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

[The Archregimancy]

We've now spent several days and dozens of pages rehashing the rights and wrongs of the decision, and why we think it was terrible/not terrible but badly communicated/absolutely fine. I think we can safely assume that, at this point, almost one one's minds are going to be changed.

i understand why you're moving in this direction, but i do think that this does come as a bit of convenient redirection. like "it's done, it's over, placate yourselves by talking about something else" delivered in a nice tone.

I can likewise see why it might come across that way to the sceptical, but I assure you that wasn't my intent.

I can't in any case stop people from unleashing another broadside against the original decision; I can only try and encourage discussion in a more constructive direction.

I only ask that you consider this... what's more likely to lead to constructive dialogue and potential change? The first 50 or so pages of this thread, or the last 3 pages of this thread?

[Merni]

snip

I remember reading something for NERVUN that said a forum mod who refuses an upgrade is called a senior forum mod. I'm looking at the mod page and I didn't see any senior forum mods.

Evidently then there is no current mod who has refused a GM promotion. This could be what you remember reading:

Senior Forum Mod: An experienced Forum Moderator, often one who has been offered a game mod position and turned it down.

[La Xinga]

I remember reading something for NERVUN that said a forum mod who refuses an upgrade is called a senior forum mod. I'm looking at the mod page and I didn't see any senior forum mods.

Evidently then there is no current mod who has refused a GM promotion. This could be what you remember reading:

Senior Forum Mod: An experienced Forum Moderator, often one who has been offered a game mod position and turned it down.

Yeah, that's it. Mixed up my mods!

[Greater vakolicci haven]

I've mostly stayed out of this discussion, but I wanted to address this point:

I have no insider knowledge, but I mean, they probably are given some form of training even for volunteers. Like a crash course on "How to do Moderation", give warnings, use the warning tag, write records...

There is extensive training for new mods, including quite a bit of mod ethics and practices in this game. The core ethics and practices docs were written by Max and [violet], so we absolutely have direction from the top. There is documentation on not only how to use the tools, but when to use them, and how to try to avoid impacting innocent players.

Every new moderator has a different starting point and comprehension of using the tools. They start as forum mods doing simple stuff like spam removal and thread moves. Mentoring is always available from more experienced mods, and is often called upon both in discussion threads and our Staff Discord channel. No mod is required to do any specific tasks - they tend to gravitate towards their personal interests. Once they've been here awhile, they're usually given the opportunity to get "a bigger toolbox", i.e. game mod status. That allows mods who are mostly into the forums the ability to DEAT adbots and spammers without asking a GM do help. Mods who wish to engage in Gameplay or don't want the extra responsibility / opportunity can and often do refuse the 'promotion'.

There's a massive pile of other tools, most of which require special training. As a professional process writer in past jobs, I wrote process documents for most of them. It's not all about trolls and spammers - for example, we have processes for creating and verifying Class Regions and for issuing API keys.

---

tl;dr: No, we don't just hand them a toolbox and a title and push them into the fray.

LG, and gmc military arms, right?

Who else refused gm status

[Kowani]

But I will say that regardless of whether the decision was merited or not-not really an argument I wish to have, the rollout of this policy was…dodgy. There seems to have been some backstage discussion having lasted a serious period of time, and I think that perhaps if the community had been made aware of said discussion-and some of the issues raised within, you would most likely have seen a reduction in those behaviors. We are told that the consistent rulebreaking within the RWDT was, in fact, not the major factor found to cause the permanent closure. But if that is so, then having told the people who mostly participate in those threads about what behaviors were found to be problematic, and what kind of general direction the threads should’ve been pointed in, which would’ve fostered a more genteel experience overall. I do realize that a)moderating is hard, and b)this is not our website. Those things are true. And as guests, we are not owed gentleness per se, technically, we are not owed transparency or consistency. But it would make all interactions between the mod community and the rest of the forums more seamless, less hostile. Nobody is saying to treat a spammer with kind words and understanding. But it does make it easier when, say, applying bans, to not be curt. It’s been commented on in this thread, where regardless of whether or not the mods are biased, there definitely is a reporting bias. And some people do legitimately make large collections of posts that serve to mostly bait others, tap dancing on the line. Mod awareness of those people could probably be higher-at the very least, looking at the chain of interactions between two posters on a thread, looking for patterns in reports. I would go so far as to say building case files on people with very consistent patterns on that sort of thing, and take action.

There are very few good guys in this situation.
Some self-awareness-on all of our parts, mod or player, may help improve both community relationships and elevate the quality of discourse.

