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

[Questarian New Yorkshire]

I'm not really seeing what you're trying to get at, aside from trying to really emphasize the "us vs. them" narrative, followed by complaints that it's "us vs. them". Correct me if I'm wrong here.

Here's a perfect example.

What exactly have WDT's been getting away with?

It's what they (Specifically the RWDT) haven't been getting away with that's the problem.

Ce's argument is that it was unfair and downright stupid to shut down the threads after repeated warnings and bans caused by consistent rule breaking, even though they also proceeded to admit that users who were most often responsible for those warning/ban raids have been saying offsite that they weren't going to listen to the mods and any warnings of having the thread shut down because it's a stupid idea that the mods would never go through with.

Well now the threads got shut down because they've outright said they're not going to listen and now they have on a whole been the embodiment of the Surprised Pikachu Face for the past 2 days.

And Ce's argument in a nutshell is basically "Hey, let us get away with rule breaking because we think shutting down the threads is dumb."

[Joohan]

What exactly have WDT's been getting away with?

It's what they (Specifically the RWDT) haven't been getting away with that's the problem.

Ce's argument is that it was unfair and downright stupid to shut down the threads after repeated warnings and bans caused by consistent rule breaking, even though they also proceeded to admit that users who were most often responsible for those warning/ban raids have been saying offsite that they weren't going to listen to the mods and any warnings of having the thread shut down because it's a stupid idea.

Well now the threads got shut down because they've outright said they're not going to listen and now they have on a whole been the embodiment of the Surprised Pikachu Face meme for the past 2 days.

So a few individuals who frequent the WDT's have made it clear they don't intend on obeying the mod's, and so then the logical course of action is to start shutting down threads?

Not DOSing or DEATing those nations, but just getting rid of one of the threads they enjoy. That doesn't really follow now does it? That would be like if I became a toxic player, and then suddenly the Admin's shut down CDT as a remedy. It hasn't actually fixed anything, and it's removed another beloved forum.

People get upset and nothing get's improved, so what's the point?

[Washington Resistance Army]

What exactly have WDT's been getting away with?

It's what they (Specifically the RWDT) haven't been getting away with that's the problem.

Ce's argument is that it was unfair and downright stupid to shut down the threads after repeated warnings and bans caused by consistent rule breaking

It's astounding how much you missed the point. No, that wasn't the point she was making, the point was that the tactic of saying "change or we're shutting it down" was very obviously not going to work on the people it was directed towards.

[Cekoviu]

I also disagree that transparency should be avoided and there should be some sort of "central vision." A key component in healthy relationships, including user-mod relationships on Austrian book site, is trust - the system you are advocating throws any and all trust that users might still place in moderation completely out the window. This sort of policy will breed even more dysfunction and sow more discontent. Additionally, it ultimately fails to address the root of the problem with particular users' behavior; rather than attempting to consider the systems that might've generated such a thing and what kind of policies might help improve it in the future, you've elected to haphazardly board over the issue and proudly declare "there, it's fixed!" It's intellectually lazy and I'd expect better from you.

Actually this is the perfect place to start my reply. You wrote your post in inverse order.

Now I don't know if you've ever been banned, or even warned. I'm guessing you probably got warned once. Have you noticed that none of the conversations revolving around rulebreakers and rulebreaking ever ask people who routinely break the rules why they do it? I mean the last kind of investigation on that tier that I would remember would be Ostro's post about if you report people or not. This kind of conversation is obviously materially useful if you want to reduce the number of "offences". Do we want to do that? Yes? No? Do we want a transparent community? Yes? No?

Who knows? Nobody knows. When I go into work I can ask any person there, literally anyone, what is the purpose of our organisation? Like why are we here man? They can tell me. More or less every person will give an answer equal in content. Nobody knows this about this forum. What's the fuckin point of NationStates General? Why does it exist? Is it a place where we can "talk about politics while insulting each other?" How about "Serious debate about current affairs?" How about "bait Questers with shitty one-line no-content posts and get him warned when he reacts like a normal steak-eating male?" How about "thinly veiled flirtatious comments underlined by extremist political agenda?"

