[Discussion] RWDT Alleged Threadjacking

[Hakons]

Several RWDT posters were given threadjacking warnings for complaining about moderation actions.

Those bans are disproportionate.

If they are so inclined, they can appeal it. You cannot. Nor is it the topic of this thread. *** Warning for threadjacking. ***

i dunno, they let pedo's run free apparently for a long time before they finally got around to cleaning it up so.....

If you have valid complaints of Moderator abuse, please file them via the Getting Help page. Moderators cannot edit, delete, or otherwise alter the contents of your GHR, and mod abuse reports are flagged for immediate admin attention. Be sure to include all relevant links to what you are reporting as well as a clear and concise explanation of what the problem is. I must inform you that the Administrators have very little patience for frivolous or outright fraudulent reports, and are liable to dismiss incomplete, unspecific, or wildly generalized complaints outright. (IE: "The mods are corrupt!" absent any evidence attached to the report.)

Otherwise, this is also not the topic of this thread. *** Warning for threadjacking. ***

what the fuck? how is that worthy of a ban lol

every time a good poster gets banned we should just not post here for two weeks in solidarity. free vacations for everyone!

You're not required to participate on this board, much less this website. But while you do, you must adhere to the Terms & Conditions of Use you agreed to at the moment of account creation. But you're not the banned party, nor can you appeal on their behalf. Nor is this the topic of this thread. *** Warning for threadjacking. ***

Since people seem to be under the false assumption this is a general chat thread, hang-out place, or otherwise "let's just throw whatever we want in this thread like it's our personal space," let me dissuade: it isn't. This is not your personal little clubhouse, nor are any other of these megathreads - be they dedicated to an ideological spectrum, a given religion, or any other topic.

If these threads can't remain topical, we'll revisit whether or not they should be permitted at all. Same goes for if we have to repeatedly come in here to deal with the individual thread's frequent adherents.

This thread can stay locked for a bit.

Despite the RWDT being a discussion thread with a large degree of freedom in subject, the rulings were upheld:

Thread Hijacking: Appropriating a thread for a discussion totally unrelated to the original purpose of said thread. Hijacking can take the form of a single post or a long discussion. Such posts may be split or deleted, and the poster warned.

I shall flag y'all down a colleague to review your appeals.

I don't see any reason to grant the appeal. It's a fairly cut-and-dry example of threadjacking. Denied.

According to these rulings, any momentary divergence from the central purpose of the thread is "fairly cut-and-dry" threadjacking. However, discussion threads hold a wide variety of discussion. Invariably, in every discussion thread, and in most NSG threads, there is discussion that diverges significantly from the purpose of the thread. These go unreported and unpunished the overwhelming majority of the time.

For example, here is Katganistan, an Administrator, threadjacking about tax policy in a thread about Trump's order to reopen Churches, later merged with the MAGA thread:

Legally yes

They are?
Seems like they should be paying taxes then....

Legally no. Donations aren't profit.

Non-profit corporations, maybe.

Not all types of corporations are required to pay taxes.

I didn't say non-profits should.... but businesses do.

Corporation =/= business

I am not the one who originally called it a business. That was the whole point of ASKING them if it was a business.

Business doesn't really have a precise definition here.

Except that churches don't appear to be businesses, but not-for-profit corporations instead...

What worries me is that the recent warnings in the RWDT seem retaliatory and arbitrary. Moderation figures appear to have gotten angry that so many posters were complaining about their actions, so they unleashed a series of warnings to quiet dissent. That is of course my interpretation, but I'm hardly comforted by Kyrusia's threat to end the RWDT altogether and the generally contemptuous language. Does Kyrusia or other moderation figures regularly threaten the existence of megathreads after a threadjacking ruling? Or is this speech reserved personally for the RWDT?

I submit this for discussion. Can threadjacking be clarified, especially in light of megathreads and the generally haphazard enforcement? Are the warnings retaliatory and arbitrary in nature? Are megathreads under threat, and are they treated equally?

