, Getting Help page, or #themodcave. In particular, accusations of misconduct outside of NationStates do not belong in NationStates and will be punished as defamatory.

Note that the defamation rule does not distinguish between the forums, the getting help page, and #themodcave. If it would be defamatory to talk about it on the forum (under the incredibly broad definition used in the policy), it would also be defamatory to submit the same thing in a Getting Help Request. Wed know that I cannot post "Player X has been banned from region Y for sexual harassment" and link to the announcement from the region; that is exactly the kind of post that triggers a defamation warning. Therefore, under the current rule and policy, I should also receive a defamation warning for submitting the same information in a Getting Help Request. If nothing else, I hope the rule can be tweaked to make it clear that submitting evidence to the mods in private will not lead to a defamation warning.

[Unibot III]

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?

Why must a DOS for outside harassment be the only potential avenue for moderation to take a pro-active approach to harassment? It appears to me as though NS Moderation has continued to approach this issue as a strawman, washing its hand of general responsibility by appealing to one proposal and focusing on its limitations and challenges at the expense of really... anything, quite literally anything that NS Moderation could be doing in the future that it isn't doing now to try to limit harassment and abuse against players in alternative platforms attached by association to NationStates.

The first thing that could be changed would be to remove the gag rule on public discussion regarding harassment and abuse. Which you've elected not to do for reasons still transparently unspecified.

The NS Moderation team has deemed that the "defamation" rule (an auto-antonym if there ever was one) sufficient but hasn't bothered to defend its sufficiency to the burgeoning consensus of players that feel it is not sufficient. Sufficient at doing what? Covering the site's ass? The intention of the rule appears to be to prevent defamation by disallowing evidence that defamation has not occurred. It's not only an insufficient system at protecting against harassment on the wider NS platform, it's a cruel joke, bearing Pythonesque logic. I take NS Moderation's explicit absence of a defense of the rule and the withdrawal of the punishment against Escade as an admission that the rule makes bugger all sense and actively makes the current situation worse (it's just they can't think of what else to do.)

The second thing that could be done would be to consider other avenues than DOS and conventional punishments to attempt to limit offsite harassment and abuse. I've mused a bit about those options in an earlier post, other players might have additional ideas and comments. I think it's important that NS Moderation take a pro-active approach to offsite harassment rather than whatever it is you would call this present approach.