So, I just cut the pieces that dealt exclusively with mod action.

[The Church of Satan]

These are my ideas for improving the situation (I'm keeping this brief, will follow up with any questions/clarifications if asked).

Provide us posters with a rigorous, clearly-stated list of criterium for what qualified for a megathread. The OP of this thread is not sufficient.
Begin enforcing these new rules on all threads to which they apply equally.

The flaw in it is its lack of flexibility. Rigidly defined rules can't account for unique situations. Several factors can present themselves that would leave the mods unable to do anything about something that would have otherwise been actionable. Flexibility allows for better moderation.

[Diarcesia]

These are my ideas for improving the situation (I'm keeping this brief, will follow up with any questions/clarifications if asked).

Provide us posters with a rigorous, clearly-stated list of criterium for what qualified for a megathread. The OP of this thread is not sufficient.
Begin enforcing these new rules on all threads to which they apply equally.

The flaw in it is its lack of flexibility. Rigidly defined rules can't account for unique situations. Several factors can present themselves that would leave the mods unable to do anything about something that would have otherwise been actionable. Flexibility allows for better moderation.

The mods have stated several times that this is a feature and not a bug. Frankly, if we change the rules to be more rigorous, the bad faith posters who just barely step on the boundary of rulebreaking behavior will have an easier job doing that. It'll be worse for the community.

[Ghost Land]

I've mostly stayed out of this discussion, but I wanted to address this point:

There is extensive training for new mods, including quite a bit of mod ethics and practices in this game. The core ethics and practices docs were written by Max and [violet], so we absolutely have direction from the top. There is documentation on not only how to use the tools, but when to use them, and how to try to avoid impacting innocent players.

Every new moderator has a different starting point and comprehension of using the tools. They start as forum mods doing simple stuff like spam removal and thread moves. Mentoring is always available from more experienced mods, and is often called upon both in discussion threads and our Staff Discord channel. No mod is required to do any specific tasks - they tend to gravitate towards their personal interests. Once they've been here awhile, they're usually given the opportunity to get "a bigger toolbox", i.e. game mod status. That allows mods who are mostly into the forums the ability to DEAT adbots and spammers without asking a GM do help. Mods who wish to engage in Gameplay or don't want the extra responsibility / opportunity can and often do refuse the 'promotion'.

There's a massive pile of other tools, most of which require special training. As a professional process writer in past jobs, I wrote process documents for most of them. It's not all about trolls and spammers - for example, we have processes for creating and verifying Class Regions and for issuing API keys.

---

tl;dr: No, we don't just hand them a toolbox and a title and push them into the fray.

LG, and gmc military arms, right?

Who else refused gm status

Wrapper

Lunatic Goofballs did eventually accept the Game Mod promotion, but not until several years into his mod career.

[Lamoni]

I've mostly stayed out of this discussion, but I wanted to address this point:

There is extensive training for new mods, including quite a bit of mod ethics and practices in this game. The core ethics and practices docs were written by Max and [violet], so we absolutely have direction from the top. There is documentation on not only how to use the tools, but when to use them, and how to try to avoid impacting innocent players.

Every new moderator has a different starting point and comprehension of using the tools. They start as forum mods doing simple stuff like spam removal and thread moves. Mentoring is always available from more experienced mods, and is often called upon both in discussion threads and our Staff Discord channel. No mod is required to do any specific tasks - they tend to gravitate towards their personal interests. Once they've been here awhile, they're usually given the opportunity to get "a bigger toolbox", i.e. game mod status. That allows mods who are mostly into the forums the ability to DEAT adbots and spammers without asking a GM do help. Mods who wish to engage in Gameplay or don't want the extra responsibility / opportunity can and often do refuse the 'promotion'.

There's a massive pile of other tools, most of which require special training. As a professional process writer in past jobs, I wrote process documents for most of them. It's not all about trolls and spammers - for example, we have processes for creating and verifying Class Regions and for issuing API keys.

---

tl;dr: No, we don't just hand them a toolbox and a title and push them into the fray.

LG, and gmc military arms, right?

Who else refused gm status

If any of those who have wish to say so publically, that is their choice. If not, it is their choice, and is private. You do not have the right (or even a need) to know.

[Grenartia]

LG, and gmc military arms, right?

Who else refused gm status

If any of those who have wish to say so publically, that is their choice. If not, it is their choice, and is private. You do not have the right (or even a need) to know.

Furthermore, is it even relevant?

