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

[Saiwania]

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

I'd be a terrible Moderator because I don't want to do anything unless I absolutely have to, such as if an illegal image was uploaded and the website needs to take it off immediately to appease the laws in real life. In countries where antisemitism is illegal, that has to be taken down or acted against in much the same manner.

In those cases, I see nothing wrong with addressing that with vigilence. Similarly, if a rule is a rule it probably does have to be enforced despite my misgivings or disagreement. I'd want to defer to some other Mod who's more willing to enforce that rule if possible, whilst wanting myself to specialize in acting against stuff I have no sympathies towards that is more serious in scope- in terms of it having no possible upside for the website such as users trying to do doxxing.

For me, more free speech and not less, is a feature rather than a con, because my bias is that everyone else should be just as resistant to cyberbullying tactics from others online and etc. as I am. I perhaps am insensitive and a renegade in terms of not going strictly by the book, but in having an overly expansive view of what can be permitted whilst having a more narrow vision of what definitely isn't allowed.

[Diopolis]

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

I'd be a terrible Moderator because I don't want to do anything unless I absolutely have to, such as if an illegal image was uploaded and the website needs to take it off immediately to appease the laws in real life. In countries where antisemitism is illegal, that has to be taken down or acted against in much the same manner.

In those cases, I see nothing wrong with addressing that with vigilence. Similarly, if a rule is a rule it probably does have to be enforced despite my misgivings or disagreement. I'd want to defer to some other Mod who's more willing to enforce that rule if possible, whilst wanting myself to specialize in acting against stuff I have no sympathies towards that is more serious in scope- in terms of it having no possible upside for the website such as users trying to do doxxing.

For me, more free speech and not less, is a feature rather than a con, because my bias is that everyone else should be just as resistant to cyberbulling tactics from others online and etc. as I am. I perhaps am insensitive and a renegade in terms of not going strictly by the book, but in having an overly expansive view of what can be permitted whilst having a more narrow vision of what definitely isn't allowed.

Let's say you're the mod called on for a second opinion(I have no idea if this is how the system works, but for the sake of hypothetical let's assume it is).

[Giovenith]

For the record, we already do have (and have had) right-wing and conservative mods. Sedgistan for example, and until recently, Kyrusia. There are also plenty of well known posters on the right with exemplary records and reputations. There are plenty of left wing and centrist users with poor reputations, and those who have no reputation because they got themselves deleted quickly due to bad behavior. We also try, in general, to appoint those who have shown a level head and tolerance towards difference of opinion, and our right wing mods are part of judging that process, as they are in all decision making processes.

[Saiwania]

Let's say you're the mod called on for a second opinion(I have no idea if this is how the system works, but for the sake of hypothetical let's assume it is).

Anything that is in dispute, I want to favor the user being accused by default- if the rule isn't clear more than 50% on it not being allowed. The staff of the website should be clear on and know what is allowed and what isn't. The only way to determine that is through experience and making decisions designed to close that problem or allow for it, if it won't hurt the website more than help it. Strict constructionism is the way to go I feel. But in any case, I'm too neglectful and passive to be a person best fit for the role. I care more about bad actions/behavior than bad posting if its just words/fringe politics. That is all I'll say on this matter.

[Grenartia]

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

I'd be a terrible Moderator because I don't want to do anything unless I absolutely have to, such as if an illegal image was uploaded and the website needs to take it off immediately to appease the laws in real life. In countries where antisemitism is illegal, that has to be taken down or acted against in much the same manner.

In those cases, I see nothing wrong with addressing that with vigilence. Similarly, if a rule is a rule it probably does have to be enforced despite my misgivings or disagreement. I'd want to defer to some other Mod who's more willing to enforce that rule if possible, whilst wanting myself to specialize in acting against stuff I have no sympathies towards that is more serious in scope- in terms of it having no possible upside for the website such as users trying to do doxxing.