[Italios]

hello, thanks for making this post on the subject of threadjacking. personally, i think the threadjacking guidelines remain a pretty poorly thought out aspect of NS forum rules. it seems they are totally arbitrarily enforced, and the moderation team gets away with this wishy-washy enforcement because they can just lock "threadjacked" threads, even when all posting is happening in good faith.

I think the abuse of "threadjacking" gets particularly bad when someone gets a ban or warning and other people react. it's normal healthy human interaction and people are getting popped for it. they're getting popped for single posts like "bad ruling" that are obviously meant to be read and moved on from. im not here to make an appeal for my warning at all, i have no problem with the individual warning, its just the macro-level abusive of this moderation power that bugs me. the interesting thing is nationstate PRIDES itself for having transparent, visible moderation, but people get PUNISHED for having opinions on it. it seems very counterintuitive to me.

here's one example:

*** Warned for flaming ***

Wasn't flaming Luna.

this warning was given out today, the same day as the most recent RWDT meltdown. the user who received the warning replied in regards to the ruling and was not punished, because it wasn't meant to derail the thread - it was just a singular post with no content. yet everyone who reacted to questers' two week ban in an identical manner was warned (most notably NAKENA, who literally said it was a bad ruling and nothing else). why? this seems wildly inconsistent. (incidentally, this is not intended to be a report of genivaria at all). there are countless other examples of people reacting to moderation decisions in various threads and getting warnings for the reaction depending on the whims of the mods.

i hate getting involved in moderation matters, but recent events seem to egregious to ignore. its a shame because general is one of a kind for political discussion, ive never found a community offline or online on par with it - yet increasingly it feels like we are posting in a police state that wants to beat us into submission to preserve an echo chamber that shouldn't exist.

edit: i'll note that i understand moderation's annoyance with the RWDT specifically and the pattern of behavior it seems to contain, but my point with this point is not to make a defense of megathreads or anyone who frequents the RWDT, just how we handle "threadjacking."

[Shazbotdom]

IIRC
"Discussion' threads are not to rehash rulings. I've seen them ruled as "Bad Faith Posts" Before when they are trying to rehash old warnings/bans/etc.

[Hakons]

IIRC
"Discussion' threads are not to rehash rulings. I've seen them ruled as "Bad Faith Posts" Before when they are trying to rehash old warnings/bans/etc.

I'm not appealing, I am asking:

Can threadjacking be clarified, especially in light of megathreads and the generally haphazard enforcement? Are the warnings retaliatory and arbitrary in nature? Are megathreads under threat, and are they treated equally?

[Katganistan]

For example, here is Katganistan, an Administrator, threadjacking about tax policy in a thread about Trump's order to reopen Churches, later merged with the MAGA thread:

They are?
Seems like they should be paying taxes then....

Non-profit corporations, maybe.

I didn't say non-profits should.... but businesses do.

I am not the one who originally called it a business. That was the whole point of ASKING them if it was a business.

Except that churches don't appear to be businesses, but not-for-profit corporations instead...

Rather disingenuous given I did not begin that discussion, Diopolis did.

Study by Columbia University said it was around 30,000-40,000 deaths could have been avoided.

Study you read sounds more like bogus propaganda, tbh. People were going to die regardless; but not as many and not this quickly.



Still seems super relevant if states comply with him.

Which you know some will.

If anything there's a stronger argument that separation of church and state prevents the states from shutting down churches when other businesses are allowed to reopen.

I asked if he thought they were businesses, why were they not treated like them? Others clarified, and that branch of discussion ended fairly quickly, as you well know. Kindly don't try to spin it as "the rules don't apply, the admin did it, look, let's pretend that an organic branch of the discussion is exactly the same as people getting annoyed over a ruling and rather than take it to the appropriate place, started discussing it in thread."

