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

[Spode Humbled Minions]

So what are their beliefs? Let's get a moderator census going.

And what exactly would that do? Again, their individual beliefs do not affect their rulings; so what would it achieve by knowing them?

It would encourage more people to pull the 'you don't agree with me politically so therefore I want a second moderator's opinion' card. Which, to be fair, is already allowed.

In general, I believe that a chart of those who believe that the moderators are biased against their politics would match up pretty well against a chart of those with numerous prior warns, having seen people from all aisles of politics using 'moderators biased' rhetoric as an excuse for breaking the rules and being rude. It's bit amazing that this thread seems stuck on this topic though, seeing as both LWDT and RWDT got shut down, which, at least at the face of it (I never ventured into these threads), seems unbiased enough.

[Outer Sparta]

And what exactly would that do? Again, their individual beliefs do not affect their rulings; so what would it achieve by knowing them?

It would encourage more people to pull the 'you don't agree with me politically so therefore I want a second moderator's opinion' card. Which, to be fair, is already allowed.

In general, I believe that a chart of those who believe that the moderators are biased against their politics would match up pretty well against a chart of those with numerous prior warns, having seen people from all aisles of politics using 'moderators biased' rhetoric as an excuse for breaking the rules and being rude. It's bit amazing that this thread seems stuck on this topic though, seeing as both LWDT and RWDT got shut down, which, at least at the face of it (I never ventured into these threads), seems unbiased enough.

A chart like that wouldn't really change my mind of any moderator. I could care less about their political affiliations.

[Neutraligon]

Hey everyone, right now people seem to be stuck on mod bias, which while I am sure is fascinating, is not really helpful for possible suggestions on improvements or discussion of the closure. I ask that people get back to offering either. Otherwise it seems this thread has run its course. I am leaving open in the hopes that people will offer either.

[Ioudaia]

I ask that people get back to offering [possible suggestions on improvements or discussion of the closure.]. Otherwise it seems this thread has run its course. I am leaving open in the hopes that people will offer either.

Could you summarize what Moderation has decided to do based on previous suggestions, what Moderation is considering, and what is off the table? I haven't been able to follow this thread as much as I'd like, and I don't want to make a suggestion that's already been agreed to/ruled out.

[Cisairse]

Hey everyone, right now people seem to be stuck on mod bias, which while I am sure is fascinating, is not really helpful for possible suggestions on improvements or discussion of the closure. I ask that people get back to offering either. Otherwise it seems this thread has run its course. I am leaving open in the hopes that people will offer either.

Should we expect mod responses to questions raised in this thread?

I don't mean the bias ones, I mean the ones about the decision and next steps posted earlier.

[Kubra]

Frankly, I'd like to hear a bit more details on the matter of the LWDT being brought up first, particularly in the matter of it apparently devolving into a chat thread. my perception could be wrong, but at least from my perspective it didn't seem like folks cared much for exchanging pleasantries.

[Cekoviu]

Frankly, I'd like to hear a bit more details on the matter of the LWDT being brought up first, particularly in the matter of it apparently devolving into a chat thread. my perception could be wrong, but at least from my perspective it didn't seem like folks cared much for exchanging pleasantries.

I think we've pretty much established that the LWDT was solely deleted so the mods would not be accused of specific bias against right-wingers (a gambit which clearly failed, from the looks of it).

[Neutraligon]

I ask that people get back to offering [possible suggestions on improvements or discussion of the closure.]. Otherwise it seems this thread has run its course. I am leaving open in the hopes that people will offer either.

Could you summarize what Moderation has decided to do based on previous suggestions, what Moderation is considering, and what is off the table? I haven't been able to follow this thread as much as I'd like, and I don't want to make a suggestion that's already been agreed to/ruled out.

Most of us where keeping track of the thread, but waiting until people had finished giving suggestions or comments so we could gather all the suggestions to discuss. There has been a few things discussed already but now that the thread has wound down, and it seems no further suggestions are being made, I plan to go through the thread with fine tooth comb to gather both the suggestions and the feelings everyone has set forth for further discussion. I know for a fact some of the suggestions are technically not feasible, while others (like dissolving the mod team) will not happen. Others need further discussion.

