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

[Diarcesia]

...Y'all really didn't even consider including the community in this bombshell decision?

They seem to come to the conclusion that dealing with this kind of reaction after the bombshell than before it is preferable.

[Ioudaia]

...Y'all really didn't even consider including the community in this bombshell decision?

They seem to come to the conclusion that dealing with this kind of reaction after the bombshell than before it is preferable.

This is what puzzles me about the decision: they could have avoided most of the trouble by locking the threads for a bit (a few hours? a day? whatever would let people get the message.) with a warning like "We think this is getting too chatty and off-topic. The topic is left/right wing politics. Talk about that, or risk getting this thread locked."

There would be some angry reaction to that, but most people would get the idea. We'd still be having a dicussion, but it would be a different one, a calmer one, with fewer people feeling they'd been shat on again by another capricious, unprovoked decision.

[Torisakia]

They seem to come to the conclusion that dealing with this kind of reaction after the bombshell than before it is preferable.

This is what puzzles me about the decision: they could have avoided most of the trouble by locking the threads for a bit (a few hours? a day? whatever would let people get the message.) with a warning like "We think this is getting too chatty and off-topic. The topic is left/right wing politics. Talk about that, or risk getting this thread locked."

There would be some angry reaction to that, but most people would get the idea. We'd still be having a dicussion, but it would be a different one, a calmer one, with fewer people feeling they'd been shat on again by another capricious, unprovoked decision.

I think they've done that before, many times. Didn't really seem to work, apparently.

[Diarcesia]

They seem to come to the conclusion that dealing with this kind of reaction after the bombshell than before it is preferable.

This is what puzzles me about the decision: they could have avoided most of the trouble by locking the threads for a bit (a few hours? a day? whatever would let people get the message.) with a warning like "We think this is getting too chatty and off-topic. The topic is left/right wing politics. Talk about that, or risk getting this thread locked."

There would be some angry reaction to that, but most people would get the idea. We'd still be having a dicussion, but it would be a different one, a calmer one, with fewer people feeling they'd been shat on again by another capricious, unprovoked decision.

*cough* F7 *cough*

[Cekoviu]

[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. ^_^

We basically all have. The RWDTers have moved to our own region and onto Discord instead. I don't know what you think is happening, but whatever you do, it's wrong.

[Ioudaia]

This is what puzzles me about the decision: they could have avoided most of the trouble by locking the threads for a bit (a few hours? a day? whatever would let people get the message.) with a warning like "We think this is getting too chatty and off-topic. The topic is left/right wing politics. Talk about that, or risk getting this thread locked."

There would be some angry reaction to that, but most people would get the idea. We'd still be having a dicussion, but it would be a different one, a calmer one, with fewer people feeling they'd been shat on again by another capricious, unprovoked decision.

I think they've done that before, many times. Didn't really seem to work, apparently.

Sometimes it did, sometimes it didn't (the ban/moratorium on chat threads in P2TM, where they tried a few times before bringing the hammer down, vs the May Massacre, where they surprised a lot of people with a new rule or interpretation of the rule). But even if it doesn't work, nobody could complain that they weren't warned or that Moderation hadn't made it clear what the rules were.

So, I think they should leave the two current threads locked, and start two new mod-sanctioned ones, clearly laying out the rules they want, and the consequences of breaking them. If that means the threads get nuked again, fine. But I don't think they will be.

[Diarcesia]

I think they've done that before, many times. Didn't really seem to work, apparently.

Sometimes it did, sometimes it didn't (the ban/moratorium on chat threads in P2TM, where they tried a few times before bringing the hammer down, vs the May Massacre, where they surprised a lot of people with a new rule or interpretation of the rule). But even if it doesn't work, nobody could complain that they weren't warned or that Moderation hadn't made it clear what the rules were.

So, I think they should leave the two current threads locked, and start two new mod-sanctioned ones, clearly laying out the rules they want, and the consequences of breaking them. If that means the threads get nuked again, fine. But I don't think they will be.

I dunno how much more mod-sanctioned threads they can do here.

[Cekoviu]

They seem to come to the conclusion that dealing with this kind of reaction after the bombshell than before it is preferable.

