[Discussion/Announcement] NSG's "Wing" Megathreads

[Cekoviu]

It is expected that players post with the intent of making the site a better, more enjoyable place to be - this is good faith posting.

In my third (fourth?) post, I outlined a specific set of suggestions as to how you could improve user-mod relations and avoid the situation that occurred in the RWDT, which would clearly improve the website. You removed the post. How does this square with this definition?

Please feel free to outline these suggestions in a post that doesn't contain a massively bad faith opening. You had some good ones.

Please feel free to outline these suggestions in a post that doesn't contain a massively bad faith opening. You had some good ones.

If they're that good, why not get rid of the bad opening with an edit reason, and discuss the suggestions?

Here, I'll just copy and paste the relevant section of that post with a bit of snark edited out:

The userbase, particularly that of the RWDT, does not trust moderation because of its imbalanced application of the rules and because of the poor structure of the same rules. One example of this is how [REDACTED] manage to skirt moderation action for years while good-faith posters whom the ruling moderator dislikes are given lengthy bans.
...
Therefore, my point is that you need to prove that the moderator team is willing to engage with the userbase in good faith (there's clearly an "us-vs-them" attitude among both the mods and the users and you need to stop that), apply rules consistently, and revise the ruleset to help improve community relations. I'd also suggest that you reevaluate the moderator status of several of your team members. If you want to help counteract the insular "no reporting" culture we see in the RWDT, have Violet upgrade the ancient forum software that this website uses so that reports can be made directly from a post and the reporting party is not visible to everyone else. This is a feature that exists on the vast majority of modern web forums and it will prevent the griefing that reporters get within the threads in question (e.g. everyone getting upset at Fahran the other day in the RWDT for reporting a post).

Lastly, I don't know how you expect me to provide evidence in a GHR when you — these are your own words!! ­­— put all of it in the "evidence locker," where not even the person who posted it can access it. This also factors into what I'm talking about here — I have absolutely zero faith in the moderation team to actually take any sort of action on this topic. You've been made aware of my complaints (which, I might add are not unique to me, they are shared by many RWDTers); I see no reason that putting them in a special form would make you do anything about it, particularly given that only one or two mods have ever been dethroned in the 18-year history of this site and given that the problems we're discussing penetrate deeply throughout the entire moderation system of this website and cannot be traced to any one individual.

To elaborate on my suggestions here:

• A clear issue that a ton of users have pointed out is that the moderation team is very opaque in its operation. Obviously you can't be completely transparent — we can't expect you to list the tools you use to identify DOS players, for example. But it's really damaging for you to be discussing massive policy changes that'll affect a large number of frequent posters behind closed doors without giving us any details, as you've done with the *WDT decision. You should be informing the userbase when such a discussion is raised and providing updates on its status so that we have time to prepare and offer potentially valuable input into the process. This will help the userbase, but it may also help your decision-making process, as users can occasionally make actually helpful suggestions.
• Another transparency issue is that we have to make actual requests to see our own moderation history. If I want to see the notes that have been placed on my own profile, I have to go through a difficult-to-access form and wait potentially hours to days. Your own moderation history should be easily accessible from your User Control Panel (rather than just a warning level that resets every 6 months); if players have a clear view of what has gotten them in trouble throughout their history on the forum, this will help us improve our behavior.
• Queries on the reasoning behind DEATs and similarly opaque actions by parties involved in the community of the DEATed player should be answered by moderation rather than ignored, unless there is some legal requirement that prevents you from doing so.
• The moderation team should stop putting posts in the evidence locker for mentioning moderation's issues with the forbidden topic beginning with the letter P. Furthermore, the moderation team should acknowledge its previous mistakes in dealing with this matter and set out a concrete plan for dealing with it in the future, which should be combined with modifications to the OSRS to contain a clear zero-tolerance policy for advocacy of P.
• Exhibit a willingness to evaluate player complaints about moderators, even when they're not filed by GHR. As with above, this means don't put posts into the "evidence locker" for criticizing mod actions and being brusque.
• As with final appeals, use a panel to determine the action that should be performed on reports. Complaints of bias in warnings resulting from individual moderator grudges and differences in moderation style can be avoided if multiple moderators are weighing in on each report. I realize that this will greatly increase the workload on moderators, but you can get new team members at any time to help reduce the workload per mod.
• Provide a unified, anonymous reporting interface accessible from individual posts rather than requiring that users post in Moderation. Moderators should be able to see who enters reports in order to punish constant bad-faith reporters, but the reports themselves and the author of the report should not be visible to the rest of the community. This is what most other forums that I use do - if you'd like to see an example of how this works, you can check out the LinuxQuestions.org forums. Users won't be griefed by the rest of the community for reporting under this system; additionally, all reports on a particular post should be grouped under that post, so we don't have a situation like with my most recent warning (the post was reported twice and Farnhamia ruled the first report as "not actionable," but Giovenith didn't see that ruling and warned me, which was rather confusing and inconsistent). The Moderation forum can still exist for discussions on moderation policy, reports on things like threadjacks which can't necessarily be tied to one post, announcements, etc. I realize this will require a lot of work and potentially a change in forum software, but it will have an immeasurably positive impact on the community and may improve moderation's jobs as well.
• This is a suggestion for a general change in mod culture: mods should engage more in the community and try to foster positive relationships with users so that we can avoid the us-vs-them mentality that we have now.