[Forsher]

According to these rulings, any momentary divergence from the central purpose of the thread is "fairly cut-and-dry" threadjacking. However, discussion threads hold a wide variety of discussion. Invariably, in every discussion thread, and in most NSG threads, there is discussion that diverges significantly from the purpose of the thread. These go unreported and unpunished the overwhelming majority of the time.

It's called thread drift. But that's not a catch all.

Consider, for example, a thread about how to choose baby names. Now imagine this conversation:

A: The best way to choose baby names is via markets!
B: I don't care how you choose a name, as long as it's not Donald.
C: Donald is a weird sounding name, right?
B: It's not the sound, it's that Donald Trump's a maniac.
D: Come on, Barron is a perfectly cromulent name.
E: I don't like Trump, but his daughter's hot.
F: Yeah, that's what Donald said too.
G: Legalise Incest!

That's a drifting conversation that has absolutely nothing to do with the nominal topic. And I choose this particular example because there really was a thread with an OP similar to A's statement. And that thread probably created the most egregiously wrong warnings for threadjacking I can think of. For Christ's sake compare this "threadjacking" post with the OP. Literally answering the points raised in the OP yielded a warning.

But, okay, this seems obvious. What about this?

A: The best way to choose baby names is via markets!
F: What the fuck does best mean? And how can you use markets to choose baby names?
H: Without skin in the game, there's no reason to trust any information revealed.
I: Money's value as a method of overcoming information revelation problems is proportional to its shared value among observers... and that's obviously bullshit.
F: Exactly! A person with $100/week spending $10 on something isn't doing the same thing as someone with $20/week spending $10...

This is thread drift too, right? We've gone from baby names to an esoteric discussion of the nature of value. Except, no, what's really happening here is that we're talking about why you might think markets are an appropriate means of choosing baby names. And people were warned for doing this too. Absurd.

But this would not extend to the question of why money exists.

That is of course my interpretation, but I'm hardly comforted by Kyrusia's threat to end the RWDT altogether and the generally contemptuous language. Does Kyrusia or other moderation figures regularly threaten the existence of megathreads after a threadjacking ruling?

The RWDT is a chat thread masquerading as a discussion thread. It is entirely appropriate to point out that it does not meet its nominal parameters. Megathreads are not sacred cows... no matter how much moderation policy has been to circle the wagons to defend their existence.

As much as Katganistan's response is completely disingenuous (see below), it should be self evident that the Right Wing Discussion Thread is not a place to discuss "recent warnings". Suggesting that the NS Moderation staff are an argument against thinking right wing ideologies could actually work is, on the other hand, about right wing politics.

If there is a need to clarify what is and isn't threadjacking, this is not an example to invest any attention in whatsoever. And as to:

hello, thanks for making this post on the subject of threadjacking. personally, i think the threadjacking guidelines remain a pretty poorly thought out aspect of NS forum rules. it seems they are totally arbitrarily enforced, and the moderation team gets away with this wishy-washy enforcement because they can just lock "threadjacked" threads, even when all posting is happening in good faith.

While randomly locked threads are completely annoying, there's nothing wrong with this rule as written in the OSRS.

What is wrong is what happened here... not just in the sense that we had to appeal to get obviously not threadjacking posts unwarned, not just because the mods basically banned having reasons but also because acknowledging the topic of the thread was construed as threadjacking. That's a problem. But it's not created by the OSRS having a badly written rule. It was a problem created by several dubious moderation rulings about blogging coinciding with what's probably the most complex subject that is routinely featured in NSG being handled by an OP that is generally held to not grasp the complex issues they're wielding, in a thread with a (somewhat) misleading thread title. It's a perfect storm that probably would have been avoided if all the mods were looking at was commercialisation.

Megathreads need strict enforcing to be kept on track. Threadjacks in non-megathreads really aren't an issue unless someone reports it as being a threadjack. The difference is that a megathread isn't going to just die when people get bored and exhaust all apparent avenues of conversation... hell, megathreads are even exceptions to gravedigging now. And a megathread that's gone off the rails is probably causing a distinct thread to not be created.

rather than take it to the appropriate place, started discussing it in thread."

