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

[The Liberated Territories]

Holy shit this thread is a crapfest.

Well no, that makes no sense to the given situation (Plus, the CDT is already terrible). The better hypothetical to this situation would be if >1/2 of the CDT users were toxic and got warned to knock off their behavior every week or 2 but refused to listen and openly played the victim.

And as has been said, it's questionable whether the CDT gets a passing grade using the rubric set in the OP. The Libertarian Thread is another one that likely doesn't either.

I feel like I need to defend my 4 year old baby (the Libertarian Discussion Thread). Sure, the LDT is broader in scope but the discussions going on there have always been tangibly related to libertarianism, unlike what I see in the RWDT and to a lesser extent the LWDT, where completely irrelevant topics have been discussed with no relation. Secondly the LDT is rather dead when conversations aren't happening, has only been through one and a half iterations. American style Libertarianism or Classical Liberalism is obviously the LDT's major ideology (despite sometimes left wing libertarians coming in) and because of that is much more focused than the other two threads.

That being said I have no horse in this race, I barely come to this site anymore except to chat with a few old friends via the LDT so if the Mods want to close it go ahead. The worse result that can happen is we all just move somewhere else (like another thread or Discord).

[Cisairse]

Holy shit this thread is a crapfest.

And as has been said, it's questionable whether the CDT gets a passing grade using the rubric set in the OP. The Libertarian Thread is another one that likely doesn't either.

I feel like I need to defend my 4 year old baby (the Libertarian Discussion Thread). Sure, the LDT is broader in scope but the discussions going on there have always been tangibly related to libertarianism, unlike what I see in the RWDT and to a lesser extent the LWDT, where completely irrelevant topics have been discussed with no relation. Secondly the LDT is rather dead when conversations aren't happening, has only been through one and a half iterations. American style Libertarianism or Classical Liberalism is obviously the LDT's major ideology (despite sometimes left wing libertarians coming in) and because of that is much more focused than the other two threads.

That being said I have no horse in this race, I barely come to this site anymore except to chat with a few old friends via the LDT so if the Mods want to close it go ahead. The worse result that can happen is we all just move somewhere else (like another thread or Discord).

Everything you just said also describes the late LWDT.

[Nobel Hobos 2]

Starting a post with 'these are my ideas for improving the situation', or similar language, will help signal that this is your specific intent. If you've already made suggestions in this thread, feel free to make them again - there's a lot of thread to wade through, after all, even for those of us who've read every page.

I made the suggestion that two Mods should be needed to DEAT someone who is at the end of the rope in terms of warnings, to improve the perception of forum users that there is adequate oversight of such decisions, and that they are not taken lightly. For example, it'd likely involve something resembling the following:

This is your fourth warning this month, after just coming off a two-week ban. The warnings clearly aren't sinking in. As such, [mod warn text]trollnationlandia, DEAT pending for flaming and trolling, 1st Mod concurs.[/mod warn text]

Having examined trollnationlandia's history and continuing disregard for the rules I concur with the above DEAT decision. As such, [mod warn text]trollnationlandia is now DEAT for flaming and trolling, 2nd Mod concurs.[/mod warn text]

It'd involve having a section of the mod cave that would flag up DEAT decisions that are pending a second Mod, so that second approval is prompt.

Of course the second Mod could also say no to the decision of the first Mod, if they think there are good reasons why a DEAT may not be justified or excessive, which they would then list in the ruling. The DEAT would then not go ahead. If the first Mod really takes issue with that, then they can go to a senior Mod for arbitration.

Is a DEAT final with no appeal?

If it is, then your idea has merit, with the following modification: the 1st mod could apply a temporary forum ban, which the 2nd mod could then upgrade to a DEAT, or leave as a ban while an appeal takes place.

If DEAT can be reversed on appeal (or final appeal) then the 2 mods proposal seems quite redundant: it's covered by the appeals process.

[Cisairse]

I made the suggestion that two Mods should be needed to DEAT someone who is at the end of the rope in terms of warnings, to improve the perception of forum users that there is adequate oversight of such decisions, and that they are not taken lightly. For example, it'd likely involve something resembling the following:



It'd involve having a section of the mod cave that would flag up DEAT decisions that are pending a second Mod, so that second approval is prompt.

Of course the second Mod could also say no to the decision of the first Mod, if they think there are good reasons why a DEAT may not be justified or excessive, which they would then list in the ruling. The DEAT would then not go ahead. If the first Mod really takes issue with that, then they can go to a senior Mod for arbitration.

Is a DEAT final with no appeal?