I don't know. We don't know. You don't know. The most important: they don't know. If they do they haven't let on. Without an expression of purpose, no kind of plan can execute. I'm sorry but this is fundamental stuff to making an organisation. You need a purpose, you need a mission, you need a plan. Of course it's possible NS mods have those things — but usually they're public.

I don't necessarily oppose this. I think it's reasonable to set out a specific "point" for General. My main issue is not with setting out such a goal, but using it as a sole means of justification for unilaterally banning particular users as you have suggested. Such a guideline should be exactly that: a guideline, not a requirement. The point of more specific rules is so that we can refine such a broad mission statement in order to create some degree of mutual consensus between the moderators and help clear up users' understanding of how to behave. To nix that system entirely is missing the point, imo.

[Cekoviu]

It's what they (Specifically the RWDT) haven't been getting away with that's the problem.

Ce's argument is that it was unfair and downright stupid to shut down the threads after repeated warnings and bans caused by consistent rule breaking

It's astounding how much you missed the point. No, that wasn't the point she was making, the point was that the tactic of saying "change or we're shutting it down" was very obviously not going to work on the people it was directed towards.

Thank you for writing this so I didn't have to. It seems like people really latched onto my description of the mindset of RWDTers -- that moderation shutting down the RWDT would be a dumb decision due to the negative feedback -- and completely missed my actual point.

[New haven america]

It's what they (Specifically the RWDT) haven't been getting away with that's the problem.

Ce's argument is that it was unfair and downright stupid to shut down the threads after repeated warnings and bans caused by consistent rule breaking, even though they also proceeded to admit that users who were most often responsible for those warning/ban raids have been saying offsite that they weren't going to listen to the mods and any warnings of having the thread shut down because it's a stupid idea.

Well now the threads got shut down because they've outright said they're not going to listen and now they have on a whole been the embodiment of the Surprised Pikachu Face meme for the past 2 days.

1. So a few individuals who frequent the WDT's have made it clear they don't intend on obeying the mod's, and so then the logical course of action is to start shutting down threads?

2. Not DOSing or DEATing those nations, but just getting rid of one of the threads they enjoy. That doesn't really follow now does it? 3. That would be like if I became a toxic player, and then suddenly the Admin's shut down CDT as a remedy. It hasn't actually fixed anything, and it's removed another beloved forum.

People get upset and nothing get's improved, so what's the point?

1. Not just a few individuals, the vast majority of users on the RWDT as Ce made it clear that it was the regulars talk about it.
2. ~1/2 of the RWDT thread regulars have been DEATed, but that hasn't stopped them and even caused them to view themselves as the victims to mod abuse of power.
3. Well no, that makes no sense to the given situation (Plus, the CDT is already terrible). The better hypothetical to this situation would be if >1/2 of the CDT users were toxic and got warned to knock off their behavior every week or 2 but refused to listen and openly played the victim.

[New haven america]

It's astounding how much you missed the point. No, that wasn't the point she was making, the point was that the tactic of saying "change or we're shutting it down" was very obviously not going to work on the people it was directed towards.

Thank you for writing this so I didn't have to. It seems like people really latched onto my description of the mindset of RWDTers -- that moderation shutting down the RWDT would be a dumb decision due to the negative feedback -- and completely missed my actual point.

Except your actual point didn't work with the examples you provided, and is why you had so many people questioning your argument, because it makes no fucking sense in the way it's currently presented.

Just admit that your argument wasn't well thought out and try again, like rewording it or providing better example. This trying to place blame on everyone but yourself behavior is 1/2 of the reason the RWDT got shut down to begin with.

[Questarian New Yorkshire]

It's astounding how much you missed the point. No, that wasn't the point she was making, the point was that the tactic of saying "change or we're shutting it down" was very obviously not going to work on the people it was directed towards.

Thank you for writing this so I didn't have to. It seems like people really latched onto my description of the mindset of RWDTers -- that moderation shutting down the RWDT would be a dumb decision due to the negative feedback -- and completely missed my actual point.

It's willful. It's not accidental.

You are becoming questerspilled.