Seriously? Threads designed around complaining about moderation rulings have been banned for, let's see, about seven years now?

Hell, I'm not sure even back in the free for all moderation threads in NSG days we were meant to talk about specific rulings.

[Katganistan]

Forsher, there are appeal threads in moderation all the time, appeals through the use of the Getting Help page, and publicly detailed appeals processes in place. Surely those are the appropriate venue for questioning the validity of a ruling?

There is absolutely nothing 'disingenuous' about stating that there are proper venues for that discussion. There is something rather disingenuous in stating that there is no place that disagreements about rulings can be aired.

[Forsher]

Forsher, there are appeal threads in moderation all the time, appeals through the use of the Getting Help page, and publicly detailed appeals processes in place. Surely those are the appropriate venue for questioning the validity of a ruling?

There is absolutely nothing 'disingenuous' about stating that there are proper venues for that discussion. There is something rather disingenuous in stating that there is no place that disagreements about rulings can be aired.

Yes, because we're talking about appeals. No, wait, we're not. We're so obviously not:

Those bans are disproportionate.

If they are so inclined, they can appeal it. You cannot. Nor is it the topic of this thread. *** Warning for threadjacking. ***

what the fuck? how is that worthy of a ban lol

every time a good poster gets banned we should just not post here for two weeks in solidarity. free vacations for everyone!

You're not required to participate on this board, much less this website. But while you do, you must adhere to the Terms & Conditions of Use you agreed to at the moment of account creation. But you're not the banned party, nor can you appeal on their behalf. Nor is this the topic of this thread.

But, hey, the way discussion threads are being used these days, maybe you're right. Never mind that discussion threads traditionally haven't been a place to discuss specific rulings and provide commentary on them.

Trying to collapse an obvious discussion about third parties into the appeal dynamic is... did you actually think no-one would notice that?

Oh, and those scare quotes... let's remind everyone want disingenuous means?

Not candid or sincere, typically by pretending that one knows less about something than one really does.

You know we've got a rule against third party appeals.

The stuff I've cut out of Kyrusia's ruling about trying to report suspected moderator abuse of powers is worthy of further consideration too:

If you have valid complaints of Moderator abuse, please file them via the Getting Help page.

Again, I know you're aware that GHRs do not remotely resemble a place to hold a discussion since, you know, they're private communications with anonymous moderators.

There is a really obvious word choice for this situation and it is disingenuous.

[The Reformed American Republic]

When the first reaction to a ruling is someone flaming the ruling mod, expect a crackdown to ensure things stop right there.

[Fahran]

When the first reaction to a ruling is someone flaming the ruling mod, expect a crackdown to ensure things stop right there.

The majority of those warnings had nothing to do with flaming. They had to do with treadjacking. Nap caught a valid warning from Kat for flaming Neut. Ostensibly, the point of the moderation in those instances was to prevent the thread from drifting off-topic though I find the assertion that the RWDT is seldom topical a bit exaggerated given the broad range of subjects that the OP sets out for discussion and the stubborn insistence of our regulars on prioritizing issues related to the culture wars.

I also think the blanket moderation there was a bit of an over-reaction as well given that the supposed threadjack lasted for less than half a page and actually spawned several worthwhile discussions on problematic aspects of culture from a right-wing perspective, employing our own community's particular culture as a spring board. A lot of the one-off comments didn't explicitly explore these matters and were instead directed at expressing frustration at the slew of rulings, but, again, a temporary break from the topic hasn't consistently been grounds for moderation action against threadjacking from what I've seen. And, as Hakons pointed out, it seemed retaliatory and especially harsh by site conventions since most threadjacks that catch warnings go on for several pages and ignore attempts to get threads back on topic - including the singular warning I deservedly received from Farn about a year ago.