If it is, then your idea has merit, with the following modification: the 1st mod could apply a temporary forum ban, which the 2nd mod could then upgrade to a DEAT, or leave as a ban while an appeal takes place.

If DEAT can be reversed on appeal (or final appeal) then the 2 mods proposal seems quite redundant: it's covered by the appeals process.

I'm fairly certain DEATs can be reversed via GHR

[Nobel Hobos 2]

I suggest one or more political theory threads, with rules specific to it/them.

1. No chat, no jokes without also a serious point to continue.
2. No "debating" tactics aimed only at discrediting or mocking a position. No cheap shots.
3. No attacking only a fraction of a post, if the rest is not being disputed it must be acknowledged.
   
   Yes this does allow Wall of Text as a posting tactic, it's not so bad.
4. Very strict standard of personal attack, with even opinions protected:
   
   Nothing stronger than "I believe this is wrong", so calling an opinion "nonsense" would be out
5. Text sources only, or text sources required as well if video is linked.

[Farnhamia]

Is a DEAT final with no appeal?

If it is, then your idea has merit, with the following modification: the 1st mod could apply a temporary forum ban, which the 2nd mod could then upgrade to a DEAT, or leave as a ban while an appeal takes place.

If DEAT can be reversed on appeal (or final appeal) then the 2 mods proposal seems quite redundant: it's covered by the appeals process.

I'm fairly certain DEATs can be reversed via GHR

They can, aye.

[Nobel Hobos 2]

Is a DEAT final with no appeal?

If it is, then your idea has merit, with the following modification: the 1st mod could apply a temporary forum ban, which the 2nd mod could then upgrade to a DEAT, or leave as a ban while an appeal takes place.

If DEAT can be reversed on appeal (or final appeal) then the 2 mods proposal seems quite redundant: it's covered by the appeals process.

I'm fairly certain DEATs can be reversed via GHR

Given that a DEAT creates resentment in all a poster's friends (as well as presumably them) I think it should be possible to appeal a DEAT in Moderation just like any warning or ban. Why should the more harsh penalty have less accountability?

[Cisairse]

I'm fairly certain DEATs can be reversed via GHR

Given that a DEAT creates resentment in all a poster's friends (as well as presumably them) I think it should be possible to appeal a DEAT in Moderation just like any warning or ban. Why should the more harsh penalty have less accountability?

I mean if you get DEAT+Ban you can't post in Moderation anyway
DEATs explicitly require game mods in any case

[Neutraligon]

Given that a DEAT creates resentment in all a poster's friends (as well as presumably them) I think it should be possible to appeal a DEAT in Moderation just like any warning or ban. Why should the more harsh penalty have less accountability?

I mean if you get DEAT+Ban you can't post in Moderation anyway
DEATs explicitly require game mods in any case

Correct, for a DEAT to be reversed a game mod needs to take action. More then that, like has been said repeatedly about reporting abuse via ghr, requests for DEATs to be reversed cannot be hidden or deleted by the mod team.

[The Free Joy State]

A mod approved political theory thread is one thing (which I am not arguing for or against), but some of these rule suggestions make my teeth itch.

Specifically:

[...]

1. No "debating" tactics aimed only at discrediting or mocking a position. No cheap shots.
2. No attacking only a fraction of a post, if the rest is not being disputed it must be acknowledged.
   
   Yes this does allow Wall of Text as a posting tactic, it's not so bad.
3. Very strict standard of personal attack, with even opinions protected:
   
   Nothing stronger than "I believe this is wrong", so calling an opinion "nonsense" would be out

If new poster "Plutocratic Pete" comes into a hypothetical political theory thread and argues -- in a five paragraph essay -- that plutocracy is a fair system that protects all in society, I see little reason (as long as the rules in the OSRS are abided by) for that opinion to be held more sacred than if new poster "Creationist Carla" came and stated her opinion.

This seems to be a suggestion that would create inconsistency, claims of which have been made already by some posters repeatedly in this thread.

The one thing that I personally think may make a difference, if long-running thread series' become earmarked for future closure, is notifying players that threads (referring only to megathread series' here) are at risk of having to be closed (possibly at the end of one edition/start of the next) -- not so players can petition -- but rather to explain any changes necessary in order for players who use threads to keep them open.

[Nobel Hobos 2]

A mod approved political theory thread is one thing (which I am not arguing for or against), but some of these rule suggestions make my teeth itch.

Specifically:

[...]

1. No "debating" tactics aimed only at discrediting or mocking a position. No cheap shots.
2. No attacking only a fraction of a post, if the rest is not being disputed it must be acknowledged.
   
