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

[The Blaatschapen]

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.

I would like to argue that I am a customer. I bought in the store. https://www.nationstates.net/page=store

If I were to buy again, stamps, or a postmaster-general or so, and tomorrow Max closes the site down, I have a very good case to get my money back. Both morally, and legally in many jurisdictions.

Of course, nothing in the store applies to the forum, so that can get closed I look forward to eons of free time

[Dawn Denac]

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.

I would like to argue that I am a customer. I bought in the store. https://www.nationstates.net/page=store

If I were to buy again, stamps, or a postmaster-general or so, and tomorrow Max closes the site down, I have a very good case to get my money back. Both morally, and legally in many jurisdictions.

Of course, nothing in the store applies to the forum, so that can get closed I look forward to eons of free time

"Purchases are final and non-refundable. They don't grant exemptions from site rules, and can't be transferred or recovered from nations that are deleted by moderators. " Terms and Conditions found in the NS Store, bottom of the page. Morally? Definitely, sure. Legally? Wouldn't hold up in court sadly.

[La Xinga]

I would like to argue that I am a customer. I bought in the store. https://www.nationstates.net/page=store

If I were to buy again, stamps, or a postmaster-general or so, and tomorrow Max closes the site down, I have a very good case to get my money back. Both morally, and legally in many jurisdictions.

Of course, nothing in the store applies to the forum, so that can get closed I look forward to eons of free time

"Purchases are final and non-refundable. They don't grant exemptions from site rules, and can't be transferred or recovered from nations that are deleted by moderators. " Terms and Conditions found in the NS Store, bottom of the page. Morally? Definitely, sure. Legally? Wouldn't hold up in court sadly.

I don't really see any reason Max Berry Barry should close the site any time soon,

[Katganistan]

'Right Wing' is perhaps a matter of perspective.

As far as the majority of NSG participants are concerned, I'm 'socially liberal' on a range of issues, no doubt; but I'm also a pro-free market Orthodox Christian monarchist staunchly in favour of globalisation who's far more interested in conserving traditional socio-political structures than, say, Dominic Cummings or Steve Bannon - the latter of whom has openly compared himself to Lenin.

In any case, I think this is a bit of a distraction. There's far more of a diversity of opinions within the moderation team than many people realise. That observation crosses a range of political, social, and religious issues. Occasional jokes aside, we're not remotely a hive mind; but that - taking just one example - Neutraligon and myself have diverging views on the role of religion doesn't stop us from working together. And while some of the moderators who regularly post in NSG have fairly well-known views, there are other moderators whose views are far less well-known; I know of at least one long-established moderator who deliberately avoids sharing their political opinions even with other members of the moderation team so as to avoid any perception of bias, even internally.

We're currently very seriously looking at expanding our geographical range to improve coverage - I don't think I'm giving too much away by noting that, and I also don't mind admitting that this is a direct result of this thread - but we're unlikely to be pressured to appoint moderators on the basis that one small group, whatever their sociopolitical viewpoint, in one subsection of a much larger site thinks we need better representation of their perspective. I apologise if that seems unduly blunt; but sometimes it doesn't hurt to be open about these things.

Are there any religious mods?

Yes. The Archregimancy answered that, in part, above. Perhaps that it's not obvious who is who is actually a good thing, as it means they haven't ruled in a way that makes their affiliation noticeable.

[Strahcoin]

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?

I think that the... sub-optimal responses, which some may perceive as trolling/flaming/baiting/strawmanning, may be part of the reason why many players distrust the mods.

There were some posts in NSG where some mods seemed to laugh along with some ideologically-aligned players who posted some posts that could be perceived as rule-breaking (or borderline, at least) by those of whom the posts were making fun, but some arguably less flamey posts on the ideological opposite that resulted in warnings by some mods. (It's possible that the pre-established details and interpretations of the rules are themselves biased, however.) And while it's clear that not all rulings are motivated by personal bias, that doesn't necessarily change the perception.

[Arsenality]

A straw man fallacy occurs when someone takes another person's argument or point, distorts it or exaggerates it in some kind of extreme way, and then attacks the extreme distortion, as if that is really the claim the first person is making.

They killed the forum megathreads. They have been capricious since Jesus was young, and there is no consistency. Get used to it.

