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

[Grenartia]

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.

This isn't a vendetta. The mod in question has never, as far as I can remember, made any ruling against me. As I said, they have simply said things about their moderation process that I find concerning. However, Santh is entirely correct that this is barely relevant to the topic of discussion.

I'd much rather hear thoughts on my recent suggestions than baseless speculation about vendettas.

[USS Monitor]

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

I think this is an issue with transparency. It's pretty common to see people saying "one mod" this or "certain mods" that, but without getting specific about who and what they're referring to, it does not help the issue get resolved.

I understand that it's a bit tricky because things can get more personal and more heated when you start naming names, but sometimes people have legitimate concerns that can't be addressed properly without naming names. If someone has evidence of flagrant abuse or wants to appeal an individual ruling, they can GHR it, but there's no outlet to address general long-term issues with someone's moderating style.

I understand you don't want to have the Spanish Inquisition every time a player gets mad at the mod who banned them, and I understand that sometimes the reason why a mod gets more complaints is just because they are more active, but the side effect is that long term low key problems are allowed to fester unaddressed.

[Grenartia]

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 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.

Any thoughts on these ideas?

[USS Monitor]

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 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.

Any thoughts on these ideas?

It wouldn't take long for people to start bickering over who should be on the oversight committee. I don't see that being useful enough to justify the added bureaucracy.

[Diopolis]

Any thoughts on these ideas?

It wouldn't take long for people to start bickering over who should be on the oversight committee. I don't see that being useful enough to justify the added bureaucracy.

The mods are also never going to allow that.
Moving these kinds of threads to a separate subforum- Discussion and Identity or similar- might not be a bad idea.

[Grenartia]

Any thoughts on these ideas?

It wouldn't take long for people to start bickering over who should be on the oversight committee. I don't see that being useful enough to justify the added bureaucracy.

That is an admitted weakness, though the same thing applies to GenSec. I realize GenSec isn't as serious as an oversight committee, but the concept is adaptable for the purpose. I think the bickering could be mostly reduced by a nomination (and election) process and an explicit requirement to represent the more common sides of NS (i.e., left v right, libertarian v authoritarian, raider v defender, etc.). Basically, just an organization of regular players that can reduce temper tantrums like we've seen in this thread, or even prevent them in the first place.

[Esternial]

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 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.

Any thoughts on these ideas?

I agree with Monitor on the committee.

As for the sub-subforums, I do see some potential in the idea, all this stuff aside. Sometimes I personally get annoyed about all these Americans and their American politics and American arguments clogging up General.

Might be nice to kind of identify certain major (and easily definable) categories that might dominate the main page and give them their own sub-subforum (e.g. politics) to leave room for threads that focus more on "fait divers"...ehh, smaller more topical threads. For your daily newsbits and heated tea debates, you could just go into the main general page. For boring repeating of the same pro/anti gun control arguments, go...there. Maybe give the "Language X discussion topics" a space as well.

Might be a challenge for folks to adapt to, though.

[Santheres]

It wouldn't take long for people to start bickering over who should be on the oversight committee. I don't see that being useful enough to justify the added bureaucracy.

That is an admitted weakness, though the same thing applies to GenSec. I realize GenSec isn't as serious as an oversight committee, but the concept is adaptable for the purpose. I think the bickering could be mostly reduced by a nomination (and election) process and an explicit requirement to represent the more common sides of NS (i.e., left v right, libertarian v authoritarian, raider v defender, etc.). Basically, just an organization of regular players that can reduce temper tantrums like we've seen in this thread, or even prevent them in the first place.

This is what comes to mind to me personally when I read this suggestion, noting I lack red text on purpose.

Who would you imagine being on this committee? How would they be appointed? At what point should we consider that if they have to be vetted and everything, they might as well just be on the mod team instead? I don't particularly see the value-add in this.

[Fartsniffage]

That is an admitted weakness, though the same thing applies to GenSec. I realize GenSec isn't as serious as an oversight committee, but the concept is adaptable for the purpose. I think the bickering could be mostly reduced by a nomination (and election) process and an explicit requirement to represent the more common sides of NS (i.e., left v right, libertarian v authoritarian, raider v defender, etc.). Basically, just an organization of regular players that can reduce temper tantrums like we've seen in this thread, or even prevent them in the first place.

This is what comes to mind to me personally when I read this suggestion, noting I lack red text on purpose.

Who would you imagine being on this committee? How would they be appointed? At what point should we consider that if they have to be vetted and everything, they might as well just be on the mod team instead? I don't particularly see the value-add in this.

