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

[Vistulange]

He didn't say you were, Monitor. He was talking about moderation, the team, in general.

He said "you" as if I was part of the mod team.

If you truly took it that way, consider for a moment as to why you are taking it in such a way, and why he may have felt the need to include you in the group of "moderation", as opposed to sniping at a non-point.

[USS Monitor]

He said "you" as if I was part of the mod team.

If you truly took it that way, consider for a moment as to why you are taking it in such a way, and why he may have felt the need to include you in the group of "moderation", as opposed to sniping at a non-point.

You're the one sniping at a non-point. The topic's over thattaway.

[Vistulange]

If you truly took it that way, consider for a moment as to why you are taking it in such a way, and why he may have felt the need to include you in the group of "moderation", as opposed to sniping at a non-point.

You're the one sniping at a non-point. The topic's over thattaway.

Thank you for making my case perfectly.

I've already made my point regarding the closure of the -WDT's, and yet, the discussion is overall a discussion of moderation policy. My point is perfectly within the topic, Monitor.

[USS Monitor]

You're the one sniping at a non-point. The topic's over thattaway.

Thank you for making my case perfectly.

I've already made my point regarding the closure of the -WDT's, and yet, the discussion is overall a discussion of moderation policy. My point is perfectly within the topic, Monitor.

An issue editor clarifying they are not a mod is not "moderation policy," but somehow that's the only part of my post you want to talk about. You're not making a point.

[Hakons]

How do you plan a major change for months and then have a rollout this terrible? Moderation isn’t even engaging with concerns raised by users in this thread. Now there just appears to be retired mod surrogates, and the occasional snippy non-response from actual mods.

[The Archregimancy]

I think the mods have a different motive regarding RWDT tbh and just decided to shut LWDT too to look unbiased.

This is incorrect.


Repeating a post of mine from earlier in the thread:

There were a couple of semi-regulars in the LWDT who repeatedly responded to any critique of leftist theory by calling opponents idiots but who got away with it because the right-leaning posters didn't want to play snitch. And remember Torra's exploits in deliberately winding up the RWDT? It died in the crossfire only insofar as RWDT openly criticising the moderation team made the moderation team open to looking at the discussion threads as a problem that needed solving, which had previously been an angle they were reluctant to adopt (see previous threads on the topic).

The RWDT didn't draw fire on you, that was the moderation team's resolutely "only things directly reported to us stance" which effectively rewarded rather than properly punished professional low-effort baitposters and made not only the discussion threads but any other thread that attracted a large amount of activity into a cesspit of shitty psyops.

Just a quick comment on both of the above posts.

The initial catalyst for the internal moderator discussion on the two threads was neither directed at the RWDT nor at the culture of rule-breaking in the latter.

The moderator who first opened the two threads to discussion earlier this year titled his discussion 'LWDT & RWDT' - with the LWDT mentioned first - and was narrowly focused on the extent to which the two threads were increasingly devolving into chat threads. This was the sole initial focus.

It would be fair to note that the internal culture of the RWDT did subsequently become a focus of discussion, but that was only quite late in the day, and by the time that happened the majority of the moderator team was already in favour of shutting down both threads.

So to be clear:

The internal culture of the RWDT (whether we frame perceptions of the latter positively or negatively) may have been the final catalyst in taking action, but it was not the initial cause of the internal discussion, and the decision to lock had been taken before 'rule breaking' and 'non-reporting' had come into focus.

The LWDT was therefore not 'caught in the crossfire'.


It's the source of some regret to me that so much of the discussion in this thread has been focused on rule-breaking on the part of some RWDT participants when this isn't what initially led to the moderation team discussing the two threads and taking the decision to lock them. I can see why that's been the focus of much of the discussion, and many of our own posts and announcements have helped to build this perception. We perhaps haven't been as clear on this point as I might have hoped; but I would stress the distinction between immediate catalyst and initial cause.

Nobody should read too much into this post; that I wish we had been clearer in outlining some points is simply a matter of stress, not a disagreement in policy.

It's up to each of you whether you decide you believe me or not, of course; but whatever you might think about the moderation team generally, or the thread locking decision specifically, I'd like to think that I haven't gained a reputation for personal dishonesty over the more than 17 years I've been on this site.

[Greater vakolicci haven]

You seemed to have the manpower to watch Atlas like a hawk a few years ago.

Try talking about something current and related, GVH.