Watch the people who willfully misinterpret your posts, reply to your thoughtful content with vapid one liners just below the baitline, draw childish or nonsensical inferences from your posts. Watch them do it without any interference from the administration. Now watch your responses be drawn as spam or bait or trolling or even flaming.

[Joohan]

1. Not just a few individuals, the vast majority of user on the RWDT as Ce made it clear that it was the regulars talk about it.

That was not the point she made - nor is it true. There was a consensus that a number of mods would use their positions to unfairly target members of the forum, but I don't ever recall someone saying that they would just straight up disobey the admin ( that was, until after this whole thing happened ). If it was as prevalent a problem as you say, could you sight some examples?

2. ~1/2 of the RWDT thread regulars have been DEATed and DOSed, but that hasn't stopped them considering they view themselves as the victims to mod abuse of power.

Nonsense, where are you getting that data from? I am aware that people have been DEATed and DOSed before, but I call absolute BS on saying that half of all the regulars are in this camp.

3. Well no, that makes no sense to the given situation (Plus, the CDT is already terrible and probably should've gone along with the RWDT). The better hypothetical to this situation would be if >1/2 of the CDT users were toxic and got warned to knock off their behavior every week or 2 but refused to listen and openly played the victim.

Again, shutting down threads is not a remedy for individual behavior.

[Cekoviu]

Thank you for writing this so I didn't have to. It seems like people really latched onto my description of the mindset of RWDTers -- that moderation shutting down the RWDT would be a dumb decision due to the negative feedback -- and completely missed my actual point.

Except your actual point didn't work with the examples you provided, and is why you had so many people questioning your argument, because it makes no fucking sense in the way it's currently presented.

Just admit that your argument wasn't well thought out and try again, like rewording it or providing better example. This trying to place blame on everyone but yourself behavior is 1/2 of the reason the RWDT got shut down to begin with.

This seems like 'projecting' to me. The fact that you and a couple other people, all of whom dislike the RWDT regulars, misunderstood what I was saying doesn't mean it was made poorly - especially since a number of people who were perhaps less biased immediately understood it. I'll admit that sometimes I do word things confusingly, but in this instance, it sounds like a you problem, as they say.

[New haven america]

1. Not just a few individuals, the vast majority of user on the RWDT as Ce made it clear that it was the regulars talk about it.

1. That was not the point she made - nor is it true. There was a consensus that a number of mods would use their positions to unfairly target members of the forum, 2. but I don't ever recall someone saying that they would just straight up disobey the admin ( that was, until after this whole thing happened ). If it was as prevalent a problem as you say, could you sight some examples?

2. ~1/2 of the RWDT thread regulars have been DEATed and DOSed, but that hasn't stopped them considering they view themselves as the victims to mod abuse of power.

3. Nonsense, where are you getting that data from? I am aware that people have been DEATed and DOSed before, but I call absolute BS on saying that half of all the regulars are in this camp.

3. Well no, that makes no sense to the given situation (Plus, the CDT is already terrible and probably should've gone along with the RWDT). The better hypothetical to this situation would be if >1/2 of the CDT users were toxic and got warned to knock off their behavior every week or 2 but refused to listen and openly played the victim.

4. Again, shutting down threads is not a remedy for individual behavior.

1. That was exactly the point she made.
2. Well then why don't you ask Ce? As they're the one who provided the evidence in their original argument that the didn't take the mods warnings seriously.
3. The actual users.
4. It keeps those individuals out of the hubs they use to actively encourage and get support of their behavior from.

[Valrifell]

I don't think this is a good place or time for these snipes.

EDIT: The last thing anyone wants, I think, is for a mod to come in with the "I think this discussion has run its course" redtext so nothing actually happens.

[New haven america]

Except your actual point didn't work with the examples you provided, and is why you had so many people questioning your argument, because it makes no fucking sense in the way it's currently presented.

Just admit that your argument wasn't well thought out and try again, like rewording it or providing better example. This trying to place blame on everyone but yourself behavior is 1/2 of the reason the RWDT got shut down to begin with.