[Aclion]

Hey everyone, right now people seem to be stuck on mod bias, which while I am sure is fascinating, is not really helpful for possible suggestions on improvements or discussion of the closure. I ask that people get back to offering either. Otherwise it seems this thread has run its course. I am leaving open in the hopes that people will offer either.

If you actually wanted discussion the time to do that was before implement the change you'd already decided on.

[The New California Republic]

Hey everyone, right now people seem to be stuck on mod bias, which while I am sure is fascinating, is not really helpful for possible suggestions on improvements or discussion of the closure. I ask that people get back to offering either. Otherwise it seems this thread has run its course. I am leaving open in the hopes that people will offer either.

It actually is part and parcel of the same thing, as folk have been saying that the threads being closed is a symptom of that bias.

I don't agree with that being the case, but I do see why they believe that it is connected.

[The Holy Mercurian Empire]

If you are alienated by making an assumption about my views without ever interacting with me, that's a you thing, not a me thing.

"That's a you thing" sounds suspiciously close to "deal with it." Are you saying that you don't care whether or not traditional conservatives trust the system to work for them?

Because without that trust, we won't make reports, because we won't trust any of you to be objective enough to act on them. Which means the majority of reports filed on conservative-liberal interactions will be filed by liberals, resulting in asymmetric rule enforcement. I put it to you that this is an undesirable state of affairs, and very much not just a "me thing."

Furthermore, you're making a lot of assumptions about conservatives not being welcome on the site. Conservatives are welcome on the site. What is not welcome is flaming and trolling. There are plenty of conservatives who make their points -- points that people might find disagreeable -- without resorting to flames and trolling. These conservatives are not warned, and when people complain of their position, they are told to discuss it because it is not breaking the rules.

With all due respect, the only conservatives I've seen who share my views here frequent the RWDT and the CDT. One of which has already been closed, and the other of which appears to be on the chopping block for reasons that have precious little to do with flaming or trolling.

If to improve our PR we are supposed to embrace people trolling and flaming, then our PR will not be improving.

You'll note that I have specifically refrained from making concrete suggestions thus far. If you want concrete suggestions, I can give you some, but right now I just want you to be aware that there is a problem that you should address if you want social conservatives to feel like they can trust you. Rest assured that "toleration of trolls and flamers" is not on my agenda.

[The Blaatschapen]

With all due respect, the only conservatives I've seen who share my views here frequent the RWDT and the CDT. One of which has already been closed, and the other of which appears to be on the chopping block for reasons that have precious little to do with flaming or trolling.

With all due respect, 81 posts means that you've barely browsed the forums. I see plenty of conservatives around. Maybe not in their traditional safe spaces though. Go out more, they're not that hard to find

[Minoa]

Could you summarize what Moderation has decided to do based on previous suggestions, what Moderation is considering, and what is off the table? I haven't been able to follow this thread as much as I'd like, and I don't want to make a suggestion that's already been agreed to/ruled out.

Most of us where keeping track of the thread, but waiting until people had finished giving suggestions or comments so we could gather all the suggestions to discuss. There has been a few things discussed already but now that the thread has wound down, and it seems no further suggestions are being made, I plan to go through the thread with fine tooth comb to gather both the suggestions and the feelings everyone has set forth for further discussion. I know for a fact some of the suggestions are technically not feasible, while others (like dissolving the mod team) will not happen. Others need further discussion.

I think it is worth considering a review of the off-topic sections to give real-world politics and current affairs a dedicated place in the forum for the genre of this website: perhaps option 2 from viewtopic.php?t=444026.

I think that idea could also reduce the pressure to create megathreads with non-political discussions no longer getting in the way. It would also reflect the growing tendency for people to at least control the consumption of news and politics (source: https://reutersinstitute.politics.ox.ac ... -avoidance). I never bumped that suggestion thread due to the gravedig rule.

[Esternial]

"That's a you thing" sounds suspiciously close to "deal with it." Are you saying that you don't care whether or not traditional conservatives trust the system to work for them?