   Yes this does allow Wall of Text as a posting tactic, it's not so bad.
3. Very strict standard of personal attack, with even opinions protected:
   
   Nothing stronger than "I believe this is wrong", so calling an opinion "nonsense" would be out

If new poster "Plutocratic Pete" comes into a hypothetical political theory thread and argues -- in a five paragraph essay -- that plutocracy is a fair system that protects all in society, I see little reason (as long as the rules in the OSRS are abided by) for that opinion to be held more sacred than if new poster "Creationist Carla" came and stated her opinion.

Yes? You might just have to bear with extreme/absurd opinions being posted and nobody replying to them.

You can be pretty sure that poster will want their view argued with and will find another thread, or start a thread, where they can be sniped at and mocked in the time-honoured NSG way.

With a tightened "local ruleset" the others posting in a thread would have no way of driving idiots out of it, other than to shun them. Actually it would be great if the forum software allows for Foes in just one thread.

This seems to be a suggestion that would create inconsistency, claims of which have been made already by some posters repeatedly in this thread.

Yes! Deliberate, systemic inconsistency with the regular rules of NS. The thread(s) would be a "safe space" for people wanting to argue with civility and depth, while being a deliberately "unsafe space" for those who habitually try to bring debate down to an idiotic and partisan level, make unfair characterizations of others' opinions, low-level bait and low-level personal attack.

The one thing that I personally think may make a difference, if long-running thread series' become earmarked for future closure, is notifying players that threads (referring only to megathread series' here) are at risk of having to be closed (possibly at the end of one edition/start of the next) -- not so players can petition -- but rather to explain any changes necessary in order for players who use threads to keep them open.

This is a fairly trivial suggestion but I don't see much wrong with it. It's effectively "first and final warning" and for a megathread (where players return and resume posting without necessarily reading from where they last were) I think the warning should be prominently edited into the OP. Perhaps the thread title could even be colored differently.

[Cisairse]

Just to reference something I said here before, I didn't get an answer to my question about a hypothetical thread about Marxism so I made one.

[The Free Joy State]

With a tightened "local ruleset" the others posting in a thread would have no way of driving idiots out of it, other than to shun them. Actually it would be great if the forum software allows for Foes in just one thread.

I happen to like that the rules are the same forum-wide. It's one of the great strengths of this forum.

It also appears that this suggestion fails to consider that a thread where there would be no power to disabuse idiotic opinions could become, rather than be a Algonquin round table of ideas, some kind of 4chan of NS... drowning in ludicrous notions that may be (in themselves and depending on many things -- not least wording) attempts at trolling, but which are unquestionable.

[Nobel Hobos 2]

With a tightened "local ruleset" the others posting in a thread would have no way of driving idiots out of it, other than to shun them. Actually it would be great if the forum software allows for Foes in just one thread.

I happen to like that the rules are the same forum-wide. It's one of the great strengths of this forum.

It also appears that this suggestion fails to consider that a thread where there would be no power to disabuse idiotic opinions could become, rather than be a Algonquin round table of ideas, some kind of 4chan of NS... drowning in ludicrous notions that may be (in themselves and depending on many things -- not least wording) attempts at trolling, but which are unquestionable.

You're still thinking that posters arguing with bad ideas, drives said bad ideas back off the forum. Surely you've heard "don't feed the trolls"? Now consider that the same might work for bad ideas (in good faith or not) which don't quite reach the enforceable standard of trolling. It would require self-discipline by the thread participants. If there are demiTrolls who are actually encouraged by being ignored, you can count on them to escalate seeking attention, to the point they can be reported for Trolling.

As to your concern that it would become "the 4chan of NS" that assumes that for some reason regular rules against trolling and spamming wouldn't apply in the Political Theory thread. That's kinda the opposite of what I'm saying.

[The Free Joy State]

I happen to like that the rules are the same forum-wide. It's one of the great strengths of this forum.

It also appears that this suggestion fails to consider that a thread where there would be no power to disabuse idiotic opinions could become, rather than be a Algonquin round table of ideas, some kind of 4chan of NS... drowning in ludicrous notions that may be (in themselves and depending on many things -- not least wording) attempts at trolling, but which are unquestionable.

You're still thinking that posters arguing with bad ideas, drives said bad ideas back off the forum. Surely you've heard "don't feed the trolls"? Now consider that the same might work for bad ideas (in good faith or not) which don't quite reach the enforceable standard of trolling. It would require self-discipline by the thread participants. If there are demiTrolls who are actually encouraged by being ignored, you can count on them to escalate seeking attention, to the point they can be reported for Trolling.