1. This seems like 'projecting' to me. 2. The fact that you and a couple other people, all of whom dislike the RWDT regulars, misunderstood what I was saying doesn't mean it was made poorly - especially since a number of people who were perhaps less biased immediately understood it. 3. I'll admit that sometimes I do word things confusingly, but in this instance, it sounds like a you problem, as they say.

1. No, this is critiquing your poorly thought out argument.
2. By your own admittance, Val is a RWDT regular and they were the first to call out your argument
3. If only RWDT thread regulars who are on your side could understand it, then that's not a case in your favor.

[New haven america]

I don't think this is a good place or time for these snipes.

EDIT: The last thing anyone wants, I think, is for a mod to come in with the "I think this discussion has run its course" redtext so nothing actually happens.

Eh, I'm more trying to help Ce and others see why they're arguments aren't going to get the mods sympathy.

[Joohan]

1. That was not the point she made - nor is it true. There was a consensus that a number of mods would use their positions to unfairly target members of the forum, 2. but I don't ever recall someone saying that they would just straight up disobey the admin ( that was, until after this whole thing happened ). If it was as prevalent a problem as you say, could you sight some examples?



3. Nonsense, where are you getting that data from? I am aware that people have been DEATed and DOSed before, but I call absolute BS on saying that half of all the regulars are in this camp.



4. Again, shutting down threads is not a remedy for individual behavior.

1. That was exactly the point she made.
2. Well then why don't you ask Ce? As they're the one who provided the evidence in their original argument that the didn't take the mods warnings seriously.
3. The actual users.
4. It keeps those individuals out of the hubs they use to actively encourage and get support of their behavior from.

Well, she also told you that you were incorrect in interpreting her point - but I don't think you're actually listening. I'm not going to humor your points any further.

[Questarian New Yorkshire]

Eh, I'm more trying to help Ce

LOL

[South Odreria 2]

I don't think this is a good place or time for these snipes.

EDIT: The last thing anyone wants, I think, is for a mod to come in with the "I think this discussion has run its course" redtext so nothing actually happens.

On the contrary, that’s the first thing certain people want.

[The New California Republic]

Well no, that makes no sense to the given situation (Plus, the CDT is already terrible). The better hypothetical to this situation would be if >1/2 of the CDT users were toxic and got warned to knock off their behavior every week or 2 but refused to listen and openly played the victim.

And as has been said, it's questionable whether the CDT gets a passing grade using the rubric set in the OP. The Libertarian Thread is another one that likely doesn't either.

[Cekoviu]

1. This seems like 'projecting' to me. 2. The fact that you and a couple other people, all of whom dislike the RWDT regulars, misunderstood what I was saying doesn't mean it was made poorly - especially since a number of people who were perhaps less biased immediately understood it. 3. I'll admit that sometimes I do word things confusingly, but in this instance, it sounds like a you problem, as they say.

1. No, this is critiquing your poorly thought out argument.
2. By your own admittance, Val is a RWDT regular and they were the first to call out your argument
3. If only RWDT thread regulars who are on your side could understand it, then that's not a case in your favor.

Valrifell is a regular in the sense that he frequently posts in the RWDT (primarily to post petty jabs at regulars who actually contribute - if you take a look at the rest of the post that you linked, he had the worst average post quality of any RWDT user, largely a consequence of that fact). He was not a regular in the sense that he understood RWDT culture and actively made efforts to contribute to the thread, something that you'd notice if you ever did anything more than skimming and looking for ways to score cheap points. Another thing that you'd notice if you'd bothered to actually take a minute and read is that Valrifell, following clarification, apologized for jumping to conclusions on my intent (as you have done but not had the self-awareness to realize). (None of this is meant to directly disparage Valrifell, as I don't mind him personally, I'm just illustrating the differences between him and a 'standard' RWDTer.)

The fact of the matter is that, of the people who have responded to the post we're discussing, the only ones who interpreted it correctly initially were RWDT regulars. We can speculate as to why that is — I would argue that those who aren't RWDT regulars have a case of Dunning-Kruger syndrome and think they understand what's going on there, but they actually have no real idea about the culture and haven't actually tried to figure it out — but I don't really see the point.