I'd like to discourage a lot of the vitriol we've seen thus far in this discussion and instead focus on answering the initial question in a nonadversarial and productive way. Should we expect sterner enforcement of the rule against treadjacking in light of the recent rulings? I'm aware that moderation isn't really based on precedents so much as the particulars of a situation and moderator discretion but we've seen plenty of incidents where a good deal more lenience was applied than occurred here - and with behaviors that many would view as more intrinsically problematic to discourse and the community.

This thread provides a pretty clear example. Warnings were not handed out en masse despite pretty cut and dry death-gloating. The thread was permanently closed because it was seen as a lightning rod for that sort of nastiness but the OP was fairly even-handed and respectful - and it seemed to be more an instance of particular posters breaking the rules and being nasty with their comments. I appreciate that our moderation team consists of diverse human beings and that moderating anything is a thankless job but I feel that a lot of these perceived inconsistencies can leave the community that's subject to moderation confused, resentful, and without adequate direction.

A lot of the immediate reactions to these rulings have suggested as much and there seems to be more genuine concern than simple stubbornness and intransigence in a lot of cases. I'm not really on the RWDT's anti-moderation bandwagon but I do think a lot of posters who offer articulate and interesting points of discussion and who consistently post in good faith have accumulated warnings when a more charitable interpretation of their posting wouldn't have necessarily led to that and that a lot of people who offer very few insights and try to rile people up constantly, including by making comments with inappropriate sexual undertones, have gotten lucky while tap-dancing on the line between what's acceptable and a rule violation.

I just think there should be some uniformity when it comes to sternness. The ruling itself wasn't fundamentally wrong, since people were definitely engaging in a threadjack, but moderation discretion allows a bit of flexibility in dealing with these matters and it has been exercised in the past. Should we expect random variation between sternness and lenience across threads?

Of course, as ever, the best policy is to just not do anything that would risk violating the rules or being interpreted as violating the rules when interpreted in a less than generous way, but I do think a bit of clarification on why precisely the response was as stern as it was this time is worthwhile to NSG as a community. Did the initial flame factor into those considerations at all? Were the moderators just in a mindset for sterner enforcement this time around? Or was it frustration to some degree? Are we owed any sort of clarification on this matter anyhow?

[Forsher]

he supposed threadjack lasted for less than half a page

Read the rule. This is very explicitly stated to not be a relevant consideration.

and actually spawned several worthwhile discussions on problematic aspects of culture from a right-wing perspective

No, that was created by the warnings for threadjacking.

especially harsh by site conventions since most threadjacks that catch warnings go on for several pages and ignore attempts to get threads back on topic - including the singular warning I deservedly received from Farn about a year ago.

Links or it didn't happen.

NSG operates a retroactive moderation system. What this means is that moderation happens after incidents are brought to their attention. And, sure, you'll get posts like this that basically consist of LOOK AT ME I"M THREADJACKING that have nothing happen, but usually moderation doesn't get to something until it's spiralled out of control due to its retroactivity. What happened here is nothing more than really obvious threadjacking occurring after... actually I have no idea why any of the three mods were there.

Should we ignore arson just before we catch it before it lights anything more than a tea towel on fire? Or must we wait until the building's gone?

Should we expect sterner enforcement of the rule against treadjacking in light of the recent rulings? I'm aware that moderation isn't really based on precedents so much as the particulars of a situation and moderator discretion but we've seen plenty of incidents where a good deal more lenience was applied than occurred here - and with behaviors that many would view as more intrinsically problematic to discourse and the community.

Stop acting like these are martyrs facing an extreme case. I've shown you what extreme enforcement of threadjacking looks like. These warnings have all the fizz of a flat bottle of lemonade.

[The Reformed American Republic]

Fahran, I do agree that threadjacking rules should be enforced more consistently. Most cases are solved with a polite reminder to get on topic, while one topic I was apart of got a silent crackdown, which resulted in me getting warned for a single post, even though I stopped participating in the hijack hours before. With that being said, I don't think the mods did anything wrong here, but the lack of consistency I do agree here. I could get how it can be viewed as retaliation.