[Diopolis]

Yeah the trans thread is nothing more than a chat place for LGBT users and the gun control advocates on NSG have long since admitted defeat and given up any hint of debate so gun control threads are entirely one sided. Both should be closed.

I know nothing about what goes on in the darkness of the LGBT thread, or the feminism thread.
But I will point out that the gun control thread has relatively little chat. It simply doesn't post very much as a consequence of one sidedness. Now the gun thread has a bit of chat involved.

[Aeritai]

So question for the Mods will other megathreads be held to a high standard now? Due to the problems that both the left and right wing threads caused?

And when I say high standard will megathreads have a increase in Mods watching these threads?

[Hunzali]

The issue with this is that instead of one central thread, now multiple smaller, specific threads will pop up.

I don't know how to feel. At all.

[Cekoviu]

Yeah the trans thread is nothing more than a chat place for LGBT users and the gun control advocates on NSG have long since admitted defeat and given up any hint of debate so gun control threads are entirely one sided. Both should be closed.

I know nothing about what goes on in the darkness of the LGBT thread, or the feminism thread.
But I will point out that the gun control thread has relatively little chat. It simply doesn't post very much as a consequence of one sidedness. Now the gun thread has a bit of chat involved.

I've posted quite a bit in the trans thread. Yes, there's some degree of truth to the argument that it's a chat thread for trans people, but there's a number of non-trans participants, and there are plenty of relevant discussions and arguments about trans-related issues. It's not a one-sided echo chamber if you take a deeper look into it.
I cannot speak for the feminism thread; I try to avoid it, since every time I enter the posts are extremely low-quality and it seems to mostly be an MRA circlejerk.

[Santheres]

To elaborate on my suggestions here:

• A clear issue that a ton of users have pointed out is that the moderation team is very opaque in its operation. Obviously you can't be completely transparent — we can't expect you to list the tools you use to identify DOS players, for example. But it's really damaging for you to be discussing massive policy changes that'll affect a large number of frequent posters behind closed doors without giving us any details, as you've done with the *WDT decision. You should be informing the userbase when such a discussion is raised and providing updates on its status so that we have time to prepare and offer potentially valuable input into the process. This will help the userbase, but it may also help your decision-making process, as users can occasionally make actually helpful suggestions.
• Another transparency issue is that we have to make actual requests to see our own moderation history. If I want to see the notes that have been placed on my own profile, I have to go through a difficult-to-access form and wait potentially hours to days. Your own moderation history should be easily accessible from your User Control Panel (rather than just a warning level that resets every 6 months); if players have a clear view of what has gotten them in trouble throughout their history on the forum, this will help us improve our behavior.
• Queries on the reasoning behind DEATs and similarly opaque actions by parties involved in the community of the DEATed player should be answered by moderation rather than ignored, unless there is some legal requirement that prevents you from doing so.
• The moderation team should stop putting posts in the evidence locker for mentioning moderation's issues with the forbidden topic beginning with the letter P. Furthermore, the moderation team should acknowledge its previous mistakes in dealing with this matter and set out a concrete plan for dealing with it in the future, which should be combined with modifications to the OSRS to contain a clear zero-tolerance policy for advocacy of P.
• Exhibit a willingness to evaluate player complaints about moderators, even when they're not filed by GHR. As with above, this means don't put posts into the "evidence locker" for criticizing mod actions and being brusque.
• As with final appeals, use a panel to determine the action that should be performed on reports. Complaints of bias in warnings resulting from individual moderator grudges and differences in moderation style can be avoided if multiple moderators are weighing in on each report. I realize that this will greatly increase the workload on moderators, but you can get new team members at any time to help reduce the workload per mod.
• Provide a unified, anonymous reporting interface accessible from individual posts rather than requiring that users post in Moderation. Moderators should be able to see who enters reports in order to punish constant bad-faith reporters, but the reports themselves and the author of the report should not be visible to the rest of the community. This is what most other forums that I use do - if you'd like to see an example of how this works, you can check out the LinuxQuestions.org forums. Users won't be griefed by the rest of the community for reporting under this system; additionally, all reports on a particular post should be grouped under that post, so we don't have a situation like with my most recent warning (the post was reported twice and Farnhamia ruled the first report as "not actionable," but Giovenith didn't see that ruling and warned me, which was rather confusing and inconsistent). The Moderation forum can still exist for discussions on moderation policy, reports on things like threadjacks which can't necessarily be tied to one post, announcements, etc. I realize this will require a lot of work and potentially a change in forum software, but it will have an immeasurably positive impact on the community and may improve moderation's jobs as well.
• This is a suggestion for a general change in mod culture: mods should engage more in the community and try to foster positive relationships with users so that we can avoid the us-vs-them mentality that we have now.