For me, more free speech and not less, is a feature rather than a con, because my bias is that everyone else should be just as resistant to cyberbullying tactics from others online and etc. as I am. I perhaps am insensitive and a renegade in terms of not going strictly by the book, but in having an overly expansive view of what can be permitted whilst having a more narrow vision of what definitely isn't allowed.

Its a simple yes or no question. You don't need 3 damn paragraphs to answer it. That alone is telling enough.

[Grenartia]

For the record, we already do have (and have had) right-wing and conservative mods. Sedgistan for example, and until recently, Kyrusia. There are also plenty of well known posters on the right with exemplary records and reputations. There are plenty of left wing and centrist users with poor reputations, and those who have no reputation because they got themselves deleted quickly due to bad behavior. We also try, in general, to appoint those who have shown a level head and tolerance towards difference of opinion, and our right wing mods are part of judging that process, as they are in all decision making processes.

IMO, Kyru was an excellent mod.

[The New California Republic]

But again most of this talk of the political leanings of individual Mods is largely irrelevant anyway, as I have yet to see a single instance of that interfering with their duty to make fair rulings on the basis of a sound interpretation of the rules.

Unless the primary reason for bringing it up is that some forum users just wouldn't like or trust a Mod solely on the basis of a Mod's political leanings, irrespective of whether it'd actually affect their rulings or not? If that's the case, then it's more of a problem at the user end (a "you" problem) than at the Moderation end.

[Grenartia]

But again most of this talk of the political leanings of individual Mods is largely irrelevant anyway, as I have yet to see a single instance of that interfering with their duty to make fair rulings on the basis of a sound interpretation of the rules.

Unless the primary reason for bringing it up is that some forum users just wouldn't like or trust a Mod solely on the basis of a Mod's political leanings, irrespective of whether it'd actually affect their rulings or not? If that's the case, then it's more of a problem at the user end (a "you" problem) than at the Moderation end.

Apparently, its enough of a problem among the RWDT user base that it has evolved from an individual problem into a community one.

And, since one of their proclaimed remedies is "more right-wing mods", I have to be concerned that if such an action were taken, those new mods would be guilty of the very thing the RWDT claims the current roster is guilty of.

[Cisairse]

But again most of this talk of the political leanings of individual Mods is largely irrelevant anyway, as I have yet to see a single instance of that interfering with their duty to make fair rulings on the basis of a sound interpretation of the rules.

Unless the primary reason for bringing it up is that some forum users just wouldn't like or trust a Mod solely on the basis of a Mod's political leanings, irrespective of whether it'd actually affect their rulings or not? If that's the case, then it's more of a problem at the user end (a "you" problem) than at the Moderation end.

I may be wrong about this but I believe the discussion began with the mod team saying they can't "monitor" the RWDT, to which a natural response would be "Why not?" considering mods regularly engage with the community in other NSG threads. While definitely a misguided solution, "more right-wing mods" kinda makes sense as a response to that issue in particular (even though RWDT was mostly leftists).

[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.

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.

fair enough. i don't think i was in the RWDT at the time or personally involved with many of the regulars, so i was unfamiliar. i can see where nap was coming from, but it was definitely excessive. i don't think several of the posters agreeing with that is grounds for the thread to be permanently locked - which, it wasn't according to the mods, but the way you're framing it makes it seem like it was the starting point for this.
apologies for the late reply - i was briefly banned and therefore couldn't respond.

[Cekoviu]

But again most of this talk of the political leanings of individual Mods is largely irrelevant anyway, as I have yet to see a single instance of that interfering with their duty to make fair rulings on the basis of a sound interpretation of the rules.

Unless the primary reason for bringing it up is that some forum users just wouldn't like or trust a Mod solely on the basis of a Mod's political leanings, irrespective of whether it'd actually affect their rulings or not? If that's the case, then it's more of a problem at the user end (a "you" problem) than at the Moderation end.