I'm answering your claim that you don't have the manpower to watch particular threads by pointing out that this is quite clearly rubbish, as you've successfully proviced special attention to a community you decided you disliked in the past. Do you have less active moderators now?

[Aureumterra]

Wouldn't it be harder? Maybe 2 mods for a DOS nation.

Are you proposing that it require agreement of 2 mods just to DEAT somebody who's already DoS and keeps coming back? What a waste of time!

On topic, there are six pages of Moderation thread titles that contain "RWDT", most of which seem to be reports. There are three pages of Moderation thread titles that contain "LWDT", most of which also seem to be reports. It seems like there was plenty of reporting of naughty or rule-breaking behaviour in these threads. I'm certain not everything that could be actionable was reported, but I'm a firm believer in self-moderation when possible: people shouldn't have to report every single potentially actionable post if they're not even offended or bothered by it, and it's only natural as a culture develops for the amount of banter to increase.

On the other hand, other people have quoted my post saying that the megathreads contain all the discussion in one place, allowing a greater variety of topics on the front page of the forum. The opposite is also true: all the political discussion remains contained within a few threads, and when someone wants to bring up a new point regarding to politics, he or she just goes into his or her echo chamber thread of choice and posts it in there, where the same ten or so people who frequent the thread will respond to it but it's very low-visibility to everyone else who doesn't normally read that thread; the person posting the new discussion topic also now needs to make sure he or she isn't threadjacking as is. Cramming all the discussion into a few megathreads makes the forum look more dead by increasing the amount of time spanned by the first page of NSG: as of right now, the last thread on page 1 of NSG was last posted in at 5:11 GMT, or about eight hours ago. On 5 October 2012 at 10:45, the last thread on page 1 of NSG was last posted in at 8:14, or only about two and a half hours ago. Even in 2012, the topic diversity seems increased compared to now, with there being a few perennial discussion threads but the notable absence of the wing threads or any other megathreads in the modern sense other than sports threads, two religious discussion threads, and TET. Heck, the third-biggest thread at that time was "Capitalism vs. Communism", which stayed active for at least a month.

It's pretty clear to me that NSG is dying a slow and painful death, and I don't like that. Hopefully having gotten rid of the LWDT and RWDT will bring some more diversity in discussions back to the table, but one constant is that great members from the past are leaving and will continue to leave, and clearly the culture of the wing threads was important to some people as we've already seen people leave over this too. There's no way to win.

Almost every thread, even current event threads, evolve some sort of echo chamber and are only frequented by regulars. It just seems to happen with every thread that lasts more than a week.

The only threads with actual debate without echo chamber posting is "breaking news threads," I guess the riots thread that’s up right now is one of them.

The other threads devolve into
Poster 1:"Look, X happened. This is so (insert opinion)"
Poster 2: "Yes, you’re so right!"
Poster 3: "Yeah dude you’re so correct!"
Poster 4: "Oh yeah you’re right."

[No State Here]

Are you proposing that it require agreement of 2 mods just to DEAT somebody who's already DoS and keeps coming back? What a waste of time!

On topic, there are six pages of Moderation thread titles that contain "RWDT", most of which seem to be reports. There are three pages of Moderation thread titles that contain "LWDT", most of which also seem to be reports. It seems like there was plenty of reporting of naughty or rule-breaking behaviour in these threads. I'm certain not everything that could be actionable was reported, but I'm a firm believer in self-moderation when possible: people shouldn't have to report every single potentially actionable post if they're not even offended or bothered by it, and it's only natural as a culture develops for the amount of banter to increase.

On the other hand, other people have quoted my post saying that the megathreads contain all the discussion in one place, allowing a greater variety of topics on the front page of the forum. The opposite is also true: all the political discussion remains contained within a few threads, and when someone wants to bring up a new point regarding to politics, he or she just goes into his or her echo chamber thread of choice and posts it in there, where the same ten or so people who frequent the thread will respond to it but it's very low-visibility to everyone else who doesn't normally read that thread; the person posting the new discussion topic also now needs to make sure he or she isn't threadjacking as is. Cramming all the discussion into a few megathreads makes the forum look more dead by increasing the amount of time spanned by the first page of NSG: as of right now, the last thread on page 1 of NSG was last posted in at 5:11 GMT, or about eight hours ago. On 5 October 2012 at 10:45, the last thread on page 1 of NSG was last posted in at 8:14, or only about two and a half hours ago. Even in 2012, the topic diversity seems increased compared to now, with there being a few perennial discussion threads but the notable absence of the wing threads or any other megathreads in the modern sense other than sports threads, two religious discussion threads, and TET. Heck, the third-biggest thread at that time was "Capitalism vs. Communism", which stayed active for at least a month.