[Katganistan]

If any of those who have wish to say so publically, that is their choice. If not, it is their choice, and is private. You do not have the right (or even a need) to know.

Furthermore, is it even relevant?

Nope.

[Souseiseki]

If any of those who have wish to say so publically, that is their choice.

alright, makes sense, cool.

If not, it is their choice, and is private.

that's fair.

You do not have the right (or even a need) to know.

comes off as a bit hostile but ok yeah that's also correct and no one was really implying otherwise. maybe you felt they were probing and got annoyed idk.

[Luziyca]

Re. the request for suggestions made by the Archregimancy to build bridges between players and mods, I think apart from maybe having a couple more (active) mods, and encouraging people to report more rulebreaking than they currently do, I don't really see any need for changes to the practices made by the mods, especially given that the current practices strike an appropriate balance between accountability, and the ability to do something in case there's an influx of adbots and pornspammers.

[Grenartia]

Re. the request for suggestions made by the Archregimancy to build bridges between players and mods, I think apart from maybe having a couple more (active) mods, and encouraging people to report more rulebreaking than they currently do, I don't really see any need for changes to the practices made by the mods, especially given that the current practices strike an appropriate balance between accountability, and the ability to do something in case there's an influx of adbots and pornspammers.

Really, in hindsight, the moment multiple RWDT regulars decided to baselessly call several other posters "pedo-enablers" (and put it in their sigs), and the rest of the regulars decided to defend them, that was the moment the RWDT's days were numbered.

[Diopolis]

Re. the request for suggestions made by the Archregimancy to build bridges between players and mods, I think apart from maybe having a couple more (active) mods, and encouraging people to report more rulebreaking than they currently do, I don't really see any need for changes to the practices made by the mods, especially given that the current practices strike an appropriate balance between accountability, and the ability to do something in case there's an influx of adbots and pornspammers.

It's been pointed out multiple times that an "except for adbots and pornspammers" exemption could be written into anything we do for accountability fairly easily. After all, it's generally uncontroversial when mods participating in the threads pornspammers pick as their targets remove the posts and deat them.

[Luziyca]

Re. the request for suggestions made by the Archregimancy to build bridges between players and mods, I think apart from maybe having a couple more (active) mods, and encouraging people to report more rulebreaking than they currently do, I don't really see any need for changes to the practices made by the mods, especially given that the current practices strike an appropriate balance between accountability, and the ability to do something in case there's an influx of adbots and pornspammers.

Really, in hindsight, the moment multiple RWDT regulars decided to baselessly call several other posters "pedo-enablers" (and put it in their sigs), and the rest of the regulars decided to defend them, that was the moment the RWDT's days were numbered.

Pretty much. If anything, I'm shocked RWDT lasted as long as it did.

Re. the request for suggestions made by the Archregimancy to build bridges between players and mods, I think apart from maybe having a couple more (active) mods, and encouraging people to report more rulebreaking than they currently do, I don't really see any need for changes to the practices made by the mods, especially given that the current practices strike an appropriate balance between accountability, and the ability to do something in case there's an influx of adbots and pornspammers.

It's been pointed out multiple times that an "except for adbots and pornspammers" exemption could be written into anything we do for accountability fairly easily. After all, it's generally uncontroversial when mods participating in the threads pornspammers pick as their targets remove the posts and deat them.

Given DEATs seem to be handled functionally the same on gameside, it would also be a bit of effort to code that restriction in, especially given it only takes a few unscrupulous/impatient mods to just rule they are adbots/pornspammers because they're the only mods on at that time and they don't want to wait three or more hours for backup.

[Proctopeo]

Re. the request for suggestions made by the Archregimancy to build bridges between players and mods, I think apart from maybe having a couple more (active) mods, and encouraging people to report more rulebreaking than they currently do, I don't really see any need for changes to the practices made by the mods, especially given that the current practices strike an appropriate balance between accountability, and the ability to do something in case there's an influx of adbots and pornspammers.

Really, in hindsight, the moment multiple RWDT regulars decided to baselessly call several other posters "pedo-enablers" (and put it in their sigs), and the rest of the regulars decided to defend them, that was the moment the RWDT's days were numbered.

"Baselessly" is just a flat-out lie. But since the specific topic that prompted those accusations, and the broader topic as a whole, tends to be incredibly sensitive, I'll leave it at that.