Because without that trust, we won't make reports, because we won't trust any of you to be objective enough to act on them. Which means the majority of reports filed on conservative-liberal interactions will be filed by liberals, resulting in asymmetric rule enforcement. I put it to you that this is an undesirable state of affairs, and very much not just a "me thing."

This reads like circular reasoning.

Conservatives don't trust Moderation because of asymmetric rule enforcement, hence they don't make reports, hence the reports made are filed mainly by liberals leading to asymmetric rule enforcement.

So then just report rule violations. Did you yourself not just explain how you'd be shooting yourself in the foot by not doing so?

[Grenartia]

Most of us where keeping track of the thread, but waiting until people had finished giving suggestions or comments so we could gather all the suggestions to discuss. There has been a few things discussed already but now that the thread has wound down, and it seems no further suggestions are being made, I plan to go through the thread with fine tooth comb to gather both the suggestions and the feelings everyone has set forth for further discussion. I know for a fact some of the suggestions are technically not feasible, while others (like dissolving the mod team) will not happen. Others need further discussion.

I think it is worth considering a review of the off-topic sections to give real-world politics and current affairs a dedicated place in the forum for the genre of this website: perhaps option 2 from viewtopic.php?t=444026.

I think that idea could also reduce the pressure to create megathreads with non-political discussions no longer getting in the way. I never bumped that suggestion thread due to the gravedig rule.

So, basically what I suggested in these two posts:

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.

Obviously the sub-forum idea has sort of been shot down, but that leaves the question of what to do with the user experience threads.

I maintain its still the best idea, and the possibility of having a new sub-sub-forum (I'd like to reiterate that in the forum hierarchy, it would be equivalent to the cards and trivia forums found under A&F) has not been definitively ruled out.

"That's a you thing" sounds suspiciously close to "deal with it." Are you saying that you don't care whether or not traditional conservatives trust the system to work for them?

Because without that trust, we won't make reports, because we won't trust any of you to be objective enough to act on them. Which means the majority of reports filed on conservative-liberal interactions will be filed by liberals, resulting in asymmetric rule enforcement. I put it to you that this is an undesirable state of affairs, and very much not just a "me thing."

This reads like circular reasoning.

Conservatives don't trust Moderation because of asymmetric rule enforcement, hence they don't make reports, hence the reports made are filed mainly by liberals leading to asymmetric rule enforcement.

So then just report rule violations. Did you yourself not just explain how you'd be shooting yourself in the foot by not doing so?

And that's assuming the rules are even being enforced asymmetrically against right-wingers. Taking what happened to the LWDT into account, they're likely being enforced asymmetrically in their favor.

[The New California Republic]

If you are alienated by making an assumption about my views without ever interacting with me, that's a you thing, not a me thing.

"That's a you thing" sounds suspiciously close to "deal with it." Are you saying that you don't care whether or not traditional conservatives trust the system to work for them?

Because without that trust, we won't make reports, because we won't trust any of you to be objective enough to act on them. Which means the majority of reports filed on conservative-liberal interactions will be filed by liberals, resulting in asymmetric rule enforcement. I put it to you that this is an undesirable state of affairs, and very much not just a "me thing."

Yet again, to reiterate:

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.

[Minoa]

I think it is worth considering a review of the off-topic sections to give real-world politics and current affairs a dedicated place in the forum for the genre of this website: perhaps option 2 from viewtopic.php?t=444026.

I think that idea could also reduce the pressure to create megathreads with non-political discussions no longer getting in the way. I never bumped that suggestion thread due to the gravedig rule.

So, basically what I suggested in these two posts:

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.

I maintain its still the best idea, and the possibility of having a new sub-sub-forum (I'd like to reiterate that in the forum hierarchy, it would be equivalent to the cards and trivia forums found under A&F) has not been definitively ruled out.

I would start with a spun-off RL politics section first to see how it affects the temptation to create megathreads. Subsections within the RL politics section could follow where there is the demand for it.

[The Holy Mercurian Empire]

The thing with intentionally misgendering is that it's clear that it's a character attack simply because they disagree with your views. That's not constructive debate. Based on your sig, you're a Christian. What would you think if an atheist keeps on telling you that you believe in fairy tales while debating religion?

