[Petition/Discussion] Harassment and Off-Site Evidence

[Vaculatestar64]

Alright I’ve been holding my tongue moderations response has been unacceptable. And if I get a warn or temp ban it is what it is.

These people, are the low life’s of this planet. I worked for three years as a correctional officer in a prison where people who commit sexual crimes were in the majority. These people are fucking devious, and manipulative, and not everyone has the training and experiences I have to recognize and resist. My training saved a member of our community from such a character recently because I saw the warning signs in our interactions. But most people don’t have this. It’s not enough to say “well block them” or “dont send them nudes”. It’s not that easy. These people, manipulate and control and wield mental and emotional power over their victims, and it’s not easy to break it. In some cases it’s impossible. Moderation in my opinion has a duty to protect its community, and you are failing horribly to do that. What if someone dies as a result of this abuse? What are you gonna do, victim blame them? Shrug your shoulders? Protect this community, do what it takes to do that. Otherwise you have failed as moderators.

[Insaeldor]

Sounds like we're asking the mods to do the job of the off-site forum owners. They've made it clear that they can police off site forums and have no jurisdiction until it seeps over into NS.

[The Derpy Democratic Republic Of Herp]

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.

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.

I see.

[Mount Seymour]

Since clearly we're not getting the point across even with numerous explanatory, detailed posts, I thought visuals might work a bit better.



In these images, the yellow central circle is NS-the-site, https://www.nationstates.net. Each grey circle is a theoretical offsite forum, discord, skype, chat, wiki, etc. that's been established by and for members of the NationStates community. That green circle is anything classed under "offsite activities". The lines are the connections between NS and its offsite children, and the orange blob is the jurisdiction that the NS mods are able to use in investigations or discuss, i.e. "where you can get help from the NS mods".

(A) is one specific offsite forum. It's in the middle of a massive harassment case. The grey blob around it is the area that its admins can look into, and are investigating at the moment. As you can see, it's sharing information ("contact" by overlapping) with its neighboring, related offsites, as well as completely non-NS related venues.

---

This is essentially what we've seen recently. Offsite admins at (A) are reaching out towards NS itself to share important information about the harasser-- but not only are the NS Mods not making contact, they're actively pulling away from anything offsite. Anytime something happens offsite, it can't be mentioned (sound familiar?). And in the process, they're actually uncovering large portions of NS the site and leaving them vulnerable.

---

This is what the situation would look like if things were "normal" according to logical versions of the current NS rules. Or, you could say, if the defamation rule were not so restrictive. The offsite and onsite admins/mods still can't overlap, but at least they're close and the gap between them is small enough that it's reasonably manageable. NS onsite and anything very close to it are fully protected, even though it remains quite insular. Eh.

---

This is what the entire purpose of this thread is about. It's what we'd like it to look like. NS moderation is actually on the communication lines, able to be on the receiving end of any important, reliable offsite administrative evidence. It's not trying to cover any offsite locations, but simply cover the pathways between them and NS proper. But the most important part here is the overlap, (c). If there's a known harasser in (A), the evidence can be communicated through (c) to NS moderation.

---

This is not what, I think, anyone is asking for. NS Moderation is not the internet police, and neither is it responsible for things that happen on offsite media. It's not responsible for investigating offsite. It's not responsible for maintaining community standards offsite. It should not be involved offsite.

But when it is approached by trusted offsite admins, it needs to be able to act on their information. And at the very least, it should not run away fleeing at the mere mention.

---

EDIT: Now that I think about it, there are a couple of changes I'd make:

1. The "grey blob" of offsite admins should be from the start much larger than that of NS moderation-- they already do much more outside investigation work.
2. The really important thing is not that NS moderation extends its "tentacles" out to reach for communication with offsite admins,
   because offsite administration can already reach into the NS site; but that when offsite administration does reach into the NS site,
   Moderation doesn't shrink away from it even further but instead maintains its full area and thereby allows that overlap to occur.

[Mallorea and Riva]

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.

After reading over the last several pages of this thread I get this weird sense that no one read this part of the post, and that the parts which followed were completely misinterpreted.

The part about DOS orders not being a magic bullet is just a reminder that while we may implement them, that does not guarantee that the problem user will be forever wiped from the game. That line was meant to help serve as a reminder for victims that in cases where the moderators ban someone for predatory behavior we, despite our best efforts, are not perfect. I see a lot of people reading that line to mean "DOS orders aren't perfect so we won't ever use them!" which is simply wrong.

