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

[La Xinga]

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

That, my inquisitive friend, is classified information.

Oh. Ok.

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.

Okay, I didn't know!

[Salus Maior]

I'm extremely disappointed by this brash, crude decision. I don't see how shutting down long-lived, popular threads is in anyway beneficial to NSG and NationStates. This reeks of a personal vendetta against the respective groups in these threads. NSG is for current events and political discussion. It is altogether incredulous to say these threads don't belong in NSG.

After considerable internal review by the moderation team (the official discussion began in mid-May, with off-and-on discussion as far back as last year), both the "Left Wing Discussion Thread" and the "Right Wing Discussion Thread" megathreads will be permanently closed going forward. While this is not a blanket ban on megathreads, it represents a tightening of the guidelines under which megathreads are acceptable and how they must operate.

The first thing we need is more transparency, holy moly. What was said in this "considerable internal review" and by who? The RWDT has existed for four and a half years. To justify your decision, you have to demonstrate objectively what has changed in those four and a half years that suddenly makes the mere existence of these threads detrimental to the forum. You painfully did not adequately communicate or present this.

What qualifies for a megathread?

• A topic which has at its focus a specific, singular subject, such as a current news event (IE: election thread, anti-police protests), a frequent recurring debate (IE: abortion, gun control), or a political figure (IE: the US president.)
• Discussion on that specific, singular subject as the thread's primary focus, not simple socializing motivated by underlying interest in the subject. Conversational drift is okay, but it must remain on that specific, singular primary focus.

In short, both the "wing" threads fail both of these metrics. "Left wing" encompasses an enormous range of political ideologies and beliefs ranging from the mildest flavors of left-of-center social democracy clear out to the most extreme variants of communism. "Right wing" similarly encompasses an enormous range of political ideologies and beliefs ranging from mild right-of-center fiscal conservatism clear out to the most extreme flavors of fascism and nationalism. The "wings" are not topics so much as they are measuring tools, and both threads have demonstrated themselves to be prone to considerable off-topic socializing as a result of this overly-broad subject matter.

Why do these arbitrary criteria have to be maintained? Why is your arbitrary opinion, which is different than you own opinion for the past four and a half years, suddenly definitive? I understand the need to prevent the mega threading of everything, but common sense and practicality says popular threads should at least be grand-fathered in to any sweeping changes to thread policy. Extremely poor reasoning here.

In addition, it has bred problematic cliques that have become insulated from rules enforcement due to an unfortunate combination of thread participants refusing to report (and even actively discouraging reporting of) rulebreaking conduct and thread outsiders being disinclined to dig into it to locate and report it. Moderation lacks the time and the manpower to babysit such threads personally, and thread regulars have proven repeatedly that they either can not or will not regulate themselves.

This is where you get pointedly ridiculous. I have never seen more moderation activity than in the RWDT. These discussion threads were never insulated from rules enforcement. Full stop, why on earth would you even claim this? It's patently false. Next, "refusing to report" is an asinine, retroactive charge. Users are under no obligation to report other users, and you absolutely know this. I am once again flabbergasted why you would even make such a claim. The normal threads in NSG have hardly any better decorum. People get mad a moderation in regular threads, people have low level of discourse in regular threads, and people break rules, quite often, in regular threads. You didn't demonstrate at all why these discussion threads are in some way worse. You can't vaguely claim things without producing evidence, without differentiating between normal thread behavior and mega thread behavior.

The US, and to a lesser extent the world, is having a societal discussion on policing. Moderation is undoubtedly NationStates' police. Perhaps there are "problematic cliques" because of problematic enforcement. Perhaps reporting is discouraged because of lack of faith in equal application of forum rules and the total lack of transparency. In other words, perhaps the "problematic" behavior of so many well-respected users over four and a half years in both of these threads says more about moderation that it says about them.

^ Well said.

[Greater vakolicci haven]

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

That, my inquisitive friend, is classified information.

Are UMN and TEM DOS now?