P.S. Quester's ban was justified. He might be polite to you, but to other posters like me, he constantly peppers me with mild insults and flamebaits, and his post actually was trolling. You might like him, but that doesn't make him above the rules.

[Fahran]

Read the rule. This is very explicitly stated to not be a relevant consideration.

I'm aware. That's why I conceded that the ruling was technically correct.

No, that was created by the warnings for threadjacking.

We actually used Questars's initial post to initiate a conversation as well as some of the posts that attracted warnings for threadjacking because both facilitated conversations that were at least nominally in keeping with the purview of the thread. Mind you, that doesn't change the fact that those posts, as well as some of the posts they elicited in reply, violated the rules.

Links or it didn't happen.

I linked one thread already where a different moderator seems to have exercised discretion to the benefit of serial rule breakers. I'm not criticizing that ruling or that moderator. In fact, I think she consistently hands down good rulings. My concern is more that the relative lenience or severity of rulings often vascillates wildly between individual moderators and even between rulings - something that you seem to agree with even while disagreeing with the particular examples I cited.

NSG operates a retroactive moderation system. What this means is that moderation happens after incidents are brought to their attention. And, sure, you'll get posts like this that basically consist of LOOK AT ME I"M THREADJACKING that have nothing happen, but usually moderation doesn't get to something until it's spiralled out of control due to its retroactivity. What happened here is nothing more than really obvious threadjacking occurring after... actually I have no idea why any of the three mods were there.

It's because of two or three recent reports on rules violations in the RWDT. Some of those seem to have been valid concerns from people who regularly participate in the thread. Others, if I'm being frank, are from people who pop into the thread periodically solely to report people who say things they dislike, which occasionally happen to be violations of the rules. In some instances, people have been warned for making arguments that aren't exactly uncommon in academic circles. Again, I appreciate the our moderation team consists of human beings and that the system, like any other system, isn't perfect.

Should we ignore arson just before we catch it before it lights anything more than a tea towel on fire? Or must we wait until the building's gone?

The issue is that there's a good deal of variance between the lenience and severity of rulings - something you've pointed out as well. I still maintain that the best approach is to simply not violate the rules at all but the perception of unfairness, even if it's not intentional, doesn't really serve the community.

Stop acting like these are martyrs facing an extreme case. I've shown you what extreme enforcement of threadjacking looks like. These warnings have all the fizz of a flat bottle of lemonade.

I never implied anyone involved was a martyr. They were breaking the rules. My point is that this is definitely an extreme case by the usual standards and that minimal lenience was shown despite the derail correcting itself after four or five posts. I don't imagine we'll get much more than an insistence that we should follow the rules but it's worthwhile to ask if any extenuating factors played a role.

[Fahran]

Fahran, I do agree that threadjacking rules should be enforced more consistently. Most cases are solved with a polite reminder to get on topic, while one topic I was apart of got a silent crackdown, which resulted in me getting warned for a single post, even though I stopped participating in the hijack hours before. With that being said, I don't think the mods did anything wrong here, but the lack of consistency I do agree here. I could get how it can be viewed as retaliation.

It's especially salient coming from the RWDT which has a somewhat adversarial relationship with the moderation team and seems to catch a disproportionate number of warnings and bans. Those are usually deserved, of course, but, in my estimation, there are people who consistently tap-dance on the line between flame-baiting and trolling and useful posts to a much greater extent and have managed to elude similar warnings and bans, even when offering much less to the community as a whole.

P.S. Quester's ban was justified. He might be polite to you, but to other posters like me, he constantly peppers me with mild insults and flamebaits, and his post actually was trolling. You might like him, but that doesn't make him above the rules.

Questers did break the rules. I'm not really contesting that. He's far from the only person who engages in insults and flame-baiting though. He seems to get reported for it more often , which may well be an argument for reporting other people who engage in the same behavior more often. I do think that some of the posts he's gotten in trouble over, albeit not the one that precipitated this brouhaha, didn't really warrant moderation, but this thread isn't to discuss Questers's history.