[Crushing Our Enemies]

Mall, we read it. The issue we have is that it is simply stating an already extant policy, that has so far been woefully insufficient at addressing our concerns (hence this entire thread). If that (again, already extant) policy were actively being used to protect victims of harassment and ban predators from the site, the player-that-shall-not-be-named would be gone, his victims would be safe on NS, everything would be honky-dory, and this thread would never have been started. No reassurance has been provided that anything is going to change, so we do not consider that response to be in the category of things that are called "solutions".

[Unibot III]

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.

After reading over the last several pages of this thread I get this weird sense that no one read this part of the post, and that the parts which followed were completely misinterpreted.

The part about DOS orders not being a magic bullet is just a reminder that while we may implement them, that does not guarantee that the problem user will be forever wiped from the game. That line was meant to help serve as a reminder for victims that in cases where the moderators ban someone for predatory behavior we, despite our best efforts, are not perfect. I see a lot of people reading that line to mean "DOS orders aren't perfect so we won't ever use them!" which is simply wrong.

Reploid has made a similar point already:

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.

The issue, I don't think, is what NERV said in the statement. DOS is -not- a magic bullet. I think the issue is what the intent behind making that particular statement is. I gathered the intent of the mod's "magic bullet" comment was to try to provide half-ass consolation to those who wish to see offsite harassment punished ("e.g., We can't really ban people anyways!) Why otherwise make the point? It's a meaningless statement. Of course you can't make the site private.

I think it's pretty insulting you don't think folks read that part of post, I read it - it doesn't lead to a more positive interpretation of the paragraph as a whole.

[Ever-Wandering Souls]

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.

After reading over the last several pages of this thread I get this weird sense that no one read this part of the post, and that the parts which followed were completely misinterpreted.

The part about DOS orders not being a magic bullet is just a reminder that while we may implement them, that does not guarantee that the problem user will be forever wiped from the game. That line was meant to help serve as a reminder for victims that in cases where the moderators ban someone for predatory behavior we, despite our best efforts, are not perfect. I see a lot of people reading that line to mean "DOS orders aren't perfect so we won't ever use them!" which is simply wrong.

The reason that that was largely ignored was because, while using that ability far more liberally could solve most problems, the tone of everything else said here points towards that being lip service that we're unlikely to see in reality, not to mention all of history (I've linked nuke as an uber-clear example) points to it never being meaningfully used prior.

That you *can* do so was assumed, pretty commonly. That you *will* do so...everything else said here point against that. I mean, you could prove us wrong pretty easily there by starting to use it, right now. But we haven't seen that.

[Rogamark]

snip

I at least agree that there is a point that doesn't seem to get across:

Once you decide to engage in that kind of involvement, you cannot just restrict the scope of it. If you act on such information once, you must do it every time.

Once the central orange blob decides to extend a tentacle outside its core sphere, and officially interact with a grey blob, all the effects mentioned before trigger.

The orange blob does not have the option to say "we only get involved if we trust the offsite admin".

The orange blob does not have the option to say "we only get involved in the cases we choose".

The orange blob does not have the option to say "we only get involved if it's a grey blob we care about".

Either you keep to your own platform, or you don't. There is no risk-free middle ground, no matter how reasonable "What we want" may sound and look. It's not possible.

I think it may be possible to have some exchange of information at least, if it's done right. At least I seem to recall that a very large tech company from California was faced with about the same issue, and they found a solution. But I'll have to look into it, I don't remember the details. That would be an entirely different proposal, though, and it's a discussion for another day.

[Crushing Our Enemies]

I at least agree that there is a point that doesn't seem to get across:

Once you decide to engage in that kind of involvement, you cannot just restrict the scope of it. If you act on such information once, you must do it every time.

Well that's a bold assertion. I assume you have some kind of justification for it? Cause it seems like you could totally just act sometimes (such as when the evidence is incontrovertible, or when the accused player admits wrongdoing, etc) but not all the time.

The orange blob does not have the option to say "we only get involved if we trust the offsite admin".

Why not? It's their rules, they can write them how they want.

The orange blob does not have the option to say "we only get involved in the cases we choose".

Of...course they have that option. It might be unfair, but there is no universal law of fairness that is not self-imposed by the site.

The orange blob does not have the option to say "we only get involved if it's a grey blob we care about".

That would be a dumb policy that would engender distrust of the system. But...yes,they do in fact have that option.

Either you keep to your own platform, or you don't. There is no risk-free middle ground, no matter how reasonable "What we want" may sound and look. It's not possible.