Are you saying that if an atheist does this to me, it's actionable.

[Esternial]

The thing with intentionally misgendering is that it's clear that it's a character attack simply because they disagree with your views. That's not constructive debate. Based on your sig, you're a Christian. What would you think if an atheist keeps on telling you that you believe in fairy tales while debating religion?

Are you saying that if an atheist does this to me, it's actionable.

I would say so, and you should report it.

Depending on the poster's behavior, I find it very likely some action will be taken from a redtext unofficial warning to more harsher penalties if it becomes clear they're just trying to aggrevate you.

[The Holy Mercurian Empire]

"That's a you thing" sounds suspiciously close to "deal with it." Are you saying that you don't care whether or not traditional conservatives trust the system to work for them?

Because without that trust, we won't make reports, because we won't trust any of you to be objective enough to act on them. Which means the majority of reports filed on conservative-liberal interactions will be filed by liberals, resulting in asymmetric rule enforcement. I put it to you that this is an undesirable state of affairs, and very much not just a "me thing."

This reads like circular reasoning.

Conservatives don't trust Moderation because of asymmetric rule enforcement, hence they don't make reports, hence the reports made are filed mainly by liberals leading to asymmetric rule enforcement.

Actually, the reason has less to do with actual asymmetric rule enforcement (which, for all I can tell, may not even exist beyond the "non reporting" tendencies of conservatives) than it does to do with the fact that traditional conservatives have watched their views be suddenly and violently punted out the Overton window. Causing us not to trust much of anybody with power over our exercise of speech.

You may not think the progression rational, but it's certainly linear.

[MGTOWia]

This reads like circular reasoning.

Conservatives don't trust Moderation because of asymmetric rule enforcement, hence they don't make reports, hence the reports made are filed mainly by liberals leading to asymmetric rule enforcement.

Actually, the reason has less to do with actual asymmetric rule enforcement (which, for all I can tell, may not even exist beyond the "non reporting" tendencies of conservatives) than it does to do with the fact that traditional conservatives have watched their views be suddenly and violently punted out the Overton window. Causing us not to trust much of anybody with power over our exercise of speech.

IMO there is definitely a tendency for mods to turn minor issues into warnings and bans when those of us on the right are the targets. And certain mods have flat-out displayed animus against some of us. I can speak from personal experience on both points.

[The New California Republic]

IMO there is definitely a tendency for mods to turn minor issues into warnings and bans when those of us on the right are the targets.

No. There has been no proof of that given, despite people repeatedly being pressed to provide some.

[New haven america]

IMO there is definitely a tendency for mods to turn minor issues into warnings and bans when those of us on the right are the targets.

No. There has been no proof of that given, despite people repeatedly being pressed to provide some.

Generally when people make that claim their idea of a "Minor Issue" is much more akin to blatant rule breaking. (Granted there are exceptions, some of the mods are more authoritarian than others, but it's a good rule of thumb)

Plus, if they have a problem and genuinely believe it's a minor issue, a GHR will probably get it taken care of.

[Grenartia]

This reads like circular reasoning.

Conservatives don't trust Moderation because of asymmetric rule enforcement, hence they don't make reports, hence the reports made are filed mainly by liberals leading to asymmetric rule enforcement.

Actually, the reason has less to do with actual asymmetric rule enforcement (which, for all I can tell, may not even exist beyond the "non reporting" tendencies of conservatives) than it does to do with the fact that traditional conservatives have watched their views be suddenly and violently punted out the Overton window. Causing us not to trust much of anybody with power over our exercise of speech.

You may not think the progression rational, but it's certainly linear.

You only really have something to fear if you're spouting views that disparage entire groups of people or blatantly disrespects an individual on here. Saying "gas the jews, race war now!" or "you're a r*tarded tr*nny freak" definitely shouldn't be acceptable things to say anywhere. Nobody really gives a shit about kicking you off the site if you keep insisting that taxation is theft (unless you just blatantly spam it everywhere).

[Chenjithuujen]

Great work on your forum! It looks very cool! I like it!