Thanks! The elaboration especially was good. I'll have to gather my own thoughts on it before beginning any kind of discussion, but since it's posted in the clear, I'm sure other staff will start going over it for themselves without my having to move on it immediately.

[USS Monitor]

The issue with this is that instead of one central thread, now multiple smaller, specific threads will pop up.

That's not an issue. That's a good thing.

[Washington Resistance Army]

The issue with this is that instead of one central thread, now multiple smaller, specific threads will pop up.

That's not an issue. That's a good thing.

Given the quality of the standard post outside of megathreads nowadays it's really not. It's much more likely that the people willing to actually put effort into arguments and debates just leave entirely.

[Diopolis]

Please feel free to outline these suggestions in a post that doesn't contain a massively bad faith opening. You had some good ones.

If they're that good, why not get rid of the bad opening with an edit reason, and discuss the suggestions?

Here, I'll just copy and paste the relevant section of that post with a bit of snark edited out:

The userbase, particularly that of the RWDT, does not trust moderation because of its imbalanced application of the rules and because of the poor structure of the same rules. One example of this is how [REDACTED] manage to skirt moderation action for years while good-faith posters whom the ruling moderator dislikes are given lengthy bans.
...
Therefore, my point is that you need to prove that the moderator team is willing to engage with the userbase in good faith (there's clearly an "us-vs-them" attitude among both the mods and the users and you need to stop that), apply rules consistently, and revise the ruleset to help improve community relations. I'd also suggest that you reevaluate the moderator status of several of your team members. If you want to help counteract the insular "no reporting" culture we see in the RWDT, have Violet upgrade the ancient forum software that this website uses so that reports can be made directly from a post and the reporting party is not visible to everyone else. This is a feature that exists on the vast majority of modern web forums and it will prevent the griefing that reporters get within the threads in question (e.g. everyone getting upset at Fahran the other day in the RWDT for reporting a post).

Lastly, I don't know how you expect me to provide evidence in a GHR when you — these are your own words!! ­­— put all of it in the "evidence locker," where not even the person who posted it can access it. This also factors into what I'm talking about here — I have absolutely zero faith in the moderation team to actually take any sort of action on this topic. You've been made aware of my complaints (which, I might add are not unique to me, they are shared by many RWDTers); I see no reason that putting them in a special form would make you do anything about it, particularly given that only one or two mods have ever been dethroned in the 18-year history of this site and given that the problems we're discussing penetrate deeply throughout the entire moderation system of this website and cannot be traced to any one individual.