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/black-or-white
You can say it five times, but that just makes you five times as wrong.

[Mount Seymour]

snip

I at least agree that there is a point that doesn't seem to get across:

Once you decide to engage in that kind of involvement, you cannot just restrict the scope of it. If you act on such information once, you must do it every time.

Once the central orange blob decides to extend a tentacle outside its core sphere, and officially interact with a grey blob, all the effects mentioned before trigger.

The orange blob does not have the option to say "we only get involved if we trust the offsite admin".

The orange blob does not have the option to say "we only get involved in the cases we choose".

The orange blob does not have the option to say "we only get involved if it's a grey blob we care about".

Either you keep to your own platform, or you don't. There is no risk-free middle ground, no matter how reasonable "What we want" may sound and look. It's not possible.

I think it may be possible to have some exchange of information at least, if it's done right. At least I seem to recall that a very large tech company from California was faced with about the same issue, and they found a solution. But I'll have to look into it, I don't remember the details. That would be an entirely different proposal, though, and it's a discussion for another day.

Even if you're going to claim that it's impossible to choose your cases and moderation must stay within its site strictly, there is still possibility for communication - just let the grey blob enter the orange blob's area without having the orange blob contract away from it.

It's not black and white. Just because you don't extend, doesn't mean you have to contract.

[Escade]

The EBC Broadcast about this topic was further enlightening and elucidating and everyone who wasn't able to should listen to it when its recording is available.

That said, Mount Seymour hit the nail on the head regarding that we are asking for something better than what we have:
- off-site forums, in particular the major ones, are working together to ban people from their forums for bad behavior
- the status quo on-site enables predators and sexual harassers to keep using the on-site even if banned off-site
- this puts the victims in a terrible situation where they have to face psychological and emotional anxiety
(to quote a friend who kept checking the online users list in fear of it being a specific person and determining to quit)
- the rule about defamation prevents the community from talking about the predators and effectively works to silence victims
- this puts new players and the vulnerable in a bad\ignorant situation because they can be predatored upon and gives predators access to them

This is a difficult situation for a community to moderate but your community is saying, "We want to have a discussion on how to improve and how to make things better and so many people are giving feasible ideas" and yet we got a post that is disheartening because it stated, "status quo will remain."

For each of the reasons that people have said it was implausible, there are solutions or work=arounds. The spirit and justice of the law matters more than the letters.

- Communication on-site that allows for the reporting of off-site cases
- maybe even to a particular team of players that are well-established in game and have the means to deal sensitively with the issue

- Communication on-site that lets predators know they can be DOSed for engaging in sexual harassment
- to function as a deterrent

- Communication on-site that allows for the discussion of off-site cases with some guidelines
- defamation shouldn't be wielded like a suppressor on actual issues that matter

[Rogamark]

Well that's a bold assertion. I assume you have some kind of justification for it? Cause it seems like you could totally just act sometimes (such as when the evidence is incontrovertible, or when the accused player admits wrongdoing, etc) but not all the time.

I'm going through it one more time, and that's it, and only because the very reason why I spoke up in the first place was to dispel some of the half- and outright non-truths flying around in this thread.

First, in general terms, every platform has of course the right to pick and choose on what behavior of their users to act, if the behavior in question is just about self-imposed website/ingame rules. Yes, I can set up a website, and I can mandate that everyone must post in Klingon, and I can choose to show someone the door if they violate that rule... or I cannot, I'm not obliged to do so, since I make the rules. Without question.

But if you look at this thread, especially the posts made over the course of this evening, it's obvious that many of the people who so vociferously campaign for their proposal are particularly worried about one special class of conduct: harassment, especially with a sexual connotation. That's a huge difference, since there are RL laws in place to keep such behavior in check. Originally designed for offline use, they are often applied in a digital context, and I can think of at least two US states who have expressly taken legislative action to extend the scope of application to internet venues. Quite obviously, my own house rules do not supersede RL legislation on so-called malicious content.

The responsibilities of website owners with respect to malicious content is subject of an intense controversy that's been raging for quite a while now. I'm using the very broad brush here, there are exceptions, and exceptions to the exceptions, and jurisdictions where entirely different sets of rules apply, but the general consensus in US law and precedent is this: A website owner is not even always responsible for content on their own website, never mind other places they simply link or otherwise refer to. Unless they choose to be.