This is what puzzles me about the decision: they could have avoided most of the trouble by locking the threads for a bit (a few hours? a day? whatever would let people get the message.) with a warning like "We think this is getting too chatty and off-topic. The topic is left/right wing politics. Talk about that, or risk getting this thread locked."

There would be some angry reaction to that, but most people would get the idea. We'd still be having a dicussion, but it would be a different one, a calmer one, with fewer people feeling they'd been shat on again by another capricious, unprovoked decision.

Kyrusia did say something similar several weeks ago, tacked onto the end of the mass threadjacking warnings that were dealt out following one of Questers's bans. I can personally attest from offsite conversations that the RWDT regulars (and some external users) did not take that threat seriously because we didn't think they would do something that dumb, knowing the massive amount of backlash that would obviously ensue. So I'm not sure that this tactic is really as airtight as you think it is.

[Valrifell]

This is what puzzles me about the decision: they could have avoided most of the trouble by locking the threads for a bit (a few hours? a day? whatever would let people get the message.) with a warning like "We think this is getting too chatty and off-topic. The topic is left/right wing politics. Talk about that, or risk getting this thread locked."

There would be some angry reaction to that, but most people would get the idea. We'd still be having a dicussion, but it would be a different one, a calmer one, with fewer people feeling they'd been shat on again by another capricious, unprovoked decision.

Kyrusia did say something similar several weeks ago, tacked onto the end of the mass threadjacking warnings that were dealt out following one of Questers's bans. I can personally attest from offsite conversations that the RWDT regulars (and some external users) did not take that threat seriously because we didn't think they would do something that dumb, knowing the massive amount of backlash that would obviously ensue. So I'm not sure that this tactic is really as airtight as you think it is.

It's not their fault that warnings went unheeded, though perhaps the escalation should have been more gradual so you would know how "stupid" the mods were.

"They warned us but we ignored them" is a very weak argument for your favor.

[Drop Your Pants]

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.

Changes to moderation policy affect the whole forum, not just your little corner.

[Joohan]

Sometimes it did, sometimes it didn't (the ban/moratorium on chat threads in P2TM, where they tried a few times before bringing the hammer down, vs the May Massacre, where they surprised a lot of people with a new rule or interpretation of the rule). But even if it doesn't work, nobody could complain that they weren't warned or that Moderation hadn't made it clear what the rules were.

So, I think they should leave the two current threads locked, and start two new mod-sanctioned ones, clearly laying out the rules they want, and the consequences of breaking them. If that means the threads get nuked again, fine. But I don't think they will be.

I dunno how much more mod-sanctioned threads they can do here.

Why were chat threads banned?

[Diarcesia]

Kyrusia did say something similar several weeks ago, tacked onto the end of the mass threadjacking warnings that were dealt out following one of Questers's bans. I can personally attest from offsite conversations that the RWDT regulars (and some external users) did not take that threat seriously because we didn't think they would do something that dumb, knowing the massive amount of backlash that would obviously ensue. So I'm not sure that this tactic is really as airtight as you think it is.

It's not their fault that warnings went unheeded, though perhaps the escalation should have been more gradual so you would know how "stupid" the mods were.

"They warned us but we ignored them" is a very weak argument for your favor.

Unless the mods are not telling us that they're putting up with all this crap the whole time.

Question to them: was the spammer from yesterday a WDT regular? Or was he an opportunistic troll?

I dunno how much more mod-sanctioned threads they can do here.

Why were chat threads banned?

Check this. Cliquish behavior you say? Not to mention illegal content that may put NS in trouble?

[Luziyca]

Kyrusia did say something similar several weeks ago, tacked onto the end of the mass threadjacking warnings that were dealt out following one of Questers's bans. I can personally attest from offsite conversations that the RWDT regulars (and some external users) did not take that threat seriously because we didn't think they would do something that dumb, knowing the massive amount of backlash that would obviously ensue. So I'm not sure that this tactic is really as airtight as you think it is.

It's not their fault that warnings went unheeded, though perhaps the escalation should have been more gradual so you would know how "stupid" the mods were.

"They warned us but we ignored them" is a very weak argument for your favor.