[Cekoviu]

That, my inquisitive friend, is classified information.

Are UMN and TEM DOS now?

i'm not sure about UMN (mods didn't explicitly say he was dos, but he's not planning on coming back anyway), but marches is not DOS, he was just DEATed

[USS Monitor]

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.

Nobody said megathreads could only discuss people. That's just one example of something that would be specific enough.

Also worth noting I said nothing about a Maoist megathread. Not every thread needs to be a megathread.

Cut the stupid strawmanning.

[Valrifell]

Look, fellas, there's a simple criterion if you want to make a new discussion thread. If you were going to put effort into writing it and then coldpost it in either WDT, then it could probably pass muster as a standalone discussion open to the entire board.

[Cisairse]

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



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

Nobody said megathreads could only discuss people. That's just one example of something that would be specific enough.

Also worth noting I said nothing about a Maoist megathread. Not every thread needs to be a megathread.

Cut the stupid strawmanning.

Not every thread needs to be a megathread, sure, but it's obvious that NSG holds OPs of threads to a higher standard than posts within extant threads. It's even more obvious that us LWDT expats are not expected to make a new thread for every conversation we would be having in LWDT; that would quickly turn into dozens of ongoing mostly duplicate threads.
Hence the need for a megathread.

What I would like to know, and what I haven't yet seen from the moderation team, is where this line actually lies. The AuthLeft/AuthRight discussion threads were closed, even though they are a significantly narrower scope than the libertarian discussion thread.

[Questarian New Yorkshire]

Look, fellas, there's a simple criterion if you want to make a new discussion thread. If you were going to put effort into writing it and then coldpost it in either WDT, then it could probably pass muster as a standalone discussion open to the entire board.

Nobody cares.

You deleted the house. Nobody wants to sit in the chairs on the lawn in the long shadow of its carcass.

[Questarian New Yorkshire]

What I would like to know, and what I haven't yet seen from the moderation team, is where this line actually lies. The AuthLeft/AuthRight discussion threads were closed, even though they are a significantly narrower scope than the libertarian discussion thread.

None of what the moderation team has said about this topic is honest. Every post is laced with lies and poor faith. I hate it. We don't want the moderation team to say "we love you aww" we just want the truth as an official position.

Firstly, it is manifestly evident to any person who had ever read the LWDT that it was not a chat thread and that the huge bulk of its posts were on-topic and that its users were completely law abiding. Nobody who ever used the thread in any sense can deny any of that. The official position is that LWDT became a chat thread. LOL! You have to be an utter nutter to believe that!

The aim was closing RWDT. It is not politically possible to close RWDT and not LWDT. LWDT was closed for sure because RWDT was closed and it must be balanced.

Secondly obvious Authleft and Authright DT is way more "close to the point" that LWDT or RWDT. That's not the point though. The point was to prevent the RWDT regular users from congregating in one space in the forum. So obviously Authleft and Authright DT had to be closed because it would comprise the same users. And any further megathread that becomes anything like RWDT will be closed, perhaps for another reason or perhaps the same reason, and its users prohibited from congregating on the forum. That is how it is.

[Greater vakolicci haven]

Look, fellas, there's a simple criterion if you want to make a new discussion thread. If you were going to put effort into writing it and then coldpost it in either WDT, then it could probably pass muster as a standalone discussion open to the entire board.

Nobody cares.

You deleted the house. Nobody wants to sit in the chairs on the lawn in the long shadow of its carcass.

Valrifell isn't part of the 'you' you're talking about, he's not a mod.

[Questarian New Yorkshire]

Nobody cares.

You deleted the house. Nobody wants to sit in the chairs on the lawn in the long shadow of its carcass.

Valrifell isn't part of the 'you' you're talking about, he's not a mod.

Yes I can manifestly see he's not a moderator — it doesn't exonerate him of responsibility. He's still part of the problem

[The Church of Satan]

Nobody cares.

You deleted the house. Nobody wants to sit in the chairs on the lawn in the long shadow of its carcass.