[Cekoviu]

Re. the request for suggestions made by the Archregimancy to build bridges between players and mods, I think apart from maybe having a couple more (active) mods, and encouraging people to report more rulebreaking than they currently do, I don't really see any need for changes to the practices made by the mods, especially given that the current practices strike an appropriate balance between accountability, and the ability to do something in case there's an influx of adbots and pornspammers.

Really, in hindsight, the moment multiple RWDT regulars decided to baselessly call several other posters "pedo-enablers" (and put it in their sigs), and the rest of the regulars decided to defend them, that was the moment the RWDT's days were numbered.

I don't recall any accusations of other posters as pedo enablers (except jokingly ND and Proct due to their political orientations), only moderators.

[Strahcoin]

While I only posted a bit in the RWDT (and not at all in the LWDT) and am therefore not directly affected by this ruling, I do not think it's a good idea to close down the threads. Even though they do get heated and off-topic at times, and people start throwing around ad-hominems and other logical fallacies, this exists in virtually every sufficiently large thread. Suppression of free speech and collective punishment is not the answer.

To the moderators, here are a few suggestions (with their own merits and drawbacks) to improve the NationStates moderation system and (hopefully) help the players and moderators reconcile with each other:

1. Implement a constitution. Codifying and strictly adhering to a set of fair rules will reduce confusion, inconsistencies, and the divide between players and moderators. (Frankly, I disagree with a vast majority of the forum rules; however, given said rules, I would rather know they are enforced consistently and impartially than impulsively.)
   
   • Cons: Need to write a way to amend it without rendering it useless, need some way to ensure this isn't violated, rules themselves are flawed and open to interpretation
2. Limited mod powers. By reducing your powers (which could range from "more mods are needed to make a ruling" to "only grant you figurehead power"), less players will feel that the mods are abusing their powers.
   
   • Cons: Need to figure out how much is good enough
3. Hold your posts to a high standard - ensure they are all civil and polite. It can be angering to see those who disagree with you shrug off your points and ad-hominem you and those you respect (I should know; I'm not exactly a model player myself). Regardless, speaking politely and with patience in the face of stress will mean more players who disagree with you politically will respect you more and see you more as an individual person with principles than just a faceless entity with a banhammer. By setting a shining example on how to behave, you could persuade players to more willingly follow the rules.
   
   • Cons: It won't work for everyone (some will find hostility where there is none, and some may act rudely despite you attempting civility), and everyone is human and makes mistakes
4. Abolish the mod system. This is an extreme version of suggestion #2. More players will spam and say bad stuff, but we have the "Add foe" button to ignore them if necessary.
   
   • Cons: Doxxing, slander, incitement toward violence, etc. will still exist - and will most likely be left unchecked (unless if someone works up the courage to call the police, which is unlikely)
5. Diversify the mods. Have individuals who politically disagree with the majority of you in the moderation team. Maybe those who don't care that much about power or politics. That way, there will be less reason for us to believe your rulings are politically biased. Please don't ask me, however.
   
   • Cons: The site is pretty highly populated by individuals on the left (harder to find willing people on the other side), and a number on the right may disagree with a notable number of rules and rulings dissuading them from volunteering

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.

Thank you.

[Luziyca]

(snipping intro and conclusion bits)

To the moderators, here are a few suggestions (with their own merits and drawbacks) to improve the NationStates moderation system and (hopefully) help the players and moderators reconcile with each other:

1. Implement a constitution. Codifying and strictly adhering to a set of fair rules will reduce confusion, inconsistencies, and the divide between players and moderators. (Frankly, I disagree with a vast majority of the forum rules; however, given said rules, I would rather know they are enforced consistently and impartially than impulsively.)
   
   • Cons: Need to write a way to amend it without rendering it useless, need some way to ensure this isn't violated, rules themselves are flawed and open to interpretation

So basically the One Stop Rules Shop with a different name.

Limited mod powers. By reducing your powers (which could range from "more mods are needed to make a ruling" to "only grant you figurehead power"), less players will feel that the mods are abusing their powers.

• Cons: Need to figure out how much is good enough

The mods have just the right amount of powers: I don't really see much need to reduce the powers that the mods and admins have on this site.

Hold your posts to a high standard - ensure they are all civil and polite. It can be angering to see those who disagree with you shrug off your points and ad-hominem you and those you respect (I should know; I'm not exactly a model player myself). Regardless, speaking politely and with patience in the face of stress will mean more players who disagree with you politically will respect you more and see you more as an individual person with principles than just a faceless entity with a banhammer. By setting a shining example on how to behave, you could persuade players to more willingly follow the rules.