Definitely. If anything, it makes the decision to shutter these threads justified, given if the participants had followed the warnings, this whole mess would not have happened in the first place.

I dunno how much more mod-sanctioned threads they can do here.

Why were chat threads banned?

Violations of the PG-13 rule.

[Diarcesia]

It's not their fault that warnings went unheeded, though perhaps the escalation should have been more gradual so you would know how "stupid" the mods were.

"They warned us but we ignored them" is a very weak argument for your favor.

Definitely. If anything, it makes the decision to shutter these threads justified, given if the participants had followed the warnings, this whole mess would not have happened in the first place.

Why were chat threads banned?

Violations of the PG-13 rule.

There's this thing though. If the decision's true purpose is to flush out problem posters, they could be more upfront about it. Put a list of banned topics to discuss for a certain length of time and then allow them again after that, maybe.

[Cekoviu]

Kyrusia did say something similar several weeks ago, tacked onto the end of the mass threadjacking warnings that were dealt out following one of Questers's bans. I can personally attest from offsite conversations that the RWDT regulars (and some external users) did not take that threat seriously because we didn't think they would do something that dumb, knowing the massive amount of backlash that would obviously ensue. So I'm not sure that this tactic is really as airtight as you think it is.

It's not their fault that warnings went unheeded, though perhaps the escalation should have been more gradual so you would know how "stupid" the mods were.

"They warned us but we ignored them" is a very weak argument for your favor.

It's not supposed to be an argument in our favor. It's a commentary on the issue with using that particular strategy as a means of controlling behavior with this particular set of users. This may be hard to believe, but I'm trying to find actual productive solutions instead of making tribalistic snipes because I genuinely want to see this forum improve.

[Ioudaia]

This is what puzzles me about the decision: they could have avoided most of the trouble by locking the threads for a bit (a few hours? a day? whatever would let people get the message.) with a warning like "We think this is getting too chatty and off-topic. The topic is left/right wing politics. Talk about that, or risk getting this thread locked."

There would be some angry reaction to that, but most people would get the idea. We'd still be having a dicussion, but it would be a different one, a calmer one, with fewer people feeling they'd been shat on again by another capricious, unprovoked decision.

Kyrusia did say something similar several weeks ago, tacked onto the end of the mass threadjacking warnings that were dealt out following one of Questers's bans. I can personally attest from offsite conversations that the RWDT regulars (and some external users) did not take that threat seriously because we didn't think they would do something that dumb, knowing the massive amount of backlash that would obviously ensue. So I'm not sure that this tactic is really as airtight as you think it is.

Never said it was airtight.

I saw Kyru's post, and it's much weaker than I mean, no offence to Kyru. (I just reread it.) It's not in redtext, nor was the lock very long (looks like about a half hour). Perhaps I should have said that, since I'm not sure I would have taken Kyru's comments as a serious threat if I was a RWDT regular.

[Diarcesia]

Kyrusia did say something similar several weeks ago, tacked onto the end of the mass threadjacking warnings that were dealt out following one of Questers's bans. I can personally attest from offsite conversations that the RWDT regulars (and some external users) did not take that threat seriously because we didn't think they would do something that dumb, knowing the massive amount of backlash that would obviously ensue. So I'm not sure that this tactic is really as airtight as you think it is.

Never said it was airtight.

I saw Kyru's post, and it's much weaker than I mean, no offence to Kyru. (I just reread it.) It's not in redtext, nor was the lock very long (looks like about a half hour). Perhaps I should have said that, since I'm not sure I would have taken Kyru's comments as a serious threat if I was a RWDT regular.

Do you have the link in question? From my time lurking this site, I learn to take modly words seriously and don't assume they're bluffing.

[Luziyca]

Definitely. If anything, it makes the decision to shutter these threads justified, given if the participants had followed the warnings, this whole mess would not have happened in the first place.


Violations of the PG-13 rule.

There's this thing though. If the decision's true purpose is to flush out problem posters, they could be more upfront about it. Put a list of banned topics to discuss for a certain length of time and then allow them again after that, maybe.