If such a website owner decides to act on offsite malicious content, rather than just referring people who may complain to the admins over there, certain RL obligations do kick in, no matter which boundaries they try to set. Imagine this worst-case scenario: They act on one complaint, but not on another, even though the two third-party websites involved are objectively the same... linked in the same manner, hosted by the same provider, with exactly the same degree of linkage to the original platform. Now it turns out, perhaps because RL legal action is taken, or law enforcement is being involved, that the second case did have merit, and was misjudged, because the admins made a judgment call in the manner you described.

Or imagine a third case where they decide that the misconduct does not rise to the level of actionability. The harassment in the third case is later turning sexual or violent, eventually rising to the level of criminality, it turns out that the offender has been active in other, equally connected places as well. Never mind that the platform owners did not know about it, if I sued them and claimed failure to protect/failure to safeguard, because they had evidence before them that one of their members was engaging in a pattern of harassment, and they did nothing about it (despite, by policy, reserving the right to), I'd really like my chances.

I am, by the way, by no means endorsing this status quo. If it was up to me, the regulations would look very, very different, I can tell you that. But as it stands, this issue is black or white.

[Socio Polor]

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.

You guys are bound to run into people with records, especially GPers and players who have been on this site for a long time. No one is perfect and we all done things in the past we regret doing now. I understand you guys are looking for people who have clean or near clean records to be mods, but what y'all should do when y'all stumble upon people who have been nominated but has a rather lenghty record like a few warnings and bans is see how they progresses sense then like how well they've improved in behavior. "Hmm this person as a record and seems to not have improved in their behavior. They still troll others and spam the forum like crazy, remove them of the consideration list." "Hmm, this person as quite a few warnings and 1 ban but (in such and such time) they have showed substantial improvement in their behavior and is active from time to time on the forums, maybe we can consider this person as a Forum Mod and see how they do." See what I mean? I totally understand you guys have to be cautious and hold strong discretion in deciding who to offer a position on the team and who to reject but don't just hastily reject a person just because they have a record, see how well they've improved, don't just automatically reject a person the position that can potentially contribute to the team for something they did months or years ago that they don't do anymore today and show good conduct. That's what I'll do anyways.

[Guy]

I do actually understand the concerns around legal liability when a person is publicly announced to have harassed or abuse others.

That doesn’t have to be the case in order to improve the current situation. There are a handful of cases (that I’m personally aware of) where a person is widely reputed to be a serial abuser, and there is a lot of evidence to that effect. Most of these cases rise above ‘mere’ (and I loathe using that word) sexual harassment, and are in the realm of psychological abuse or likely criminal sexual offending.

The mods can then make a decision not to welcome that person on the website. It would be an entirely discretionary decision. It does not need to be announced.

The Brunhilde case is instructive. Only someone being purposefully obtuse would be able to come to the conclusion that the alleged wrongdoing there did not happen. I see no issue with issuing a DoS.

There are several other cases where the mod team should be satisfied, not to 51% or 80%, but 99.9%. Some of these players still pose a serious threat to NSers. And you should at least consider setting up a process to be able to deal with them.

1. Mods say they are open to receiving information regarding off-site harassment

2. Open conversations are held with those who supplied this information

3. Mod team ban people whom they see fit to do so.

The ban does not require any justification or announcement. It does not create a slippery slope. Mod team can use it as sparingly, or as often, as they see fit. Hopefully, they will see fit to do so when they have credible evidence of serious wrongdoing.

It's not complicated, and doesn't open anyone to any form of liability.

[Korhe]

Since clearly we're not getting the point across even with numerous explanatory, detailed posts, I thought visuals might work a bit better.

(Image)

In these images, the yellow central circle is NS-the-site, https://www.nationstates.net. Each grey circle is a theoretical offsite forum, discord, skype, chat, wiki, etc. that's been established by and for members of the NationStates community. That green circle is anything classed under "offsite activities". The lines are the connections between NS and its offsite children, and the orange blob is the jurisdiction that the NS mods are able to use in investigations or discuss, i.e. "where you can get help from the NS mods".

(A) is one specific offsite forum. It's in the middle of a massive harassment case. The grey blob around it is the area that its admins can look into, and are investigating at the moment. As you can see, it's sharing information ("contact" by overlapping) with its neighboring, related offsites, as well as completely non-NS related venues.

---

(Image)

This is essentially what we've seen recently. Offsite admins at (A) are reaching out towards NS itself to share important information about the harasser-- but not only are the NS Mods not making contact, they're actively pulling away from anything offsite. Anytime something happens offsite, it can't be mentioned (sound familiar?). And in the process, they're actually uncovering large portions of NS the site and leaving them vulnerable.

