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

[Sedgistan]

Will do. Working on collecting supporting links.

Don't get too hung up on the links. That bit is there mainly to stop people firing off time-wasting nominations without having thought about it properly. Just a couple will suffice (though you can provide more if you want).

[Forsher]

Well that's the thing Gren, if it's really a fortnight tops between new substantive topics that "test" I stuck at the end would conclude "okay, the trans thread stays". But I think it probably survives on the other prong, ie it's possible to define a cohesive topic for it. I mean, the only time I remember using it was to see what people thought about the song Lola. It seems to me that it's really a thread that, following the pattern of titles I was using for the hypothetical threads, might reasonably be called "the trans experience and identity".

And similarly you seem to be saying that threads about, say, bathroom bans or anti trans store discrimination aren't merged in and nor is it expected that such topics wouldn't have individual/separate OPs made? If that's the case, it's not even a megathread as I defined it.

Re: friends, see: Neville Longbottom in The Philosopher's Stone. Loyalty but not "my friends, right or wrong".

Re: mod bias, we must remember that Parkus was a totally different person, I don't believe literally different, before and after his extended absence from the forum. I think it may be necessary to just settle for professionalism, ie someone who would punish others for expressing opinions they share (eg an ecoterrorist punishing a poster for proppsing cat owners are shot). OTOH maybe there were warning signs with Parkus earlier, he left not long after I arrived, and we can similarly expect to notice such things with any hypothetical clean record candidate.

[Grenartia]

I have concerns about specifically promoting any right-wingers to modhood without ascertaining whether or not they have any biases against minority groups. We don't need a Parkus or OEP on the modteam.

A bit harsh. As has been mentioned in the OP of this very thread "right wing" is a broad church comprising a vast range of different viewpoints. We're not all jackbooted Nazis looking for some minorities to oppress.

I'm very much aware of that, and I apologize if you think I think that way. But I think the Secret Hitler analogy is a very apt one to make. As a diehard socialist, I could care less about whether or not socialism or capitalism is more represented on the modteam. But I absolutely draw the line at individuals who think people who don't have the same religion, ideology, sexual orientation, gender identity, ability, citizenship status, or race/ethnicity shouldn't have basic human rights.

And I'm not entirely convinced the userbase of the RWDT wouldn't nominate individuals like that.

[Repubblica Fascista Sociale Italiana]

Can you point out a single instance of a mod having their judgment in a ruling impaired by their politics?

Yeah I haven’t seen mods banning people out of politics. I keep hearing about a mod ten years ago or something who went insane after George Bush won

Stephistan?

[Grenartia]

There was a push to diversify the mods politically a while back, wasn't there? IMO it did help, even if it was only partially successful.
In any case I can think of two more towards the right posters I'd nominate to help balance out the overwhelmingly center-leftness of the mod team.

Can you point out a single instance of a mod having their judgment in a ruling impaired by their politics?

I know of one current mod who's previously stated moderation methodology is highly suspect. I'd trust them to smite spambots and pornposters, but I'm less inclined to trust their opinion on flaming and trolling when the target is a minority.

[Katganistan]

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.

DEAT is covered by the appeals process.

[Grenartia]

Well that's the thing Gren, if it's really a fortnight tops between new substantive topics that "test" I stuck at the end would conclude "okay, the trans thread stays". But I think it probably survives on the other prong, ie it's possible to define a cohesive topic for it. I mean, the only time I remember using it was to see what people thought about the song Lola. It seems to me that it's really a thread that, following the pattern of titles I was using for the hypothetical threads, might reasonably be called "the trans experience and identity".

And what of the other threads I mentioned?

[Katganistan]

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?

It is the poster, not third parties, who are able to file appeals. Also, some of the information on why a person was DEAT, if it was not explicitly made public, is private and for the player to disseminate if they wish, not the mod team.

[Sedgistan]

A bit harsh. As has been mentioned in the OP of this very thread "right wing" is a broad church comprising a vast range of different viewpoints. We're not all jackbooted Nazis looking for some minorities to oppress.

I'm very much aware of that, and I apologize if you think I think that way. But I think the Secret Hitler analogy is a very apt one to make. As a diehard socialist, I could care less about whether or not socialism or capitalism is more represented on the modteam. But I absolutely draw the line at individuals who think people who don't have the same religion, ideology, sexual orientation, gender identity, ability, citizenship status, or race/ethnicity shouldn't have basic human rights.

And I'm not entirely convinced the userbase of the RWDT wouldn't nominate individuals like that.

One way to counteract that concern would be to nominate any right-leaning players you're familiar with who you know don't show views of those sorts, and might make a good mod. There's no reason why someone who is socially conservative couldn't moderate the forums justly*, but yes an outright misogynist or racist, for example, would likely be a problem since it is important that mods are able to to treat players fairly.

*I'm out of touch these days with where my fellow mods' political views lie, for the most part, but there certainly have been socially conservative mods in the past who did the job well and fairly.