• Cons: It won't work for everyone (some will find hostility where there is none, and some may act rudely despite you attempting civility), and everyone is human and makes mistakes

This ought to be what we all should strive for on NSG, or indeed, any other forum on NS, regardless of whether or not we are part of the mod team on this site. Sure, we may be human, and we make mistakes, but we should strive to hold ourselves to a high standard and accountable for our actions.

Abolish the mod system. This is an extreme version of suggestion #2. More players will spam and say bad stuff, but we have the "Add foe" button to ignore them if necessary.

• Cons: Doxxing, slander, incitement toward violence, etc. will still exist - and will most likely be left unchecked (unless if someone works up the courage to call the police, which is unlikely)

If I wanted a modless wasteland where I can say anything I want with zero repercussions whatsoever, I'd go to 8chan.

Diversify the mods. Have individuals who politically disagree with the majority of you in the moderation team. Maybe those who don't care that much about power or politics. That way, there will be less reason for us to believe your rulings are politically biased. Please don't ask me, however.

• Cons: The site is pretty highly populated by individuals on the left (harder to find willing people on the other side), and a number on the right may disagree with a notable number of rules and rulings dissuading them from volunteering

I do agree with you that NS could use more active mods. I don't know if political diversification or even gamseside/forumside diversification could help resolve the problems, but getting more people who can pass the standards to be a mod and who want to be mods on the mod team would certainly not hurt.

[The Sherpa Empire]

Really, in hindsight, the moment multiple RWDT regulars decided to baselessly call several other posters "pedo-enablers" (and put it in their sigs), and the rest of the regulars decided to defend them, that was the moment the RWDT's days were numbered.

I don't recall any accusations of other posters as pedo enablers (except jokingly ND and Proct due to their political orientations), only moderators.

You remember incorrectly, and it's really not OK to be throwing that crap at the mods anyway.

[Cekoviu]

I don't recall any accusations of other posters as pedo enablers (except jokingly ND and Proct due to their political orientations), only moderators.

You remember incorrectly, and it's really not OK to be throwing that crap at the mods anyway.

Okay, can you point me to examples of anybody doing so to someone who wasn't a moderator at the time?
And yes, accurately criticizing somebody for actions which they have done is okay, even if it is worded a bit crudely.

[Proctopeo]

Really, in hindsight, the moment multiple RWDT regulars decided to baselessly call several other posters "pedo-enablers" (and put it in their sigs), and the rest of the regulars decided to defend them, that was the moment the RWDT's days were numbered.

I don't recall any accusations of other posters as pedo enablers (except jokingly ND and Proct due to their political orientations), only moderators.

There were a few serious ones (stemming from a certain thread about a certain kid), and while it was "multiple RWDT regulars", it wasn't a RWDT thing at all. It mostly came up in other threads before the mods kiboshed it.

The mods thing comes from not only the conclusion of that trainwreck, but a combination of the age-old "mods are fags" meme, and at least one other thing I can recall that I'll refrain from mentioning here. We can talk on Discord about it (and the other stuff I'm not mentioning) if you'd like.

[Cekoviu]

I don't recall any accusations of other posters as pedo enablers (except jokingly ND and Proct due to their political orientations), only moderators.

There were a few serious ones (stemming from a certain thread about a certain kid), and while it was "multiple RWDT regulars", it wasn't a RWDT thing at all. It mostly came up in other threads before the mods kiboshed it.

The mods thing comes from not only the conclusion of that trainwreck, but a combination of the age-old "mods are fags" meme, and at least one other thing I can recall that I'll refrain from mentioning here. We can talk on Discord about it (and the other stuff I'm not mentioning) if you'd like.

Oh right, I totally forgot about the Desmond fiasco, mostly stayed out of that. I am regrettably aware of the other issues with the mods that lead to such accusations.

[Proctopeo]

There were a few serious ones (stemming from a certain thread about a certain kid), and while it was "multiple RWDT regulars", it wasn't a RWDT thing at all. It mostly came up in other threads before the mods kiboshed it.

The mods thing comes from not only the conclusion of that trainwreck, but a combination of the age-old "mods are fags" meme, and at least one other thing I can recall that I'll refrain from mentioning here. We can talk on Discord about it (and the other stuff I'm not mentioning) if you'd like.

Oh right, I totally forgot about the Desmond fiasco, mostly stayed out of that. I am regrettably aware of the other issues with the mods that lead to such accusations.

Ah, understandable. Tbh I'm not sure how well I could explain them, so it might be for the best.