---

(Image)

This is what the situation would look like if things were "normal" according to logical versions of the current NS rules. Or, you could say, if the defamation rule were not so restrictive. The offsite and onsite admins/mods still can't overlap, but at least they're close and the gap between them is small enough that it's reasonably manageable. NS onsite and anything very close to it are fully protected, even though it remains quite insular. Eh.

---

(Image)

This is what the entire purpose of this thread is about. It's what we'd like it to look like. NS moderation is actually on the communication lines, able to be on the receiving end of any important, reliable offsite administrative evidence. It's not trying to cover any offsite locations, but simply cover the pathways between them and NS proper. But the most important part here is the overlap, (c). If there's a known harasser in (A), the evidence can be communicated through (c) to NS moderation.

---

(Image)

This is not what, I think, anyone is asking for. NS Moderation is not the internet police, and neither is it responsible for things that happen on offsite media. It's not responsible for investigating offsite. It's not responsible for maintaining community standards offsite. It should not be involved offsite.

But when it is approached by trusted offsite admins, it needs to be able to act on their information. And at the very least, it should not run away fleeing at the mere mention.

---

EDIT: Now that I think about it, there are a couple of changes I'd make:

1. The "grey blob" of offsite admins should be from the start much larger than that of NS moderation-- they already do much more outside investigation work.
2. The really important thing is not that NS moderation extends its "tentacles" out to reach for communication with offsite admins,
   because offsite administration can already reach into the NS site; but that when offsite administration does reach into the NS site,
   Moderation doesn't shrink away from it even further but instead maintains its full area and thereby allows that overlap to occur.

So long as this is exactly what is being advocated, then I am in support. Though I would also want some means for the accused to defend themselves against false allegations. When it comes to harassment, the defendant is often presumed guilty until proven innocent.

[Mount Seymour]

I do actually understand the concerns around legal liability when a person is publicly announced to have harassed or abuse others.

That doesn’t have to be the case in order to improve the current situation. There are a handful of cases (that I’m personally aware of) where a person is widely reputed to be a serial abuser, and there is a lot of evidence to that effect. Most of these cases rise above ‘mere’ (and I loathe using that word) sexual harassment, and are in the realm of psychological abuse or likely criminal sexual offending.

The mods can then make a decision not to welcome that person on the website. It would be an entirely discretionary decision. It does not need to be announced.

The Brunhilde case is instructive. Only someone being purposefully obtuse would be able to come to the conclusion that the alleged wrongdoing there did not happen. I see no issue with issuing a DoS.

There are several other cases where the mod team should be satisfied, not to 51% or 80%, but 99.9%. Some of these players still pose a serious threat to NSers. And you should at least consider setting up a process to be able to deal with them.

1. Mods say they are open to receiving information regarding off-site harassment

2. Open conversations are held with those who supplied this information

3. Mod team ban people whom they see fit to do so.

The ban does not require any justification or announcement. It does not create a slippery slope. Mod team can use it as sparingly, or as often, as they see fit. Hopefully, they will see fit to do so when they have credible evidence of serious wrongdoing.

It's not complicated, and doesn't open anyone to any form of liability.

If we could get both mods and players to agree to this as a solution it seems like it would actually work, but we'd need some evidence that it would actually be used (as in th recent case of Brun) not just as a moderation way out from not having to change anything.

[Rogamark]

The ban does not require any justification or announcement. It does not create a slippery slope. Mod team can use it as sparingly, or as often, as they see fit. Hopefully, they will see fit to do so when they have credible evidence of serious wrongdoing.

It's not complicated, and doesn't open anyone to any form of liability.

Absolutely true. That's why I said one of the options would be people getting banned or deleted without comment as a policy. I also asked the question "is that the NS we want?". Even though I can think of at least two people - might be the ones you're thinking about as well - where I really like the idea of sending one log or the other the admins' way.

The mods here are not generally likely to be swayed by public opinion, and some decisions must not be discussed in public. OK. But there is still quite a bit of transparency, since most of what's happening in terms of housekeeping - that includes the rules in the first place, possible appeals and all that - happen pretty much in plain view. Just silently banning someone would not. It would remove any and all transparency for certain classes of cases. Cases, I might add, that are typically less airtight than your usual rules violation, since under that proposal, the evidence would come from a third party.