So then stop rolling around the grass throwing a tantrum and get ready to build some apartment buildings. Your gated community may be gone but you can still find some new spots in the city and pay rent like most everyone else does.

[Greater vakolicci haven]

Valrifell isn't part of the 'you' you're talking about, he's not a mod.

Yes I can manifestly see he's not a moderator — it doesn't exonerate him of responsibility. He's still part of the problem

What 'problem?' He can discuss things and state his opinion like you're doing: if we paint this as an us vs. them (whoever the them are) we're the problem. Nuance is important here.

[Questarian New Yorkshire]

It is what it is. There's nothing that can be done about it.

The only thing to do is to protest so that there is some, if only tiny, political cost to doing it in the future and so that users subject to this kind of insult from administration can maintain a level of dignity, and to organise elsewhere.

I don't approve of people spamming the forum or attacking the admins or whatever.

[Questarian New Yorkshire]

Nobody cares.

You deleted the house. Nobody wants to sit in the chairs on the lawn in the long shadow of its carcass.

So then stop rolling around the grass throwing a tantrum and get ready to build some apartment buildings. Your gated community may be gone but you can still find some new spots in the city and pay rent like most everyone else does.

I'm already doing it but you would have no idea about that because you're totally uninvolved in this entire saga. Now jog on. Join another peanut gallery elsewhere.

[Questarian New Yorkshire]

What 'problem?' He can discuss things and state his opinion like you're doing: if we paint this as an us vs. them (whoever the them are) we're the problem. Nuance is important here.

Of course he can discuss things and state his opinion. That's the point of coming to this forum. The problem is users being prohibited from discussing things and stating their opinion. By lending support to the decision and by protesting against RWDT before, he lends power, even an infinitesimal quantity, to their arguments. So yeah, he's part of the problem.

[Joohan]

So then stop rolling around the grass throwing a tantrum and get ready to build some apartment buildings. Your gated community may be gone but you can still find some new spots in the city and pay rent like most everyone else does.

I'm already doing it but you would have no idea about that because you're totally uninvolved in this entire saga. Now jog on. Join another peanut gallery elsewhere.

just ignore him. It's what everyone else has been doing.

[Valrifell]

Nobody said megathreads could only discuss people. That's just one example of something that would be specific enough.

Also worth noting I said nothing about a Maoist megathread. Not every thread needs to be a megathread.

Cut the stupid strawmanning.

Not every thread needs to be a megathread, sure, but it's obvious that NSG holds OPs of threads to a higher standard than posts within extant threads. It's even more obvious that us LWDT expats are not expected to make a new thread for every conversation we would be having in LWDT; that would quickly turn into dozens of ongoing mostly duplicate threads.
Hence the need for a megathread.

What I would like to know, and what I haven't yet seen from the moderation team, is where this line actually lies. The AuthLeft/AuthRight discussion threads were closed, even though they are a significantly narrower scope than the libertarian discussion thread.

Having a better idea of what would be good for open discussion is definitely something that should be clarified, in spite of the "moderators don't rule on hypotheticals" rule (which I'm not fond of, since it often blocks good-faith inquiries into how the rules are written and what they mean).

But the authleft/right threads were closed for being a very transparent attempt at reviving the WDTs, so they weren't an attempt made in good faith (imho).

[Questarian New Yorkshire]

Nuance is important here.

The moderation position is to present this affair as being highly nuanced.

In reality it just isn't. There's no nuance. They wanted - well, they obviously had some internal disagreement - to kill the thread, and they executed it, finally. The only nuance is in the args they have presented for doing it, which is not important when the intent was clearly there anyway.

[The Church of Satan]

[I'm already doing it but you would have no idea about that because you're totally uninvolved in this entire saga. Now jog on. Join another peanut gallery elsewhere.

Then good for you. Unlike most of the other megathread die-hards you're moving on to greener pastures. Congratulations. ^_^

Also no.