[The New California Republic]

Can you point out a single instance of a mod having their judgment in a ruling impaired by their politics?

I know of one current mod who's previously stated moderation methodology is highly suspect. I'd trust them to smite spambots and pornposters, but I'm less inclined to trust their opinion on flaming and trolling when the target is a minority.

But if a Mod consistently did that—for example let repeated trolling about, let's say, gay people slide, and subsequent Mods rule it actionable on appeal—then I doubt they'd last long.

[Forsher]

Well that's the thing Gren, if it's really a fortnight tops between new substantive topics that "test" I stuck at the end would conclude "okay, the trans thread stays". But I think it probably survives on the other prong, ie it's possible to define a cohesive topic for it. I mean, the only time I remember using it was to see what people thought about the song Lola. It seems to me that it's really a thread that, following the pattern of titles I was using for the hypothetical threads, might reasonably be called "the trans experience and identity".

And what of the other threads I mentioned?

You tell me. Do they have cohesive topics? I don't think I have used them at all. For all I know they're more user experience threads, eg "today in confession Father Brah gave me 4000 hail Mary's and 49 keg stands" or "I hate the balance in the King James patch and want another, any suggestions?'

[Souseiseki]

the only poster i know that fits the criteria of "right-wing" and "good mod" didn't want to be nominated so that was the end of that i suppose

[Forsher]

I know of one current mod who's previously stated moderation methodology is highly suspect. I'd trust them to smite spambots and pornposters, but I'm less inclined to trust their opinion on flaming and trolling when the target is a minority.

But if a Mod consistently did that—for example let repeated trolling about, let's say, gay people slide, and subsequent Mods rule it actionable on appeal—then I doubt they'd last long.

In the long run we're all dead.

Sure that's true I reckon, but what about all the times before that happens? Is that pain forgiven or forgotten by the time they're sacked? I doubt it.

[Katganistan]

Can you point out a single instance of a mod having their judgment in a ruling impaired by their politics?

I know of one current mod who's previously stated moderation methodology is highly suspect. I'd trust them to smite spambots and pornposters, but I'm less inclined to trust their opinion on flaming and trolling when the target is a minority.

What's this now?

[Souseiseki]

I know of one current mod who's previously stated moderation methodology is highly suspect. I'd trust them to smite spambots and pornposters, but I'm less inclined to trust their opinion on flaming and trolling when the target is a minority.

What's this now?

if people actually tried posting their greivances with specific mods openly in this thread you'd tell them to hush it and file a GHR or something so like why even ask

[Dumb Ideologies]

A bit harsh. As has been mentioned in the OP of this very thread "right wing" is a broad church comprising a vast range of different viewpoints. We're not all jackbooted Nazis looking for some minorities to oppress.

I'm very much aware of that, and I apologize if you think I think that way. But I think the Secret Hitler analogy is a very apt one to make. As a diehard socialist, I could care less about whether or not socialism or capitalism is more represented on the modteam. But I absolutely draw the line at individuals who think people who don't have the same religion, ideology, sexual orientation, gender identity, ability, citizenship status, or race/ethnicity shouldn't have basic human rights.

And I'm not entirely convinced the userbase of the RWDT wouldn't nominate individuals like that.

The devil is in the detail here. The point at which views becomes them not respecting a group's "basic human rights" will depend on how expansive your definition of basic human rights is.

At one extreme wanting them to be murdered (likely to involve the sort of posting history that reasonably disqualifies someone from being a mod) then perhaps only some hiterist or stalinist types get ruled out.

On the other hand, some people think everyone has the basic human right to have their identities be respected and "validated" which in the most extreme interpretations might rule out most religious people, anyone who believes in border control, or anyone who is sceptical and uneasy with neopronouns. In which case you're limiting new mods to the libertarian left corner and thus inevitably ensuring that the moderation team is very unrepresentative of mainstream political opinion and therefore quite possibly going to have unintentional institutional bias in what it views to be actionable. If the definition leans that way then that's a harmful level of restriction; a second opinion on what's "unreasonable" in behaviour works better if there are people with different principles who can be consulted and highlight potential grey areas.

[Grenartia]

I'm very much aware of that, and I apologize if you think I think that way. But I think the Secret Hitler analogy is a very apt one to make. As a diehard socialist, I could care less about whether or not socialism or capitalism is more represented on the modteam. But I absolutely draw the line at individuals who think people who don't have the same religion, ideology, sexual orientation, gender identity, ability, citizenship status, or race/ethnicity shouldn't have basic human rights.

And I'm not entirely convinced the userbase of the RWDT wouldn't nominate individuals like that.

One way to counteract that concern would be to nominate any right-leaning players you're familiar with who you know don't show views of those sorts, and might make a good mod. There's no reason why someone who is socially conservative couldn't moderate the forums justly*, but yes an outright misogynist or racist, for example, would likely be a problem since it is important that mods are able to to treat players fairly.

*I'm out of touch these days with where my fellow mods' political views lie, for the most part, but there certainly have been socially conservative mods in the past who did the job well and fairly.