It's pretty clear to me that NSG is dying a slow and painful death, and I don't like that. Hopefully having gotten rid of the LWDT and RWDT will bring some more diversity in discussions back to the table, but one constant is that great members from the past are leaving and will continue to leave, and clearly the culture of the wing threads was important to some people as we've already seen people leave over this too. There's no way to win.

Almost every thread, even current event threads, evolve some sort of echo chamber and are only frequented by regulars. It just seems to happen with every thread that lasts more than a week.

The only threads with actual debate without echo chamber posting is "breaking news threads," I guess the riots thread that’s up right now is one of them.

The other threads devolve into
Poster 1:"Look, X happened. This is so (insert opinion)"
Poster 2: "Yes, you’re so right!"
Poster 3: "Yeah dude you’re so correct!"
Poster 4: "Oh yeah you’re right."

Non-Regular Poster: "Well maybe if you look at it another way-"
Poster 1: "SHILL!"
Poster 2: "TROLL!"
Poster 3: "BOOTLICKER!"

[The Church of Satan]

How do you plan a major change for months and then have a rollout this terrible? Moderation isn’t even engaging with concerns raised by users in this thread. Now there just appears to be retired mod surrogates, and the occasional snippy non-response from actual mods.

Because many of those "concerns" are unfounded and self-centered conspiracy theories about how the mods are boogeymen out to get them. However if you'd taken the time to skim through the entire thread (I don't blame you for not, it's a lot to read) you'd know that there has been plenty of engagement by the mods.

[Hakons]

I think the mods have a different motive regarding RWDT tbh and just decided to shut LWDT too to look unbiased.

This is incorrect.


Repeating a post of mine from earlier in the thread:

Just a quick comment on both of the above posts.

The initial catalyst for the internal moderator discussion on the two threads was neither directed at the RWDT nor at the culture of rule-breaking in the latter.

The moderator who first opened the two threads to discussion earlier this year titled his discussion 'LWDT & RWDT' - with the LWDT mentioned first - and was narrowly focused on the extent to which the two threads were increasingly devolving into chat threads. This was the sole initial focus.

It would be fair to note that the internal culture of the RWDT did subsequently become a focus of discussion, but that was only quite late in the day, and by the time that happened the majority of the moderator team was already in favour of shutting down both threads.

So to be clear:

The internal culture of the RWDT (whether we frame perceptions of the latter positively or negatively) may have been the final catalyst in taking action, but it was not the initial cause of the internal discussion, and the decision to lock had been taken before 'rule breaking' and 'non-reporting' had come into focus.

The LWDT was therefore not 'caught in the crossfire'.


It's the source of some regret to me that so much of the discussion in this thread has been focused on rule-breaking on the part of some RWDT participants when this isn't what initially led to the moderation team discussing the two threads and taking the decision to lock them. I can see why that's been the focus of much of the discussion, and many of our own posts and announcements have helped to build this perception. We perhaps haven't been as clear on this point as I might have hoped; but I would stress the distinction between immediate catalyst and initial cause.

Nobody should read too much into this post; that I wish we had been clearer in outlining some points is simply a matter of stress, not a disagreement in policy.

It's up to each of you whether you decide you believe me or not, of course; but whatever you might think about the moderation team generally, or the thread locking decision specifically, I'd like to think that I haven't gained a reputation for personal dishonesty over the more than 17 years I've been on this site.

Arch, you undoubtedly have a reputation of decorum and honesty throughout your time here. Some of your colleagues garner considerably less respect, and the behavior of Reppy at the start of this discussion thread (and previous interactions with the RWDT) exemplify that. There's simply no reason senior moderators like Reppy should be engaged in snippy behavior when moderation is already making a controversial, unpopular move. It certainly gives the perception of animus when this thread's own OP refers to members of the community as "cliques," and with the moral judgement that they are "problematic." A sizable amount of the community has little faith in moderation, and this decision has exasperated that.

[Drop Your Pants]

A sizable amount of the community has little faith in moderation, and this decision has exasperated that.

Which community would you be talking about? NSGP gets on very well with our associated mods, Reppy being one of them occasionally. We don't always agree but we know that if we respect them they'll respect us back.