[Washington Resistance Army]

Fahran, I do agree that threadjacking rules should be enforced more consistently. Most cases are solved with a polite reminder to get on topic, while one topic I was apart of got a silent crackdown, which resulted in me getting warned for a single post, even though I stopped participating in the hijack hours before. With that being said, I don't think the mods did anything wrong here, but the lack of consistency I do agree here. I could get how it can be viewed as retaliation.

It's especially salient coming from the RWDT which has a somewhat adversarial relationship with the moderation team and seems to catch a disproportionate number of warnings and bans. Those are usually deserved, of course, but, in my estimation, there are people who consistently tap-dance on the line between flame-baiting and trolling and useful posts to a much greater extent and have managed to elude similar warnings and bans, even when offering much less to the community as a whole.

This is the big reason RWDT is standoffish and so willing to openly shit on moderation at times. If the rules were applied consistently and fairly across the board nobody would care.

[Audioslavia]

I think I need to dust off the sign that just says 'context' in large capital letters.

There are cases wherein a comment about moderator intervention probably wouldn't result in action being taken, and there are cases where it would. How edgy and rowdy the thread is/has gotten has a role to play in any decision the mods make.

[Fahran]

I think I need to dust off the sign that just says 'context' in large capital letters.

There are cases wherein a comment about moderator intervention probably wouldn't result in action being taken, and there are cases where it would. How edgy and rowdy the thread is/has gotten has a role to play in any decision the mods make.

With regard to context, I assume the initial flaming and the presence of curse words and hostile language in two of the three replies contributed to the blanket warning - which impacted even Nakena's more innoccuous commentary?

[Washington Resistance Army]

I think I need to dust off the sign that just says 'context' in large capital letters.

There are cases wherein a comment about moderator intervention probably wouldn't result in action being taken, and there are cases where it would. How edgy and rowdy the thread is/has gotten has a role to play in any decision the mods make.

Which is just going to cause a feedback loop. You'll keep making increasingly harsher punishments and pissing people off and they'll keep doing things to piss you off and get warned in return.

I get it, I'm on a mod team elsewhere and deal with a lot of the same things NS' team does, but most of the headache you guys get comes from a lot of your own actions or lack thereof. The rule set is badly written and implicitly encourages toeing the line to bait people you dislike into rule breaking territory so you can try to get them axed, the team regularly comes across as disconnected and hostile to the userbase a great deal of the time and whether done consciously or not a lot of people, some not even RWDT users, actively note biases in how mods in General handle certain users. It's not hard to enforce rules and still keep people friendly with the staff and thus more willing to follow the rules, I'm on a team that has done just that and we're much harsher than you lot with punishments. Optics, transparency, well written rules and a team culture of actively trying to fight any sort of biases whether real or simply imagined goes a long way.

[The Reformed American Republic]

Fahran, I do agree that threadjacking rules should be enforced more consistently. Most cases are solved with a polite reminder to get on topic, while one topic I was apart of got a silent crackdown, which resulted in me getting warned for a single post, even though I stopped participating in the hijack hours before. With that being said, I don't think the mods did anything wrong here, but the lack of consistency I do agree here. I could get how it can be viewed as retaliation.

It's especially salient coming from the RWDT which has a somewhat adversarial relationship with the moderation team and seems to catch a disproportionate number of warnings and bans. Those are usually deserved, of course, but, in my estimation, there are people who consistently tap-dance on the line between flame-baiting and trolling and useful posts to a much greater extent and have managed to elude similar warnings and bans, even when offering much less to the community as a whole.

P.S. Quester's ban was justified. He might be polite to you, but to other posters like me, he constantly peppers me with mild insults and flamebaits, and his post actually was trolling. You might like him, but that doesn't make him above the rules.

Questers did break the rules. I'm not really contesting that. He's far from the only person who engages in insults and flame-baiting though. He seems to get reported for it more often , which may well be an argument for reporting other people who engage in the same behavior more often. I do think that some of the posts he's gotten in trouble over, albeit not the one that precipitated this brouhaha, didn't really warrant moderation, but this thread isn't to discuss Questers's history.