Apparently, its enough of a problem among the RWDT user base that it has evolved from an individual problem into a community one.

And, since one of their proclaimed remedies is "more right-wing mods", I have to be concerned that if such an action were taken, those new mods would be guilty of the very thing the RWDT claims the current roster is guilty of.

this seems like your political bias clouding your judgment, ironically. there are a number of RWDT participants and other right-wingers who could certainly moderate fairly (of whom i am probably not one, to be candid), perhaps even more so than some of our current mods.

[Grenartia]

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.

fair enough. i don't think i was in the RWDT at the time or personally involved with many of the regulars, so i was unfamiliar. i can see where nap was coming from, but it was definitely excessive. i don't think several of the posters agreeing with that is grounds for the thread to be permanently locked - which, it wasn't according to the mods, but the way you're framing it makes it seem like it was the starting point for this.
apologies for the late reply - i was briefly banned and therefore couldn't respond.

Its definitely not the sole grounds, and its not the starting point, but its definitely one of the more blatant cases for why.

Apparently, its enough of a problem among the RWDT user base that it has evolved from an individual problem into a community one.

And, since one of their proclaimed remedies is "more right-wing mods", I have to be concerned that if such an action were taken, those new mods would be guilty of the very thing the RWDT claims the current roster is guilty of.

this seems like your political bias clouding your judgment, ironically. there are a number of RWDT participants and other right-wingers who could certainly moderate fairly (of whom i am probably not one, to be candid), perhaps even more so than some of our current mods.

If anything colors my appraisal of the core of the RWDT's ability to be fair mods, it isn't my political bias. Its my, and my friends', experience with that hellhole.

Right now, I can only think of 4 regular posters there who would be decent mods. Only 2 of them I would consider actually right wing. You are not one of those two, but you are one of the 4. There would have been a 5th, but he unfortunately suicided by mod at the start of this thread.

[Diopolis]

But again most of this talk of the political leanings of individual Mods is largely irrelevant anyway, as I have yet to see a single instance of that interfering with their duty to make fair rulings on the basis of a sound interpretation of the rules.

Unless the primary reason for bringing it up is that some forum users just wouldn't like or trust a Mod solely on the basis of a Mod's political leanings, irrespective of whether it'd actually affect their rulings or not? If that's the case, then it's more of a problem at the user end (a "you" problem) than at the Moderation end.

I may be wrong about this but I believe the discussion began with the mod team saying they can't "monitor" the RWDT, to which a natural response would be "Why not?" considering mods regularly engage with the community in other NSG threads. While definitely a misguided solution, "more right-wing mods" kinda makes sense as a response to that issue in particular (even though RWDT was mostly leftists).

The RWDT was mostly authoritarian, some of whom were leftists.
It was not necessarily a friendly place to the libertarians who were more common among the broader fora and on the mod team.

[An Alan Smithee Nation]

You would think authoritarians would approve of the mods coming down hard on problem threads.

[Katganistan]

You would think authoritarians would approve of the mods coming down hard on problem threads.

Authority is great when practiced on thee, but not on me, I suppose.

[Cekoviu]

You would think authoritarians would approve of the mods coming down hard on problem threads.

here's a tip: authoritarianism applies to political systems, not private companies, and authoritarians can still support reason and consistency

[Giovenith]

You would think authoritarians would approve of the mods coming down hard on problem threads.

Well... I didn't want to say it.

[Syberis]

You would think authoritarians would approve of the mods coming down hard on problem threads.

here's a tip: authoritarianism applies to political systems, not private companies, and authoritarians can still support reason and consistency

As long as they agree with said reason, obviously.

[The Greater Ohio Valley]

You would think authoritarians would approve of the mods coming down hard on problem threads.

Indeed, there's definitely a bit of irony there.

You would think authoritarians would approve of the mods coming down hard on problem threads.

Authority is great when practiced on thee, but not on me, I suppose.

A better way of putting it, IMO, would be "authority for me but not for thee".