Oh, yeah, the GHR system sucks too, you never know if the same mod is just repeating themselves, what mods were involved. The site hasent evolved much at all since the beginning it would seem.

Besides, what did you expect, people in power to not flex on you?

[Dawn Denac]

A straw man fallacy occurs when someone takes another person's argument or point, distorts it or exaggerates it in some kind of extreme way, and then attacks the extreme distortion, as if that is really the claim the first person is making.

They killed the forum megathreads. They have been capricious since Jesus was young, and there is no consistency. Get used to it.

Oh, yeah, the GHR system sucks too, you never know if the same mod is just repeating themselves, what mods were involved. The site hasent evolved much at all since the beginning it would seem.

Besides, what did you expect, people in power to not flex on you?

:megathink:

[The New California Republic]

Oh, yeah, the GHR system sucks too, you never know if the same mod is just repeating themselves, what mods were involved.

...I actually agree with that. It'd be nice for transparency purposes if you could see which Moderator was actually responding Gameside, but I'll preempt the official response: the code is old and janky etc so it isn't possible to do without wrecking stuff.

[Diarcesia]

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?

I think that the... sub-optimal responses, which some may perceive as trolling/flaming/baiting/strawmanning, may be part of the reason why many players distrust the mods...

The thing is... and this is coming from several RWDTers themselves, trolling/flaming/baiting/strawmanning is "friendly banter" that "enhances the discussion". And when the mods do it, they're being hostile?

[The New California Republic]

I think that the... sub-optimal responses, which some may perceive as trolling/flaming/baiting/strawmanning, may be part of the reason why many players distrust the mods...

The thing is... and this is coming from several RWDTers themselves, trolling/flaming/baiting/strawmanning is "friendly banter" that "enhances the discussion". And when the mods do it, they're being hostile?

And remember the following was said about the RWDT:

In addition, it has bred problematic cliques that have become insulated from rules enforcement due to an unfortunate combination of thread participants refusing to report (and even actively discouraging reporting of) rulebreaking conduct and thread outsiders being disinclined to dig into it to locate and report it.

[Fartsniffage]

Oh, yeah, the GHR system sucks too, you never know if the same mod is just repeating themselves, what mods were involved.

...I actually agree with that. It'd be nice for transparency purposes if you could see which Moderator was actually responding Gameside, but I'll preempt the official response: the code is old and janky etc so it isn't possible to do without wrecking stuff.

A mod responding via a Voice of mod tg could always stick their name at the bottom of it.

[The New California Republic]

...I actually agree with that. It'd be nice for transparency purposes if you could see which Moderator was actually responding Gameside, but I'll preempt the official response: the code is old and janky etc so it isn't possible to do without wrecking stuff.

A mod responding via a Voice of mod tg could always stick their name at the bottom of it.

They can indeed, I have never seen it happen though.

[Cekoviu]

I think that the... sub-optimal responses, which some may perceive as trolling/flaming/baiting/strawmanning, may be part of the reason why many players distrust the mods...

The thing is... and this is coming from several RWDTers themselves, trolling/flaming/baiting/strawmanning is "friendly banter" that "enhances the discussion". And when the mods do it, they're being hostile?

when it is performed by someone who is a friend, yes, it can be considered "friendly banter." why can't people here realize that there is such a thing as context?

[Diarcesia]

The thing is... and this is coming from several RWDTers themselves, trolling/flaming/baiting/strawmanning is "friendly banter" that "enhances the discussion". And when the mods do it, they're being hostile?

when it is performed by someone who is a friend, yes, it can be considered "friendly banter." why can't people here realize that there is such a thing as context?

Yes, there is. Obviously not everyone's going to see it that way from an outsider's perspective.

[Hakons]

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?

You’re demonstrating everything I’m talking about. It’s saddening to see the typical snipes from left wing posters in NSG against RWDTers get imported here, and shared with laughs with moderation.

[Valrifell]

when it is performed by someone who is a friend, yes, it can be considered "friendly banter." why can't people here realize that there is such a thing as context?

Yes, there is. Obviously not everyone's going to see it that way from an outsider's perspective.

Either Moderation applies the rules consistently to everyone (so no bantz) or they don't.

A more strict and consistent interpretation of the rules is at odds for letting people get away with aggressive/vaguely baity banter.