As to your concern that it would become "the 4chan of NS" that assumes that for some reason regular rules against trolling and spamming wouldn't apply in the Political Theory thread. That's kinda the opposite of what I'm saying.

If prolonged "demi-trolling" is to go ignored, that doesn't really negate my point.

Also, it does seem to be something of a weakness to have a system where: "I think your point is rather disingenuous" would be rule-breaking and worthy of mod-action (as your ideal code of conduct would ban anything stronger than "I disagree") and long-term low-grade trolling (if confined to one thread) is not.

Still, I've said my piece and outlined what I think could help if there is the possibility of future megathread closures. So I will take my leave here.

[An Alan Smithee Nation]

My one wish from moderation would be that users wouldn't be left hanging not knowing if something they reported has been missed or just categorised as not worth following up.

[Nobel Hobos 2]

You're still thinking that posters arguing with bad ideas, drives said bad ideas back off the forum. Surely you've heard "don't feed the trolls"? Now consider that the same might work for bad ideas (in good faith or not) which don't quite reach the enforceable standard of trolling. It would require self-discipline by the thread participants. If there are demiTrolls who are actually encouraged by being ignored, you can count on them to escalate seeking attention, to the point they can be reported for Trolling.

As to your concern that it would become "the 4chan of NS" that assumes that for some reason regular rules against trolling and spamming wouldn't apply in the Political Theory thread. That's kinda the opposite of what I'm saying.

If prolonged "demi-trolling" is to go ignored, that doesn't really negate my point.

Also, it does seem to be something of a weakness to have a system where: "I think your point is rather disingenuous" would be rule-breaking and worthy of mod-action (as your ideal code of conduct would ban anything stronger than "I disagree") and long-term low-grade trolling (if confined to one thread) is not.

Still, I've said my piece and outlined what I think could help if there is the possibility of future megathread closures. So I will take my leave here.

I've said my piece too. I probably wouldn't use such a thread often, unless it attracted better posters than the NSG average now.

[Merni]

My one wish from moderation would be that users wouldn't be left hanging not knowing if something they reported has been missed or just categorised as not worth following up.

From what I've seen mods are quite good at posting "not actionable" responses in the moderation forum if something isn't actionable.

[Greater vakolicci haven]

My one wish from moderation would be that users wouldn't be left hanging not knowing if something they reported has been missed or just categorised as not worth following up.

From what I've seen mods are quite good at posting "not actionable" responses in the moderation forum if something isn't actionable.

I've seen reports go unanswered for nearly a week: it's annoying for the reporting party and stressful for the reported party especially if they have a long record.

A simple 'we're looking into this' or 'it's not actionable' would go a long way to make sure that the last post on a report thread isn't the report.

[Grenartia]

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.

https://forum.nationstates.net/viewtopic.php?f=16&t=457511

In the RWDT edition of that time, there were plenty of regulars saying 'napki did nothing wrong', despite him blatantly targetting several people for harassment. They circled the wagons rather than accept one of their own did something wrong. This isn't even an isolated incident in terms of harassing others (though I will admit in terms of unmerited accusations thrown at others, it is unparalleled to my knowledge), and I encourage anyone else who experienced harassment from a RWDT regular, that was egged on by other regulars from the thread, to speak up as well.

[Forsher]

Okay... suggestions. Should probably read some of the others but I'll just go in blind.

Obviously the first step is defining megathreads. I would characterise megathreads as "any thread which is better thought of as an aggregation of multiple OPs or which is intended to prevent the formation of multiple OPs". (This applies just to NSG.) I would characterise an appropriate megathread as one which cannot conceivably contain just about anything.

So... it is not clear to me that, say, the Christian Discussion Thread is a megathread. Would a topic like, "On the Influence of Christian Theology on Western Values" be merged in? How about "Is Christianity Just a Jewish Sect?" or "The Crusades were an Inevitable Consequence of Organised Christianity"? But just because there are topics that could co-exist isn't enough. "Is Catholicism Monotheistic?"

On the other hand, it seems obvious that if I wanted to create a thread like, "New Poll Predicts Biden Will Win Every US State" that it'd get merged into the 2020 US Presidential Election Megathread... when it's made (I don't see it right now). And, in particular, it's obvious that such a thread is intended to consume many smaller but newsworthy in their own right stories from generating new OPs.

It seems to me that if we're continually thinking of topics that sound like they don't really belong in a megathread and it's hard to think of something that sounds like it should be in the thread... then it's not a megathread.