[Kowani]

A sizable amount of the community has little faith in moderation, and this decision has exasperated that.

Which community would you be talking about? NSGP gets on very well with our associated mods, Reppy being one of them occasionally. We don't always agree but we know that if we respect them they'll respect us back.

NSG, however, is…less so.

[La Xinga]

Wouldn't it be harder? Maybe 2 mods for a DOS nation.

Are you proposing that it require agreement of 2 mods just to DEAT somebody who's already DoS and keeps coming back? What a waste of time!

People that are DOS can't come back.

And no, I don't think mods should need to have more then one person to DOS.

And guess what????????????? I think it already requires to mods to DOS someone.

[Joohan]

He didn't say you were, Monitor. He was talking about moderation, the team, in general.

He said "you" as if I was part of the mod team.

Yeah that was just a mistake on my part. I remember you mostly from your time as a mod, so it was instinctive for me to write you there.

[Cekoviu]

Are you proposing that it require agreement of 2 mods just to DEAT somebody who's already DoS and keeps coming back? What a waste of time!

People that are DOS can't come back.

And no, I don't think mods should need to have more then one person to DOS.

And guess what????????????? I think it already requires to mods to DOS someone.

people that are DOS do come back and they get deleted when they do. that's the point.

[The Notorious Mad Jack]

People that are DOS can't come back.

And no, I don't think mods should need to have more then one person to DOS.

And guess what????????????? I think it already requires to mods to DOS someone.

people that are DOS do come back and they get deleted when they do. that's the point.

Side note: some people who are DOS are eventually let back on the site - though it's unlikely the people who keep coming back and causing issues will ever have that status revoked.

[La Xinga]

People that are DOS can't come back.

And no, I don't think mods should need to have more then one person to DOS.

And guess what????????????? I think it already requires to mods to DOS someone.

people that are DOS do come back and they get deleted when they do. that's the point.

What's the difference between a DOS and a DEAT?

[Farnhamia]

people that are DOS do come back and they get deleted when they do. that's the point.

What's the difference between a DOS and a DEAT?

With a DEAT, you lose your nation. You might lose your puppets, too, it depends on the seriousness of the violation. DOS (Delete On Sight) means you are no longer welcome here.

[The New California Republic]

people that are DOS do come back and they get deleted when they do. that's the point.

What's the difference between a DOS and a DEAT?

A DOS is persona non grata, no longer welcome on the site; DEAT is just deleting a nation.

[La Xinga]

What's the difference between a DOS and a DEAT?

With a DEAT, you lose your nation. You might lose your puppets, too, it depends on the seriousness of the violation. DOS (Delete On Sight) means you are no longer welcome here.

How do mods enforce a DOS? Can't people just go on a different device?

[The New California Republic]

With a DEAT, you lose your nation. You might lose your puppets, too, it depends on the seriousness of the violation. DOS (Delete On Sight) means you are no longer welcome here.

How do mods enforce a DOS? Can't people just go on a different device?

The Mods aren't going to advertise how they spot a DOS, so there is no point asking.

[Farnhamia]

With a DEAT, you lose your nation. You might lose your puppets, too, it depends on the seriousness of the violation. DOS (Delete On Sight) means you are no longer welcome here.

How do mods enforce a DOS? Can't people just go on a different device?

That, my inquisitive friend, is classified information.

[Pangurstan]

With a DEAT, you lose your nation. You might lose your puppets, too, it depends on the seriousness of the violation. DOS (Delete On Sight) means you are no longer welcome here.

How do mods enforce a DOS? Can't people just go on a different device?

They read people's minds to tell if they're DOS, and if they're DOS the mods send in a drone strike.

[Cisairse]

"Christians follow Christ!"

See the resemblance?

I see you playing stupid word games. Christ is a specific person. "Right wing" is a vaguely defined term.

The similarity of the words "Christ" and "Christian" does not mean that they are exactly the same thing. One is a person and the other is a religion.

Right-wing is not a vaguely defined term, it is a specifically defined term.

"Right wing values" is not a person, and the definition of it can be very fuzzy. By that logic the feminism thread should also be locked. And certainly the Chinese Discussion Thread as well.

If you started something like a Maoist thread, where you discussed the legacy of one influential political figure, I would expect that to pass muster.

Basing megathreads' acceptability on whether or not they discuss people seems silly.