To elaborate on my suggestions here:

• A clear issue that a ton of users have pointed out is that the moderation team is very opaque in its operation. Obviously you can't be completely transparent — we can't expect you to list the tools you use to identify DOS players, for example. But it's really damaging for you to be discussing massive policy changes that'll affect a large number of frequent posters behind closed doors without giving us any details, as you've done with the *WDT decision. You should be informing the userbase when such a discussion is raised and providing updates on its status so that we have time to prepare and offer potentially valuable input into the process. This will help the userbase, but it may also help your decision-making process, as users can occasionally make actually helpful suggestions.
• Another transparency issue is that we have to make actual requests to see our own moderation history. If I want to see the notes that have been placed on my own profile, I have to go through a difficult-to-access form and wait potentially hours to days. Your own moderation history should be easily accessible from your User Control Panel (rather than just a warning level that resets every 6 months); if players have a clear view of what has gotten them in trouble throughout their history on the forum, this will help us improve our behavior.
• Queries on the reasoning behind DEATs and similarly opaque actions by parties involved in the community of the DEATed player should be answered by moderation rather than ignored, unless there is some legal requirement that prevents you from doing so.
• The moderation team should stop putting posts in the evidence locker for mentioning moderation's issues with the forbidden topic beginning with the letter P. Furthermore, the moderation team should acknowledge its previous mistakes in dealing with this matter and set out a concrete plan for dealing with it in the future, which should be combined with modifications to the OSRS to contain a clear zero-tolerance policy for advocacy of P.
• Exhibit a willingness to evaluate player complaints about moderators, even when they're not filed by GHR. As with above, this means don't put posts into the "evidence locker" for criticizing mod actions and being brusque.
• As with final appeals, use a panel to determine the action that should be performed on reports. Complaints of bias in warnings resulting from individual moderator grudges and differences in moderation style can be avoided if multiple moderators are weighing in on each report. I realize that this will greatly increase the workload on moderators, but you can get new team members at any time to help reduce the workload per mod.
• Provide a unified, anonymous reporting interface accessible from individual posts rather than requiring that users post in Moderation. Moderators should be able to see who enters reports in order to punish constant bad-faith reporters, but the reports themselves and the author of the report should not be visible to the rest of the community. This is what most other forums that I use do - if you'd like to see an example of how this works, you can check out the LinuxQuestions.org forums. Users won't be griefed by the rest of the community for reporting under this system; additionally, all reports on a particular post should be grouped under that post, so we don't have a situation like with my most recent warning (the post was reported twice and Farnhamia ruled the first report as "not actionable," but Giovenith didn't see that ruling and warned me, which was rather confusing and inconsistent). The Moderation forum can still exist for discussions on moderation policy, reports on things like threadjacks which can't necessarily be tied to one post, announcements, etc. I realize this will require a lot of work and potentially a change in forum software, but it will have an immeasurably positive impact on the community and may improve moderation's jobs as well.
• This is a suggestion for a general change in mod culture: mods should engage more in the community and try to foster positive relationships with users so that we can avoid the us-vs-them mentality that we have now.

Additionally:
[*]Clarification threads should receive an actual answer that's put into the OSRS. Most of the time these threads indicate actual areas of vagueness or poor wording in the rules.
[*]Mods need to be much stricter about reporting bias/mods as weapons- the policy of trolling the entire page/checking the chain of posts for politically motivated reports is a good one, but it should be expanded beyond election related threads.
[*]Reported players should be notified when a report is filed against them and given an opportunity to defend themselves.

[Pythaga]

Non-public reporting of posts as suggested used to be enabled on this forum, but was removed in favor of the current system.

See Reploid's reasoning here.

[Cekoviu]

Additionally:
[*]Clarification threads should receive an actual answer that's put into the OSRS. Most of the time these threads indicate actual areas of vagueness or poor wording in the rules.
[*]Mods need to be much stricter about reporting bias/mods as weapons- the policy of trolling the entire page/checking the chain of posts for politically motivated reports is a good one, but it should be expanded beyond election related threads.
[*]Reported players should be notified when a report is filed against them and given an opportunity to defend themselves.

These are all very good suggestions as well, yes.

[Cekoviu]

Non-public reporting of posts as suggested used to be enabled on this forum, but was removed in favor of the current system.

See Reploid's reasoning here.

I see the problem, yeah. I would like the system to make the reporting user visible to the mods, but not the userbase. I'm not sure if there's a way to enable that in the current forum software; perhaps an update would help?

[Santheres]

Non-public reporting of posts as suggested used to be enabled on this forum, but was removed in favor of the current system.

See Reploid's reasoning here.

I see the problem, yeah. I would like the system to make the reporting user visible to the mods, but not the userbase. I'm not sure if there's a way to enable that in the current forum software; perhaps an update would help?