[New haven america]

1. No, this is critiquing your poorly thought out argument.
2. By your own admittance, Val is a RWDT regular and they were the first to call out your argument
3. If only RWDT thread regulars who are on your side could understand it, then that's not a case in your favor.

1. Valrifell is a regular in the sense that he frequently posts in the RWDT (primarily to post petty jabs at regulars who actually contribute - if you take a look at the rest of the post that you linked, he had the worst average post quality of any RWDT user, largely a consequence of that fact). He was not a regular in the sense that he understood RWDT culture and actively made efforts to contribute to the thread, 2. something that you'd notice if you ever did anything more than skimming and looking for ways to score cheap points. 3. Another thing that you'd notice if you'd bothered to actually take a minute and read is that Valrifell, following clarification, apologized for jumping to conclusions on my intent (as you have done but not had the self-awareness to realize). (None of this is meant to directly disparage Valrifell, as I don't mind him personally, I'm just illustrating the differences between him and a 'standard' RWDTer.)

4. The fact of the matter is that, of the people who have responded to the post we're discussing, the only ones who interpreted it correctly initially were RWDT regulars. We can speculate as to why that is — I would argue that those who aren't RWDT regulars have a case of Dunning-Kruger syndrome and think they understand what's going on there, but they actually have no real idea about the culture and haven't actually tried to figure it out — but I don't really see the point.

1. And that matters why? They're still a regular.
2. Ah ad homs, the classic sign that an argument is failing. And you question why the RWDT got shut down.
3. Good for them. Why didn't you edit what you actually meant in your OG post then? Seems like that could've saved you a lot of trouble and misunderstanding.
4. Or it could be that their share the same internal biases as yourself.

Likewise, why are you angry with the mods when you could also be angry with the particular set of users who are responsible for the rule breaking behavior that got the thread shut down?

[Grenartia]

Wouldn't it be harder? Maybe 2 mods for a DOS nation.

Are you proposing that it require agreement of 2 mods just to DEAT somebody who's already DoS and keeps coming back? What a waste of time!

On topic, there are six pages of Moderation thread titles that contain "RWDT", most of which seem to be reports. There are three pages of Moderation thread titles that contain "LWDT", most of which also seem to be reports. It seems like there was plenty of reporting of naughty or rule-breaking behaviour in these threads. I'm certain not everything that could be actionable was reported, but I'm a firm believer in self-moderation when possible: people shouldn't have to report every single potentially actionable post if they're not even offended or bothered by it, and it's only natural as a culture develops for the amount of banter to increase.

On the other hand, other people have quoted my post saying that the megathreads contain all the discussion in one place, allowing a greater variety of topics on the front page of the forum. The opposite is also true: all the political discussion remains contained within a few threads, and when someone wants to bring up a new point regarding to politics, he or she just goes into his or her echo chamber thread of choice and posts it in there, where the same ten or so people who frequent the thread will respond to it but it's very low-visibility to everyone else who doesn't normally read that thread; the person posting the new discussion topic also now needs to make sure he or she isn't threadjacking as is. Cramming all the discussion into a few megathreads makes the forum look more dead by increasing the amount of time spanned by the first page of NSG: as of right now, the last thread on page 1 of NSG was last posted in at 5:11 GMT, or about eight hours ago. On 5 October 2012 at 10:45, the last thread on page 1 of NSG was last posted in at 8:14, or only about two and a half hours ago. Even in 2012, the topic diversity seems increased compared to now, with there being a few perennial discussion threads but the notable absence of the wing threads or any other megathreads in the modern sense other than sports threads, two religious discussion threads, and TET. Heck, the third-biggest thread at that time was "Capitalism vs. Communism", which stayed active for at least a month.

It's pretty clear to me that NSG is dying a slow and painful death, and I don't like that. Hopefully having gotten rid of the LWDT and RWDT will bring some more diversity in discussions back to the table, but one constant is that great members from the past are leaving and will continue to leave, and clearly the culture of the wing threads was important to some people as we've already seen people leave over this too. There's no way to win.