[WayNeacTia]

The thing is... and this is coming from several RWDTers themselves, trolling/flaming/baiting/strawmanning is "friendly banter" that "enhances the discussion". And when the mods do it, they're being hostile?

when it is performed by someone who is a friend, yes, it can be considered "friendly banter." why can't people here realize that there is such a thing as context?

Because not everyone is privy to to the personal friendships between people? It is a forum. Posts need to be taken at face value.

[Katganistan]

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?

You’re demonstrating everything I’m talking about. It’s saddening to see the typical snipes from left wing posters in NSG against RWDTers get imported here, and shared with laughs with moderation.

No, I think that an amazing double standard is what is being demonstrated here. Mere civil agreement is cause for pearl-clutching, apparently, while actual flaming and trolling shouldn't apparently be dealt with.

[Cekoviu]

when it is performed by someone who is a friend, yes, it can be considered "friendly banter." why can't people here realize that there is such a thing as context?

Because not everyone is privy to to the personal friendships between people? It is a forum. Posts need to be taken at face value.

without input from the posters, sure, but the fact that someone who is "flamed" can EXPLICITLY state that they weren't offended by the flame but the flamer will still be warned is totally ridiculous.

[Valrifell]

Because not everyone is privy to to the personal friendships between people? It is a forum. Posts need to be taken at face value.

without input from the posters, sure, but the fact that someone who is "flamed" can EXPLICITLY state that they weren't offended by the flame but the flamer will still be warned is totally ridiculous.

No, everyone needs to be held to a similar standard of the rules and everyone ought to have a similar protection from the rules, regardless of if they find the given material "offensive" or not. We'd quickly devolve into a situation where certain rules simply wouldn't apply to a group of people, because everyone in that clique would simply vouch for each other and claim non-offense.

Do you want a consistent application of the rules or not, because this complaint seems at odds with that.

[Outer Sparta]

Because not everyone is privy to to the personal friendships between people? It is a forum. Posts need to be taken at face value.

without input from the posters, sure, but the fact that someone who is "flamed" can EXPLICITLY state that they weren't offended by the flame but the flamer will still be warned is totally ridiculous.

In a scenario that somebody flames me but I don't think it is, that doesn't mean it abides the site rules. Such situations like that would be inconsistent modding.

[Phydios]

Because not everyone is privy to to the personal friendships between people? It is a forum. Posts need to be taken at face value.

without input from the posters, sure, but the fact that someone who is "flamed" can EXPLICITLY state that they weren't offended by the flame but the flamer will still be warned is totally ridiculous.

NationStates is private property. I have the authority to prohibit racist speech inside my house, no matter how the target responds. The same goes here.

[Diarcesia]

Because not everyone is privy to to the personal friendships between people? It is a forum. Posts need to be taken at face value.

without input from the posters, sure, but the fact that someone who is "flamed" can EXPLICITLY state that they weren't offended by the flame but the flamer will still be warned is totally ridiculous.

That's not how it works here. Even if the recipient is not offended or affected by such behavior, the mods will still take action if it is actionable. Swap the culprit to whoever it is, even [violet], it'll be the same.

[Kyrusia]

For the record, we already do have (and have had) right-wing and conservative mods. Sedgistan for example, and until recently, Kyrusia. [...]

Just dropping by to confirm this previous statement by The Official Lisa Frank™ Mod ( ): I do, in fact, consider myself quite right of center, I've just never made it a habit of broadcasting my political persuasion on-site, when I was a Mod or otherwise.

[The New California Republic]

For the record, we already do have (and have had) right-wing and conservative mods. Sedgistan for example, and until recently, Kyrusia. [...]

Just dropping by to confirm this previous statement by The Official Lisa Frank™ Mod ( ): I do, in fact, consider myself quite right of center, I've just never made it a habit of broadcasting my political persuasion on-site, when I was a Mod or otherwise.

Tbh I'm not sure if anyone here is seriously concerned about a Mod's (or in this case ex-Mod's) political leanings, as I'm pretty sure everyone knows that it doesn't affect their decisions. The only way it could be an issue is if the specific user or users just plain don't like the thought of certain people who subscribe to views that may be antithetical to their own having positions of power on the site, regardless of the fact it doesn't affect their decisions; or they are just trying to create an issue where none exists, to score points or whatever.