There are people in the past who have been offered modship be declined to take it. That kind of person maybe?

Not really sure since I don't see the point of the committee anyway. But that kind of person would make sense.

[Katganistan]

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 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.

Any thoughts on these ideas?

Any more subforums are extremely unlikely to be formed.

[Grenartia]

Any thoughts on these ideas?

I agree with Monitor on the committee.

As for the sub-subforums, I do see some potential in the idea, all this stuff aside. Sometimes I personally get annoyed about all these Americans and their American politics and American arguments clogging up General.

Might be nice to kind of identify certain major (and easily definable) categories that might dominate the main page and give them their own sub-subforum (e.g. politics) to leave room for threads that focus more on "fait divers"...ehh, smaller more topical threads. For your daily newsbits and heated tea debates, you could just go into the main general page. For boring repeating of the same pro/anti gun control arguments, go...there. Maybe give the "Language X discussion topics" a space as well.

Might be a challenge for folks to adapt to, though.

I'll admit, it would be a minor challenge at first, but so were a lot of other things, such as TET, the 500 page limit, etc.

That is an admitted weakness, though the same thing applies to GenSec. I realize GenSec isn't as serious as an oversight committee, but the concept is adaptable for the purpose. I think the bickering could be mostly reduced by a nomination (and election) process and an explicit requirement to represent the more common sides of NS (i.e., left v right, libertarian v authoritarian, raider v defender, etc.). Basically, just an organization of regular players that can reduce temper tantrums like we've seen in this thread, or even prevent them in the first place.

This is what comes to mind to me personally when I read this suggestion, noting I lack red text on purpose.

Who would you imagine being on this committee?

Regular, well-established posters. People who aren't noobs who just joined yesterday.

How would they be appointed?

Nomination for a pool of candidates, and an election to actually appoint them.

At what point should we consider that if they have to be vetted and everything, they might as well just be on the mod team instead? I don't particularly see the value-add in this.

The value-add is that they aren't mods, and can provide independent oversight that will hopefully smooth over kerfluffles such as this, and other controversies involving moderation, in a way that actual site staff might not be able to, by virtue of being site staff (who would be perceived as forming a 'thin red line' as it were).

I trust the vast majority of the current mod roster to make the correct decisions, but it is plainly apparent that a significant and vocal portion of people do not, and as far as I can see, the only effective way to change that is with independent, non-staff oversight. I think once that trust issue is rectified, the circling of wagons around toxic community members and reluctance to report them will dissolve away.

There are people in the past who have been offered modship be declined to take it. That kind of person maybe?

Not really sure since I don't see the point of the committee anyway. But that kind of person would make sense.

That's a definite possibility for people who would be good candidates, though not exclusively them.

Any thoughts on these ideas?

Any more subforums are extremely unlikely to be formed.

Noted, though it definitely seems to be the suggestion of mine with the broadest support.

[Salandriagado]

That is an admitted weakness, though the same thing applies to GenSec. I realize GenSec isn't as serious as an oversight committee, but the concept is adaptable for the purpose. I think the bickering could be mostly reduced by a nomination (and election) process and an explicit requirement to represent the more common sides of NS (i.e., left v right, libertarian v authoritarian, raider v defender, etc.). Basically, just an organization of regular players that can reduce temper tantrums like we've seen in this thread, or even prevent them in the first place.

This is what comes to mind to me personally when I read this suggestion, noting I lack red text on purpose.

Who would you imagine being on this committee? How would they be appointed? At what point should we consider that if they have to be vetted and everything, they might as well just be on the mod team instead? I don't particularly see the value-add in this.

It seems to me that anybody who would be a good candidate for that committee would also be a solid mod candidate. The only people that I can think of would be retired mods or people who were offered mod positions but declined, which seems like a very small recruiting pool.

[Saiwania]

The RWDT had, basically, what amounted to its own "blue wall of silence". Since moderation does not take a pro-active approach in most cases, it relies on reports to deal with stuff. I have some problems with how moderation approaches its own user-base - such as some members being unnecessarily hostile towards players - but to imply that the RWDT was a place that certainly behaved according to the site rules in good faith, is a bit disingenious.

What else is RWDT supposed to do if Moderation is intent on silencing any right wing opinion that is too radical by default, as a result of Max's vision for what this website should be? (Which personally, I consider to be very flawed- but that is besides the point). In those sorts of threads, a crackdown on one portion of the ideology can be more easily perceived as an attack on all of it as a whole. Hence people get more scared if not mistrustful- thinking that they can perhaps be next. And this isn't always unwarranted if that what was previously accepted here often isn't later on.