TL;DR: pointless doom and gloom.

I've been here a decade now. I've seen countless giants come and go, and some even come back (some of them probably shouldn't have). NSG will live on for as long as NS itself lives on. It won't be the same, but change is the nature of life. Accept it.

[New haven america]

Are you proposing that it require agreement of 2 mods just to DEAT somebody who's already DoS and keeps coming back? What a waste of time!

On topic, there are six pages of Moderation thread titles that contain "RWDT", most of which seem to be reports. There are three pages of Moderation thread titles that contain "LWDT", most of which also seem to be reports. It seems like there was plenty of reporting of naughty or rule-breaking behaviour in these threads. I'm certain not everything that could be actionable was reported, but I'm a firm believer in self-moderation when possible: people shouldn't have to report every single potentially actionable post if they're not even offended or bothered by it, and it's only natural as a culture develops for the amount of banter to increase.

On the other hand, other people have quoted my post saying that the megathreads contain all the discussion in one place, allowing a greater variety of topics on the front page of the forum. The opposite is also true: all the political discussion remains contained within a few threads, and when someone wants to bring up a new point regarding to politics, he or she just goes into his or her echo chamber thread of choice and posts it in there, where the same ten or so people who frequent the thread will respond to it but it's very low-visibility to everyone else who doesn't normally read that thread; the person posting the new discussion topic also now needs to make sure he or she isn't threadjacking as is. Cramming all the discussion into a few megathreads makes the forum look more dead by increasing the amount of time spanned by the first page of NSG: as of right now, the last thread on page 1 of NSG was last posted in at 5:11 GMT, or about eight hours ago. On 5 October 2012 at 10:45, the last thread on page 1 of NSG was last posted in at 8:14, or only about two and a half hours ago. Even in 2012, the topic diversity seems increased compared to now, with there being a few perennial discussion threads but the notable absence of the wing threads or any other megathreads in the modern sense other than sports threads, two religious discussion threads, and TET. Heck, the third-biggest thread at that time was "Capitalism vs. Communism", which stayed active for at least a month.

It's pretty clear to me that NSG is dying a slow and painful death, and I don't like that. Hopefully having gotten rid of the LWDT and RWDT will bring some more diversity in discussions back to the table, but one constant is that great members from the past are leaving and will continue to leave, and clearly the culture of the wing threads was important to some people as we've already seen people leave over this too. There's no way to win.

TL;DR: pointless doom and gloom.

I've been here a decade now. I've seen countless giants come and go, and some even come back (some of them probably shouldn't have). NSG will live on for as long as NS itself lives on. It won't be the same, but change is the nature of life. Accept it.

Also, we have access to threads pre-2009 and that's more of a wasteland than modern NSG will ever be.

[Diopolis]

There is not some secret list of things mods can use to "fix" NS or make "admin better". The culture of administration needs to change - and then the forum will improve massively.

The problem with NS is that almost one third of the forum lives right under the borderline of making literally every post a flamebait and they're allowed to proceed because the NS mods juts enact rules ad-hoc without reference to context or a mission statement. There's nowhere a statement that says what the administration's vision for the forum is. What they need is a central vision and then they would have to simply sit on people whose posting habits do harm to the vision. There'd be no need to rules lawyering or even transparency - mods can just point to a player and say you're being disruptive to the mission statement, you're done.

I'd probably get DOSd probably — c'est la guerre. But so would a bunch of other people or types of people who have done irreparable damage to the forum's intellectual capacity. It would be for the greater good.

I have issues with moderation myself, but you're making it seem like there's some sort of conspiracy by the moderation team to fuck us all over. Seriously, your entire approach in this thread has been one of hostility, and more comically, directed at Archregimancy who is probably the most level-headed, trustworthy, and overall respectable moderator on the site (personal opinion, yes, but I doubt I'd be alone in it).

You are definitely not alone in it. I trust Arch more than the other mods combined.