Just as a note and in no way speaking to the feasibility or likelihood of introduction of anything that requires a technical update: such a process could/would be onerous and even if we (specifically, admin, not just moderators) decided such an update was absolutely the best idea and needs to be queued does not mean that you would see it in a timely fashion.

I'm not saying it's impossible, but I want to manage expectations.

[Diopolis]

Non-public reporting of posts as suggested used to be enabled on this forum, but was removed in favor of the current system.

See Reploid's reasoning here.

I see the problem, yeah. I would like the system to make the reporting user visible to the mods, but not the userbase. I'm not sure if there's a way to enable that in the current forum software; perhaps an update would help?

You could also take that away from players that make enormous numbers of reports that don't turn out to be actionable.

[Cekoviu]

I see the problem, yeah. I would like the system to make the reporting user visible to the mods, but not the userbase. I'm not sure if there's a way to enable that in the current forum software; perhaps an update would help?

Just as a note and in no way speaking to the feasibility or likelihood of introduction of anything that requires a technical update: such a process could/would be onerous and even if we (specifically, admin, not just moderators) decided such an update was absolutely the best idea and needs to be queued does not mean that you would see it in a timely fashion.

I'm not saying it's impossible, but I want to manage expectations.

No, I understand. I honestly don't really expect that any of my suggestions will be implemented anytime soon, I just wanted to get them out there.

[Forsher]

You didn't constantly have people spamming "Source source source source" when someone stated their belief that they thought divine right of kings absolutism is preferable to democracy.

Here you go. Please substantiate that this is a fair characterisation of these threads. Crude search but, you know, I post in a lot of these threads.

Pretty much a perfect response right here. Closing RWDT and LWDT isn't going to break up cliques or make people start actually calling the mods, it's just going to spread out even more and make moderation even harder because practically the only times people in General report things are when they've successfully baited someone they dislike into crossing the line.

I don't get this. The cliques still exist but now have to inhabit, ah, gen pop which, presumably, means they'll come into contact with people who dislike them more than they were before...

Since you deleted the good megathreads can you at least get rid of the bad ones too? The feminism, gun control, and transgender threads are circlejerks that contribute nothing except eating other threads.

I've been wondering... but what would happen if Sandy Hook happened today? Would it get bundled into the Gun Megathread?

I really do not see how the constant presence of these topics in one single thread is preferable to having multiple short lived threads that recur every time the subject is relevant.

Ostro, if you're reading this, do you even like the Feminist Megathread? You're probably its most dedicated user. It can't be fun just having the same five people respond with the same talking points you raise.

There's definitely something to be said with the way NSGers decide when and when not to report something. Most of the time (and perhaps this is personal experience) it seems to be "if I like you, it slides".

That might just be an inherent flaw with the kind of retroactive moderation that NS uses, though.

This is my interpretation.

The rules don't necessarily help... some of them are terribly written so if you think "well, this seems wrong but the OSRS doesn't appear to have anything against it" it's going to end up a non-report.

Non-public reporting of posts as suggested used to be enabled on this forum, but was removed in favor of the current system.

See Reploid's reasoning here.

I see the problem, yeah. I would like the system to make the reporting user visible to the mods, but not the userbase. I'm not sure if there's a way to enable that in the current forum software; perhaps an update would help?

This seems way too much like Reddit moderation. Sure, it's convenient to just report a post and go "uncivil" or whatever... but it's completely impossible to see how the moderators understand anything, to have a look and judge the parameters of appropriateness, or actually look and say "well, what's going on here?"

I don't know how you can want this system whilst simultaneously saying "A clear issue that a ton of users have pointed out is that the moderation team is very opaque in its operation". You're literally advocating that moderator power should be deployed in stealth no ability to gain insight into how it operates.

I would re-write the OSRS to allow rules-lawyering. Being able to talk about the rules more in appeals would help players and moderators make sense of the rules better. Obviously we can do that a bit, e.g. how I got a ban for flaming converted into a ban for bad faith posting (I don't like the bad faith rule... it's always seemed incredibly vague), but not banning it would allow this benefit without asking moderators to say "for these reasons, I have concluded this is X and therefore Y punishment is appropriate given player history and X".

I see the problem, yeah. I would like the system to make the reporting user visible to the mods, but not the userbase. I'm not sure if there's a way to enable that in the current forum software; perhaps an update would help?

You could also take that away from players that make enormous numbers of reports that don't turn out to be actionable.