I don't think this decision was just about flushing out the problem posters. I do feel that given both the RWDT and LWDT were becoming chat threads with a thin veener of politics, these threads are technically in violation of the rules restricting chat threads to the mod-started ones available in several subfora of this site.

That said, given the culture in the RWDT in particular, combined with its reputation on the non-RWDT NSG, it certainly did not help their case that these sorts of megathreads should be allowed to continue.

Per your proposal of having a list of banned topics, I imagine people will find ways to get around that: if people can hide the chill-and-chat thread in other styles on F7, I'm confident the NSGers will continue discussing those topics in a way that make it appear legit.

[The Archregimancy]

I'm trying to find actual productive solutions instead of making tribalistic snipes because I genuinely want to see this forum improve.

Thank you.

A strong disagreement need not obviate the possibility of constructive dialogue moving forward.

I can't speak for the rest of the team, but I read every post in this thread. Some of the suggestions are more realistic than others, but I am taking note of some of the ideas that I think have value.

That's obviously not in any way a promise of action; but I am paying attention.

[Diarcesia]

I'm trying to find actual productive solutions instead of making tribalistic snipes because I genuinely want to see this forum improve.

Thank you.

A strong disagreement need not obviate the possibility of constructive dialogue moving forward.

I can't speak for the rest of the team, but I read every post in this thread. Some of the suggestions are more realistic than others, but I am taking note of some of the ideas that I think have value.

That's obviously not in any way a promise of action; but I am paying attention.

Once again, thank you for listening to us.

[Greater vakolicci haven]

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.

Aeazer managed to slip under the radar for 4 years once.

[South Odreria 2]

I'm trying to find actual productive solutions instead of making tribalistic snipes because I genuinely want to see this forum improve.

Thank you.

A strong disagreement need not obviate the possibility of constructive dialogue moving forward.

I can't speak for the rest of the team, but I read every post in this thread. Some of the suggestions are more realistic than others, but I am taking note of some of the ideas that I think have value.

That's obviously not in any way a promise of action; but I am paying attention.

I really appreciate that.

[Valrifell]

It's not their fault that warnings went unheeded, though perhaps the escalation should have been more gradual so you would know how "stupid" the mods were.

"They warned us but we ignored them" is a very weak argument for your favor.

It's not supposed to be an argument in our favor. It's a commentary on the issue with using that particular strategy as a means of controlling behavior with this particular set of users. This may be hard to believe, but I'm trying to find actual productive solutions instead of making tribalistic snipes because I genuinely want to see this forum improve.

It's difficult to see that given the number of people doing that, so I apologize for mischaracterizing your post.

[Greater vakolicci haven]

I'm trying to find actual productive solutions instead of making tribalistic snipes because I genuinely want to see this forum improve.

Thank you.

A strong disagreement need not obviate the possibility of constructive dialogue moving forward.

I can't speak for the rest of the team, but I read every post in this thread. Some of the suggestions are more realistic than others, but I am taking note of some of the ideas that I think have value.

That's obviously not in any way a promise of action; but I am paying attention.

A while ago, there was a general organised conference set up to address problems in r/d gameplay, from a technical standpoint, and some recommendations (some of which actually got implemented!) were brought forward from that. Perhaps a similar organised conference, regarding addressing issues that sections of the community have with moderators could be set up? It'd be a good way to make sure that the dialogue was more about suggestions than sniping (I admit I've been guilty of the latter though.)

[Diarcesia]

Thank you.

A strong disagreement need not obviate the possibility of constructive dialogue moving forward.

I can't speak for the rest of the team, but I read every post in this thread. Some of the suggestions are more realistic than others, but I am taking note of some of the ideas that I think have value.

That's obviously not in any way a promise of action; but I am paying attention.

A while ago, there was a general organised conference set up to address problems in r/d gameplay, from a technical standpoint, and some recommendations (some of which actually got implemented!) were brought forward from that. Perhaps a similar organised conference, regarding addressing issues that sections of the community have with moderators could be set up? It'd be a good way to make sure that the dialogue was more about suggestions than sniping (I admit I've been guilty of the latter though.)

Good suggestion, given that there are WDT regulars that genuinely feel isolated from the modding process.