[Kowani]

So, I thought about this.
And, I figure that as one of the more consistent cross-posters between the two threads, I might as well drop my own opinion. I’m not gonna go into the doom and gloom, “ahh, the Forums are dead” sort of argumentation that’s been thrown around. But I think my perspective is unique enough, to where it might serve as some insight. I don’t know a time before the megathreads- when I joined, the RWDT was on its 13th version, the CDT on its 20th (god, I had some cringe takes.) So I find that the culture of what is NSG is irrevocably changing. Is it good? Is it bad? I don’t feel as if I should say. The mod team wouldn’t unlock the threads, and even if they did, much of the community would refuse to return. Trump says it he’s.

But I will say that regardless of whether the decision was merited or not-not really an argument I wish to have, the rollout of this policy was…dodgy. There seems to have been some backstage discussion having lasted a serious period of time, and I think that perhaps if the community had been made aware of said discussion-and some of the issues raised within, you would most likely have seen a reduction in those behaviors. We are told that the consistent rulebreaking within the RWDT was, in fact, not the major factor found to cause the permanent closure. But if that is so, then having told the people who mostly participate in those threads about what behaviors were found to be problematic, and what kind of general direction the threads should’ve been pointed in, which would’ve fostered a more genteel experience overall. Change is never easy, and there are probably some who would’ve resisted-aggressively so-but the backlash would’ve been lesser, and we would not have seen an exodus like we just did, leading us, overall, to a more interactive community.
Perhaps the threads themselves should’ve policed themselves better. I do not think this is an unfair charge to lay. The culture of what seems to be antagonism between the players and the mods, I cannot fix-I came here long after many of the events in question happened. I believe I’ve been warned twice, and I’m on good terms with at least some of the mods. And I do realize that a)moderating is hard, and b)this is not our website. Those things are true. And as guests, we are not owed gentleness per se, technically, we are not owed transparency or consistency. But it would make all interactions between the mod community and the rest of the forums more seamless, less hostile. Nobody is saying to treat a spammer with kind words and understanding. But it does make it easier when, say, applying bans, to not be curt.

As a subsection of the site, General needs to reflect on how we report people-and how we interact with people. We’ve all heard of Ostro’s breakdown of how people report or don’t report people based on personal relationships or their political views, and that sort of thing creates a sense of persecution. It’s been commented on in this thread, where regardless of whether or not the mods are biased, there definitely is a reporting bias. And some people do legitimately make large collections of posts that serve to mostly bait others, tap dancing on the line. Mod awareness of those people could probably be higher-at the very least, looking at the chain of interactions between two posters on a thread, looking for patterns in reports. I would go so far as to say building case files on people with very consistent patterns on that sort of thing, and take action.

There are very few good guys in this situation.
Some self-awareness-on all of our parts, mod or player, may help improve both community relationships and elevate the quality of discourse.

[Bombadil]

Some self-awareness-on all of our parts, mod or player, may help improve both community relationships and elevate the quality of discourse.

Well, exactly, the general rule of 'don't be a dick' should be a relatively easy one to follow but it's understood things can get personal especially in closed threads with an established community.

However there is a social contract of sorts, I saw earlier the idea that it's up to the Mods alone to discover reportable offences. No society works this way, people report crimes, people enact legal cases, and the authorities deal with them accordingly. Issues such as omertà are obviously a problem and aimed at subverting any rules. Part of the social contract is to report infringements.. that some use them as personal vendettas is not really an issue because if a rule is broken it's warned and if not it's not.. so don't break rules, just don't be a dick.

Having said that I do think there needs to be some clarity around mega threads, I've long disliked them but I have to accept they exist. Personally I would say they need a relevant talking point, that is they need a topical link to an article in the OP around which the discussion is based but can evolve.

Beyond that it's always worth bearing in mind:

This is a free site, you can come or go as you please
It's not a democracy, it's a relatively benevolent dictatorship
Warnings, DEATs and DoS do not go on your credit score, your CV, your police record.. they don't really matter, they're just warnings to lay a perimeter of what's acceptable or not.

If you're being regularly warned or DEAT'd you really have to consider your approach because it's clearly not working in this environment. To be DoS'd takes quite some effort and at that point you should really consider the extent of your emotional investment in what is, essentially, a discussion forum.