People simply disappearing because a mod decides that it's warranted, without any announcement, justification, explanation, or visibility whatsoever, is not something I'd like to see in NS on a regular basis.

Again, I do see a potential compromise, but what's the point of debating alternative proposals when quite a few people are still hellbent on somehow ramming this one through? I do promise that I will actively contribute to any future debate on the issue. I've already said to Asta that I'll help. But I think it's best for everyone to cool down a bit first... and, quite bluntly, for some people to dial back the fanaticism. I want a safe community just as much as the next guy, pun recognized but unintended. I want a NS my 13-year-old cousin could safely use without me finding the thought a bit... unsettling. I just think that this particular proposal is not the way to accomplish it.

[Reploid Productions]

Okay, there seems to have been some confusion on the subject of DOSes, so we're going to try to clear that up.

Whenever we conclude that someone is a threat to the site and/or our users, we declare that person Delete On Sight and we do our best to remove that person from NationStates.net. Earlier commentary from my fellow Moderators is merely pointing out that this isn't perfect and sometimes DOS players sneak back on the site under new disguises, until we realize who they are and what they're doing, then we bring the banhammer down on their heads again. This is particularly fraught if the problem activity isn't even on-site: we have much less to go on. But, as long as such a DOS order is in place, we absolutely will try our best to keep said person off of NationStates.net.

Also, Malashaan Colony brought up a good point about the One Stop Rules Shop. The NationStates Moderation Team is discussing possible changes to that line (and/or other site policies) now. 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.

Next, we want to reiterate that while we can and will issue DOS orders for the protection of our users, we WILL NOT be able to publicly acknowledge specific instances where we have done so. In general, if a case might result in a lawsuit (such as libel) if handled improperly (such as if we accused someone of a real world crime and we turn out to be wrong), then the ruling needs to remain secret. Courts of law absolutely do not care if we incorrectly accuse someone of cheating at an internet game. Courts of law absolutely DO care if we incorrectly accuse someone of something serious. Fundamentally, this is the one non-negotiable position: everything else is.

Because of the above, we can neither confirm nor deny any impending, past, or recent delete on sight orders relevant to this topic. This is frustrating, but it's the internet we live in.

It's also frustrating that in many cases, much of the evidence that we're being asked to act on has not been provided to us.

Finally, please appreciate that any extraordinary action and any change to any policy requires a high degree of consensus.


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

[Conservative Values]

How do you square: “We won’t tell you they are DOS.” With “We give warnings for posting on behalf of / quoting DOS players.”
Or are you merely saying you won’t say why a DOS was issued?

[Luziyca]

How do you square: “We won’t tell you they are DOS.” With “We give warnings for posting on behalf of / quoting DOS players.”
Or are you merely saying you won’t say why a DOS was issued?

I think Reppy is saying that they won't say why a DOS is issued, especially for harassment. Which is fair.

[Reploid Productions]

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

This. Apologies if that wasn't clear.

[Ever-Wandering Souls]

Whenever we conclude that someone is a threat to the site and/or our users, we declare that person Delete On Sight and we do our best to remove that person from NationStates.net.

...

Because of the above, we can neither confirm nor deny any impending, past, or recent delete on sight orders relevant to this topic. This is frustrating, but it's the internet we live in.

...

It's also frustrating that in many cases, much of the evidence that we're being asked to act on has not been provided to us.

The problem with this here is that there have been many, many cases where someone *has* filed all available information via moderation or GHR, and nothing has happened, no need to confirm or deny, because no nations are soiled, or the players are still here. So either a) that's not been historically true, or b) these players have not been deemed a threat. Failing to recognize that this, historically, has not been accurate one way or another, rather than acting like it has always been the case, would likely go a long ways in terms of goodwill.

So, I'll ask clearly - do you want us to formally resubmit evidence of every one of two dozen or so known harassers who are not deleted, and hope they get acted on *now*?

[Reploid Productions]

The problem with this here is that there have been many, many cases where someone *has* filed all available information via moderation or GHR, and nothing has happened, no need to confirm or deny, because no nations are soiled, or the players are still here. So either a) that's not been historically true, or b) these players have not been deemed a threat. Failing to recognize that this, historically, has not been accurate one way or another, rather than acting like it has always been the case, would likely go a long ways in terms of goodwill.

So, I'll ask clearly - do you want us to formally resubmit evidence of every one of two dozen or so known harassers who are not deleted, and hope they get acted on *now*?

There are cases we may or may not be (re)examining. As was previously stated:

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.

[Consular]

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