Making baseless accusations about being targeted by NS Moderation isn’t doing...anything good. If you're so confident that it's true then do some investigating, find incontrovertible evidence and make your case. Otherwise you're just hurting your own cause.

[The Archregimancy]

The aim was closing RWDT. It is not politically possible to close RWDT and not LWDT. LWDT was closed for sure because RWDT was closed and it must be balanced.

As I've posted at least twice in this thread, this simply isn't true.

You don't have to believe me, and no one can force you to believe me; but it isn't true.

On the other hand, assuming you believe my posts to be covered by the following statement, you already seem to believe that I'm a liar:

None of what the moderation team has said about this topic is honest.Every post is laced with lies and poor faith.

I regret that you believe this; but short of breaching confidentiality and posting the opening posts of the internal moderation discussion over the two threads, I don't see what I could ever do to convince you otherwise. And even doing that likely wouldn't be enough to convince you since you wouldn't be able to link back to the original thread; you would likely just accuse me of forging or otherwise misrepresenting the posts.

So given my probable inability to convince you otherwise, I equally regret that we'll have to leave things with your apparent belief that I'm a liar.

But your ongoing repetition of the untruth that 'LWDT was closed for sure because RWDT was closed and it must be balanced' won't make it any more true; and participants in this thread will ultimately have to decide whether they think you're more reliable on this point than I am.

I stress that I don't think that you're lying; you genuinely believe that you're correct. You are nonetheless wrong.

[Zeritae]

Why not hold a talk and close these threads much earlier in the past?

[Questarian New Yorkshire]

As I've posted at least twice in this thread, this simply isn't true.

Yes, I think you plural are lying about this.

That's not the same thing as you personally "being a liar."

I regret that you believe this; but short of breaching confidentiality and posting the opening posts of the internal moderation discussion over the two threads, I don't see what I could ever do to convince you otherwise. And even doing that likely wouldn't be enough to convince you since you wouldn't be able to link back to the original thread; you would likely just accuse me of forging or otherwise misrepresenting the posts.

This is a very intelligent comment: a generous looking minefield. If I say "that's not enough", I look insane. If I say "that would be enough for me," I'm making the issue about me and suggesting I personally have the right to snoop around your mod forum.

But I tell you what — it's not about knowing exactly what you said. It's the manner in which all of you deal with the community.

None of you have said anything about what constitutes a chat thread. You have not shown the public any examples of what constitutes too much chat. You have not proven the existence of any clique that refuses to report its own members, or commented on the fact that no NS user is obliged to report a rulebreak. If you think I'm spamming or being cliquey, you can ban me. I have such a record I'd get banned for breathing these days. If you think others are spamming or being cliquey, you can ban them. But to close the thread? Why? Collective punishment? Is this your policy now? If so, since when?

All has been said, by you and by others, is "it was too chatty. We talked about it a lot but in the end they were both too chatty to stay." Nobody broke any rules. If we were spamming, why we weren't warned, banned, or deated?

There is no process at all. Just: closed. As users we have no rights. But the forum deserves - and frankly, I have no idea why I think this - better.

But your ongoing repetition of the untruth that 'LWDT was closed for sure because RWDT was closed and it must be balanced' won't make it any more true; and participants in this thread will ultimately have to decide whether they think you're more reliable on this point than I am.

I'm sorry but it's plainly obvious to everyone that the LWDT wasn't a chat thread.

It's as plain as day, even to the most rule-abiding NS users, that the LWDT just wasn't a problematic place. So it doesn't follow that it was closed for the same reason as RWDT. It doesn't make any sense. Even posters on this forum who are really the inverse of me and don't trust or believe anything I say see that this is clearly true. This is partially why there's so much resistance, even from people who barely or never went on RWDT.

[Salandriagado]

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.

Because they (mostly) get immediately DEATed. Every so often, one slips under the radar for a while.

[Proctopeo]

Perhaps a bit late to this, but to put it shortly, I think this is a horrible decision, for basically every reason that's been brought up already. Y'all really didn't even consider including the community in this bombshell decision?