[Grenartia]

You would think authoritarians would approve of the mods coming down hard on problem threads.

Indeed, there's definitely a bit of irony there.

Authority is great when practiced on thee, but not on me, I suppose.

A better way of putting it, IMO, would be "authority for me but not for thee".

Authoritarianism is political sadomasochism, change my mind.

[Hakons]

You would think authoritarians would approve of the mods coming down hard on problem threads.

Authority is great when practiced on thee, but not on me, I suppose.

Why do moderation figures think this is an appropriate way to interact in this thread? Political snipes don’t dissuade our concerns, they aggravate them.

[Giovenith]

You would think authoritarians would approve of the mods coming down hard on problem threads.

here's a tip: authoritarianism applies to political systems, not private companies, and authoritarians can still support reason and consistency

A note of clarity: NationStates is not a company. It is not for profit and it does not have paid employees. It is private property, essentially the virtual equivalent of an owned house, in which we are frequent house guests. Much like a house, the owner is under no obligation to let us inside or respect our wishes in regards to how the household is run. In this way, we actually have less rights or obligations towards us here than a citizen in an authoritarian nation, and you certainly don't have any consumer rights either since you are not a "customer" -- once again, the site is not for profit, and participation is free. If Max Barry decided to shut down the forums and regions completely, delete all of our nations, and turn this entire website into another generic book advertising site, that would be perfectly within his rights, and he would lose nothing besides another chore in keeping this place running. NationStates is, categorically and legally speaking, no different from this site.

Users should take care not mistake Max Barry's graciousness for us being owed "rights" on this site. We do not have a right to be here, we do not have a right to say or do whatever we want, we do not have a right to be included in the decision-making process, we do not even have a right to be treated fairly. This isn't an organization, it isn't a government, it isn't a company or business, it is private property.

That is not to say that your input isn't wanted or appreciated, we have made it clear that it is. But it is important to maintain proper perspective and not conflate things that the owner wants to do for things that he has to do -- graciousness is a two way street.

[Dawn Denac]

I think an important thing to note here is that these megathreads were shut down for the explicit reason people are unable to control themselves and abide by site rules. Like Giovenith stated above, NationStates is a private property that Max owns and allows to run as it currently is. The decisions to shut down these threads were likely made with I assume his permission in the matter, or likely a request from himself. The staff work with no pay and often very little gratitude from a majority of people in order to tend to this place we're simply frequenting for fun. I don't agree with some of the NS Staff team's actions over the years (2015 was my start) but for the most part they do their best (and I know how hard it is to be a staff member from previous experiences, no not NS Staff before people ask). I'm sure people will label this as some brown-nosing post, but the rules are simple and they weren't obeyed. This site should be a safe spot to debate politics within reason, and if you cannot follow the rules, you see what happens now.

It's worth noting especially that this decision was made in a fairly turbulent global time, which may of served as a catalyst for the megathread decision. If you're upset about the megathreads poofing, you're not unable to go to other sites like Discord or Tapatalk or whatever forums/VOIP you want to use to do such.

EDIT: Small detail

[Grenartia]

Authority is great when practiced on thee, but not on me, I suppose.

Why do moderation figures think this is an appropriate way to interact in this thread? Political snipes don’t dissuade our concerns, they aggravate them.

You've gotta admit there's a certain palpable irony, and even a blatant hypocrisy, in calling for the jackboot to come down on society in general, and then to whine, cry, and complain about your favorite internet hangout having a jackboot come down on it.

[Katganistan]

Authority is great when practiced on thee, but not on me, I suppose.

Why do moderation figures think this is an appropriate way to interact in this thread? Political snipes don’t dissuade our concerns, they aggravate them.

So now I am not allowed to respond and agree with a poster, because you perceive that as negative.

Yet people also are asking for moderators to interact more with the posters.

So which is it? Unless perhaps it is the point to find something with which to be perpetually aggravated?