My approach:

• megathreads should be exclusively made by mods and should be strongly biased towards "temporary" practice
• temporary practice means that they're deployed:
  • if there is suddenly a spate of threads about pretty much the same thing, or
  • for subjects that will predictably be highly sprawling if the OPs are meant to be generic (e.g. the Olympics, US elections, Covid)
  • and are subject to harsher standards than other threads re: gravedigging (e.g. seven days with no new posts = thread lock)
  • and aren't renewed as a matter of course on reaching the 500 page limit
• threads are discouraged from including "discussion" in the name

This raises questions about what a "spate of threads" would actually mean. Let's say at least three threads with at least three (maybe four) pages of replies in which there's a substantive overlap in content.

I think the point about discussion is really important. Firstly, I think it encourages chatty behaviour and vaguely defined topics. Secondly, I think a lot of threads that include "discussion" in the title are just entirely ordinary threads but discussion makes it seem like they're something else.

I would then apply this to all the current threads, i.e. they all get closed overnight. Except... don't actually close them. Lock them briefly and direct people to explain what the threads actually are in "Appeal the Closure of X" moderation threads. If after, say, a week, it's apparent people have been unable to define cohesive subjects for the thread or a consistent frequency of new individually substantive topics... close the thread.

Secondly, I would change the nature of Arts and Fiction. At the moment, we've got four basic types of thread there:

• user works
• quasi-F7 threads like "what are you reading/watching/listening to?"
• user experiences (e.g. Paradox, Total War game threads, Writing Discussion thread, My Little Pony/Arrowverse/Transformers threads)
• meta discussion (e.g. legality of moments in fiction, Pete Townshend's Opinions)

I would make four something that belongs in General and keep the other three types in A&F.

From what I can tell, the Gun and Car threads actually belong in A&F with the other user experiences of consumer goods threads so they should also be moved there. Wait, the car thread seems to have died. No matter.

Thirdly, I would resurrect the Suggestion Box but with the specific and exclusive purpose of fielding and discussing rule rewrites.

Fourthly, I definitely would not extend the notion of bad faith posting. It's way too vague and most of the problem behaviours are just something else. I rather suspect the "low grade trolling" people are thinking of are more accurately described as spam.

[The New California Republic]

I made the suggestion that two Mods should be needed to DEAT someone who is at the end of the rope in terms of warnings, to improve the perception of forum users that there is adequate oversight of such decisions, and that they are not taken lightly. For example, it'd likely involve something resembling the following:



It'd involve having a section of the mod cave that would flag up DEAT decisions that are pending a second Mod, so that second approval is prompt.

Of course the second Mod could also say no to the decision of the first Mod, if they think there are good reasons why a DEAT may not be justified or excessive, which they would then list in the ruling. The DEAT would then not go ahead. If the first Mod really takes issue with that, then they can go to a senior Mod for arbitration.

Is a DEAT final with no appeal?

If it is, then your idea has merit, with the following modification: the 1st mod could apply a temporary forum ban, which the 2nd mod could then upgrade to a DEAT, or leave as a ban while an appeal takes place.

If DEAT can be reversed on appeal (or final appeal) then the 2 mods proposal seems quite redundant: it's covered by the appeals process.

No, in what I'm suggesting there would still be an appeal route.

And look at the reasoning for the two mods that I used, it has nothing to do with appeals, and everything to do with oversight of the decision when it is initially taken, and increasing the perception amongst forum users that the decision is not taken lightly.

[The New California Republic]

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)

This has got to be the worst suggestion in this thread so far. It is so bad that I actually wonder why you even suggested it in the first place. Turning the forums into the Wild West is absolutely not an option.

[Greater vakolicci haven]

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

https://forum.nationstates.net/viewtopic.php?f=16&t=457511

In the RWDT edition of that time, there were plenty of regulars saying 'napki did nothing wrong', despite him blatantly targetting several people for harassment. They circled the wagons rather than accept one of their own did something wrong. This isn't even an isolated incident in terms of harassing others (though I will admit in terms of unmerited accusations thrown at others, it is unparalleled to my knowledge), and I encourage anyone else who experienced harassment from a RWDT regular, that was egged on by other regulars from the thread, to speak up as well.

Idk about you but I was raised to always defend my friends or family. Even if you know they're in the wrong, if it's someone you don't know much or don't care about, your friend is in the right by default.

[Nobel Hobos 2]

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)

This has got to be the worst suggestion in this thread so far. It is so bad that I actually wonder why you even suggested it in the first place. Turning the forums into the Wild West is absolutely not an option.

Agreed. It would be "the Wild West" but with more spam.