Apologies, but I must be going mad... I can't make hide nor head of this. What's being taken away and why?

[Cekoviu]

[

I see the problem, yeah. I would like the system to make the reporting user visible to the mods, but not the userbase. I'm not sure if there's a way to enable that in the current forum software; perhaps an update would help?

This seems way too much like Reddit moderation. Sure, it's convenient to just report a post and go "uncivil" or whatever... but it's completely impossible to see how the moderators understand anything, to have a look and judge the parameters of appropriateness, or actually look and say "well, what's going on here?"

I don't know how you can want this system whilst simultaneously saying "A clear issue that a ton of users have pointed out is that the moderation team is very opaque in its operation". You're literally advocating that moderator power should be deployed in stealth no ability to gain insight into how it operates.

I would re-write the OSRS to allow rules-lawyering. Being able to talk about the rules more in appeals would help players and moderators make sense of the rules better. Obviously we can do that a bit, e.g. how I got a ban for flaming converted into a ban for bad faith posting (I don't like the bad faith rule... it's always seemed incredibly vague), but not banning it would allow this benefit without asking moderators to say "for these reasons, I have concluded this is X and therefore Y punishment is appropriate given player history and X".

There is a tradeoff between improving the community and improving transparency, and the benefits outweigh the costs with the proposed system, in my view.
I'm not saying that the actual moderation decisions must be private - those can be posted in the thread as they are now. It is only the reports that need to be.

[Diopolis]

I would re-write the OSRS to allow rules-lawyering. Being able to talk about the rules more in appeals would help players and moderators make sense of the rules better. Obviously we can do that a bit, e.g. how I got a ban for flaming converted into a ban for bad faith posting (I don't like the bad faith rule... it's always seemed incredibly vague), but not banning it would allow this benefit without asking moderators to say "for these reasons, I have concluded this is X and therefore Y punishment is appropriate given player history and X".

This is a good idea, but we'd have to fundamentally change moderation systems.
Currently we run on the idea that written rules are more broad outlines, and mods are trusted individuals who use individual judgement in interpreting them. This is a system that does lead to complaints exactly like the ones we're now seeing.
In contrast, the system you're advocating is one where the rules are specific and detailed, and moderator judgement plays a much smaller role.

You could also take that away from players that make enormous numbers of reports that don't turn out to be actionable.

Apologies, but I must be going mad... I can't make hide nor head of this. What's being taken away and why?

The (notional at this point)ability to make anonymous reports.

[Souseiseki]

would re-write the OSRS to allow rules-lawyering. Being able to talk about the rules more in appeals would help players and moderators make sense of the rules better. Obviously we can do that a bit, e.g. how I got a ban for flaming converted into a ban for bad faith posting (I don't like the bad faith rule... it's always seemed incredibly vague), but not banning it would allow this benefit without asking moderators to say "for these reasons, I have concluded this is X and therefore Y punishment is appropriate given player history and X".

tbh one of the weird things about NS is that they dislike rules lawyering but NS itself seems to have kind of weird common law style system where new laws and precedents are created on the fly and the only way to actually know what the rules are and find out what new rules mean is to live in moderation and be a huge rules lawyer

[Katganistan]

Actually, The Church of Satan, the thing to remember is that there aren't 'tons of people...acting like children or worse." The vast, vast majority of players never run afoul of the rules.

only because they never do anything beyond answer issues >.>

It may be difficult to grasp but there are people, participating in the forums, who manage to do it without breaking the rules.

Odd, I know.

[The New California Republic]

Snip

Just to add to this, it'd also be good if to DEAT a nation it required two Mods to do it, rather like two operators both needing to turn separate keys to fire a weapon.

[Diopolis]

Snip

Just to add to this, it'd also be good if to DEAT a nation it required two Mods to do it, rather like two operators both needing to turn separate keys to fire a weapon.

And long-term forumbans.

[Hunzali]

Just to add to this, it'd also be good if to DEAT a nation it required two Mods to do it, rather like two operators both needing to turn separate keys to fire a weapon.

And long-term forumbans.

Annnddddd we have a winner for "most reasonable option"!

[Recuecn]

Glad to see the threads go, good decision on moderation's part.

[Pangurstan]

Snip

Just to add to this, it'd also be good if to DEAT a nation it required two Mods to do it, rather like two operators both needing to turn separate keys to fire a weapon.

That would make dealing with spammers a lot harder.