Unless I'm in error: I don't see it specified anywhere in the rules that users are required to report any rules violations on the part of other users, given that there are plenty of other users here who will report to Moderation on any matter. If it is not in someone's conscience, they ultimately can't be compelled to post about any thing in particular. Hence, the "circling the wagons" argument is invalid reasoning for closing those threads if the same behavior can be observed anywhere else on this website. That is my interpretation.

If there was any desire at all to sweep incidents "under the rug" it was to try resolving the matter internally and for Moderation's benefit in that they wouldn't have to trouble themselves in acting on every incident provided it was still minor enough in scope as to not require intervention or otherwise be a problem effecting anything outside the boundaries of those threads.

Without those two megathreads, the user experience has been diminished enough to the point where this website as a whole; will prove less popular in terms of traffic and interest.

[Grenartia]

This is what comes to mind to me personally when I read this suggestion, noting I lack red text on purpose.

Who would you imagine being on this committee? How would they be appointed? At what point should we consider that if they have to be vetted and everything, they might as well just be on the mod team instead? I don't particularly see the value-add in this.

It seems to me that anybody who would be a good candidate for that committee would also be a solid mod candidate.

Again, the issue isn't a lack of mods, its a lack of trust in moderation as an institution.

[Diopolis]

The RWDT had, basically, what amounted to its own "blue wall of silence". Since moderation does not take a pro-active approach in most cases, it relies on reports to deal with stuff. I have some problems with how moderation approaches its own user-base - such as some members being unnecessarily hostile towards players - but to imply that the RWDT was a place that certainly behaved according to the site rules in good faith, is a bit disingenious.

What else is RWDT supposed to do if Moderation is intent on silencing any right wing opinion that is too radical by default, as a result of Max's vision for what this website should be? (Which personally, I consider to be very flawed- but that is besides the point). I don't see it specified anywhere in the rules that users are required to report any rules violations on the part of other users, given that there are plenty of other users here who will report to Moderation on any matter. If it is not in someone's conscience, they ultimately can't be compelled to post about any thing in particular. Hence, the "circling the wagons" argument is invalid reasoning for closing those threads if the same behavior can be observed anywhere else on this website. That is my interpretation.

If there was any desire at all to sweep incidents "under the rug" it was to try resolving the matter internally and for Moderation's benefit in that they wouldn't have to trouble themselves in acting on every incident provided it was still minor enough in scope as to not require intervention or otherwise be a problem effecting anything outside the boundaries of those threads.

Without those two megathreads, the user experience has been diminished enough to the point where this website as a whole; will prove less popular in terms of traffic and interest.

The problem with the RWDT wasn't that we didn't make reports.
It was that certain posters flamed posters who did.

[WayNeacTia]

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.

Just because someone is nominated, doesn't automatically grant them mod status. I am sure if they did a check of the posts of someone like that, they probably wouldn't mod them.

[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.

Just because someone is nominated, doesn't automatically grant them mod status. I am sure if they did a check of the posts of someone like that, they probably wouldn't mod them.

Well, normally, yes, but there is a valid concern that there might be pressure to overlook certain statements that are problematic in order to appease the RWDTers who are clamoring for a right-wing mod.

[WayNeacTia]

Just because someone is nominated, doesn't automatically grant them mod status. I am sure if they did a check of the posts of someone like that, they probably wouldn't mod them.

Well, normally, yes, but there is a valid concern that there might be pressure to overlook certain statements that are problematic in order to appease the RWDTers who are clamoring for a right-wing mod.

That's a pretty far stretch. Since when has moderation ever pandered to the will of the mob? I get you seem to have some trust issues with moderation, but I just can't see your concern as being valid.

[Grenartia]

Well, normally, yes, but there is a valid concern that there might be pressure to overlook certain statements that are problematic in order to appease the RWDTers who are clamoring for a right-wing mod.

That's a pretty far stretch. Since when has moderation ever pandered to the will of the mob? I get you seem to have some trust issues with moderation,

I trust the vast majority of the current mod roster to make the correct decisions

but I just can't see your concern as being valid.

There is the perception that moderation has a left of center bias (completely undeserved, based on my observations). They do not (for completely understandable reasons) like that perception, and do a lot to avoid feeding into it. That's the reason why the LWDT was locked down along with the far more troublesome RWDT.