I'll do that. Also, I've thought of a suggestion of my own. A player-based oversight committee. One that can screen potential moderation recruits to make sure they don't show such biases, and to make sure political biases don't make their way into moderation decisions. Kind of like GenSec.

I know of one current mod who's previously stated moderation methodology is highly suspect. I'd trust them to smite spambots and pornposters, but I'm less inclined to trust their opinion on flaming and trolling when the target is a minority.

But if a Mod consistently did that—for example let repeated trolling about, let's say, gay people slide, and subsequent Mods rule it actionable on appeal—then I doubt they'd last long.

Yeah, well you know what they say about one bad apple ruining the whole bunch.

And what of the other threads I mentioned?

You tell me. Do they have cohesive topics? I don't think I have used them at all. For all I know they're more user experience threads, eg "today in confession Father Brah gave me 4000 hail Mary's and 49 keg stands" or "I hate the balance in the King James patch and want another, any suggestions?'

I mean, that's admittedly a fair criticism of the CDT. I think a workable solution would be a sub-subforum for these threads, kind of like how A&F has sub-subfora for NS cards and NS trivia. And threads about those subjects that pop up on NSG could get merged into the relevant thread in the sub-subforum.

[The New California Republic]

Can you point out a single instance of a mod having their judgment in a ruling impaired by their politics?

Yeah I haven’t seen mods banning people out of politics. I keep hearing about a mod ten years ago or something who went insane after George Bush won

They went off the deep end in general (the Mod in question even banned themselves at one point, that's how far gone they were), so I'm inclined to say that even they don't count.

[Grenartia]

What's this now?

if people actually tried posting their greivances with specific mods openly in this thread you'd tell them to hush it and file a GHR or something so like why even ask

That's why I didn't specify their name or gender. Or even mention the methodology that I feel is concerning. I can assure you the mod in question is not Kat or Sedge.

Edit: clarification.

[Katganistan]

if people actually tried posting their greivances with specific mods openly in this thread you'd tell them to hush it and file a GHR or something so like why even ask

That's why I didn't specify their name or gender. Or even mention the methodology that I feel is concerning. I can assure you the mod in question is not Kat or Sedge.

Edit: clarification.

I appreciate being circumspect, Grenartia, but a GHR or telegram would be helpful. Presented this way we don't have any way to address it being a problem with how the mod team works, or how to resolve it.

[Grenartia]

That's why I didn't specify their name or gender. Or even mention the methodology that I feel is concerning. I can assure you the mod in question is not Kat or Sedge.

Edit: clarification.

I appreciate being circumspect, Grenartia, but a GHR or telegram would be helpful. Presented this way we don't have any way to address it being a problem with how the mod team works, or how to resolve it.

I'll dig up the relevant links, and TG to you so that the mod I'm referring to doesn't see the GHR.

[Proctopeo]

There was a push to diversify the mods politically a while back, wasn't there? IMO it did help, even if it was only partially successful.
In any case I can think of two more towards the right posters I'd nominate to help balance out the overwhelmingly center-leftness of the mod team.

I have concerns about specifically promoting any right-wingers to modhood without ascertaining whether or not they have any biases against minority groups. We don't need a Parkus or OEP on the modteam.

That's just a ridiculous way of thinking tbh.

Can you point out a single instance of a mod having their judgment in a ruling impaired by their politics?

I know of one current mod who's previously stated moderation methodology is highly suspect. I'd trust them to smite spambots and pornposters, but I'm less inclined to trust their opinion on flaming and trolling when the target is a minority.

Sounds more like you have a personal vendetta against one particular moderator to me.

[Diopolis]

I have concerns about specifically promoting any right-wingers to modhood without ascertaining whether or not they have any biases against minority groups. We don't need a Parkus or OEP on the modteam.

That's just a ridiculous way of thinking tbh.

I know of one current mod who's previously stated moderation methodology is highly suspect. I'd trust them to smite spambots and pornposters, but I'm less inclined to trust their opinion on flaming and trolling when the target is a minority.

Sounds more like you have a personal vendetta against one particular moderator to me.

We all have mods we don't like. There's no need to start a vendetta about it.

[Esternial]

That's just a ridiculous way of thinking tbh.


Sounds more like you have a personal vendetta against one particular moderator to me.

We all have mods we don't like. There's no need to start a vendetta about it.

I'd leave that up to the Mods to evaluate internally rather than make any judgement calls either way.

None of us other than Grenartia and (I assume will be the case soon) the Moderation team have the details.

[Santheres]

We all have mods we don't like. There's no need to start a vendetta about it.

I'd leave that up to the Mods to evaluate internally rather than make any judgement calls either way.

None of us other than Grenartia and (I assume will be the case soon) the Moderation team have the details.

Honestly, since this is between staff and Grenartia, there's no need to discuss it further right now. Everyone is literally in the dark, and further speculation with zero information doesn't do anyone any good.