According to Reploid Productions, he has been getting into trouble since 2007, so I think that the mods are just getting tired of his unchanging antics, but I now permanantly digress. But, if you think someone else is flying under the radar of moderaton, then report them.

My main point:

I think too many people in the RWDT want the site to be like 4chan, where trollish shitposts count as "contributions" and they flip out when the site doesn't accommodate them. This leads to moderators becoming more heavy handed in stopping that behavior in its infancy, hence the warnings to show they are not playing. Moderation can use some improvements, but I think many partially brought this upon themselves.

I do partially agree with Washington Resistance Army in the fact that moderators are often needlessly hostile to members of the community. I have been on the receiving end of some of that, and I have had a moderator give me a disingenuous and rude response to a querry. Moderation should hold themselves to a higher standard. I have even seen a small amount of posts by moderators that probably would be considered flaming if someone other than a mod posted it.

[Phydios]

I have even seen a small amount of posts by moderators that probably would be considered flaming if someone other than a mod posted it.

If you see it, report it. Flaming is flaming, and no one is exempt. Even [violet] was once warned, for calling Holocaust deniers idiots.

[The Greater Ohio Valley]

It's especially salient coming from the RWDT which has a somewhat adversarial relationship with the moderation team and seems to catch a disproportionate number of warnings and bans. Those are usually deserved, of course, but, in my estimation, there are people who consistently tap-dance on the line between flame-baiting and trolling and useful posts to a much greater extent and have managed to elude similar warnings and bans, even when offering much less to the community as a whole.

This is the big reason RWDT is standoffish and so willing to openly shit on moderation at times. If the rules were applied consistently and fairly across the board nobody would care.

Tbh, I personally think that’s just a smokescreen a lot of you guys throw up to disguise that you likely want the moderation team to be a lot more laissez faire with the rules and what’s allowed on here since there seems to be a lot of hostility towards the mods regardless of how justified a ruling may be. Would also be consistent with the fact that a number of regulars in the RWDT and a lot of NSG right-wingers in general seem to indulge in open rule breaking behavior moreso than most other NSGers, probably owing to the fact they likely come from places more lax in their moderation than NSG and don’t like the stricter moderation here and want NSG to be more like those places. You can correct me if I’m wrong tho but that’s just how it seems to me.

[The Reformed American Republic]

I have even seen a small amount of posts by moderators that probably would be considered flaming if someone other than a mod posted it.

If you see it, report it. Flaming is flaming, and no one is exempt. Even [violet] was once warned, for calling Holocaust deniers idiots.

The one that wasn't reported was in the moderation forum. Responses to such reports are usually not friendly as they supposedly read every post here. The others were reported (not by me) and were supposedly "not actionable." The violet warning (which I knew about for a while) seems to be an outlier. Moderators can and sometimes do get warned, but the standard seems to be higher.

[Frisbeeteria]

Responses to such reports are usually not friendly as they supposedly read every post here.

Some of us are unfailingly friendly. Others, like me, are more apt to be curt and concise. If that reads at "unfriendly", oh well. It's just how I communicate.

[Cekoviu]

Responses to such reports are usually not friendly as they supposedly read every post here.

Some of us are unfailingly friendly. Others, like me, are more apt to be curt and concise. If that reads at "unfriendly", oh well. It's just how I communicate.

Why is it that you get to make that excuse and not normal players?

[Syberis]

Some of us are unfailingly friendly. Others, like me, are more apt to be curt and concise. If that reads at "unfriendly", oh well. It's just how I communicate.

Why is it that you get to make that excuse and not normal players?

In my (albeit limited) experience, Fris is harsh but honest, and doesn't cross the line into flaming whether in their day-to-day or in their work as a mod.

There is a difference between being curt and flaming. One of them is allowed here. The other is not.