[Saiwania]

A Nazi mod is valid in my opinion, provided their posting history is 100% clean. Only its impossible to abide by the established rules here whilst still adhering to neo-Nazism as an ideology generally speaking. The only other barriers are perhaps Max himself and [violet] and any existing Moderators and precedents as it applies to their ranks in terms of people they accept.

Hence, the only way I see it happening is if neo-Nazi sentiments were never expressed here to begin with. They certainly can't be neo-Nazi in alignment openly, even if given power if they want to keep it.

[Grenartia]

A Nazi mod is valid in my opinion, provided their posting history is 100% clean.

Of course the forum's resident nazi would say that.

Only its impossible to abide by the established rules here whilst still adhering to neo-Nazism as an ideology generally speaking.

That's a fundamentally good thing.

The only other barriers are perhaps Max himself and [violet] and any existing Moderators and precedents as it applies to their ranks in terms of people they accept.

Hence, the only way I see it happening is if neo-Nazi sentiments were never expressed here to begin with. They certainly can't be neo-Nazi in alignment openly, even if given power if they want to keep it.

Tell me. If you were a mod, would you deem it actionable if a poster said "Gas the Jews, race war now!"?

[WayNeacTia]

That's a pretty far stretch. Since when has moderation ever pandered to the will of the mob? I get you seem to have some trust issues with moderation,

I trust the vast majority of the current mod roster to make the correct decisions

but I just can't see your concern as being valid.

There is the perception that moderation has a left of center bias (completely undeserved, based on my observations). They do not (for completely understandable reasons) like that perception, and do a lot to avoid feeding into it. That's the reason why the LWDT was locked down along with the far more troublesome RWDT.

Yes, yes.... The mods are all reds. Been hearing that argument since the beginning of time. They made Jakker a mod. He is not exactly out there on the left wing. Neither is Sedge. Sedge used to slap the left wingers in gameplay, just as hard as he used to slap the nazi's. The LWDT was very likely a casualty. I will agree with you on that. If they would have locked the right wing thread and not the left wing thread, can you just imagine the carnage? Still it is what it is. It's not coming back, no matter how many bitches and wishes are sent upon high. People are obviously steamed at the mods right now, and they are welcome to it. What is a little inappropriate is making assertions that the team would overlook a potential massive scandal, just to appoint a right wing mod as a balancer.

[Grenartia]

There is the perception that moderation has a left of center bias (completely undeserved, based on my observations). They do not (for completely understandable reasons) like that perception, and do a lot to avoid feeding into it. That's the reason why the LWDT was locked down along with the far more troublesome RWDT.

Yes, yes.... The mods are all reds. Been hearing that argument since the beginning of time. They made Jakker a mod. He is not exactly out there on the left wing. Neither is Sedge. Sedge used to slap the left wingers in gameplay, just as hard as he used to slap the nazi's. The LWDT was very likely a casualty. I will agree with you on that. If they would have locked the right wing thread and not the left wing thread, can you just imagine the carnage? Still it is what it is. It's not coming back, no matter how many bitches and wishes are sent upon high. People are obviously steamed at the mods right now, and they are welcome to it. What is a little inappropriate is making assertions that the team would overlook a potential massive scandal, just to appoint a right wing mod as a balancer.

Its still not a bad idea to publicly address the possibility, even if it is remote, to make it clear that it would cause a massive scandal if it did happen.

[WayNeacTia]

Yes, yes.... The mods are all reds. Been hearing that argument since the beginning of time. They made Jakker a mod. He is not exactly out there on the left wing. Neither is Sedge. Sedge used to slap the left wingers in gameplay, just as hard as he used to slap the nazi's. The LWDT was very likely a casualty. I will agree with you on that. If they would have locked the right wing thread and not the left wing thread, can you just imagine the carnage? Still it is what it is. It's not coming back, no matter how many bitches and wishes are sent upon high. People are obviously steamed at the mods right now, and they are welcome to it. What is a little inappropriate is making assertions that the team would overlook a potential massive scandal, just to appoint a right wing mod as a balancer.

Its still not a bad idea to publicly address the possibility, even if it is remote, to make it clear that it would cause a massive scandal if it did happen.

The point being, everyone would see right through the massive scandal. I know the moderation team are suckers for pain and cleanup duties, but even that is a bridge too far. It really isn't even worth publicly addressing, because given the fact the possibility is more remote than Pluto and it is just going to lead to another threadjack.

[Neanderthaland]

A Nazi mod is valid in my opinion,

As if there was ever any question.