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

[Diarcesia]

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.

This. I never thought this would be a controversial opinion. We have established that there isn't enough moderation staff to babysit all the threads here. This is the next best thing we can have to a community that fosters constructive discussion.

Edit: Made the quote more complete

[Aclion]

So question for the Mods will other megathreads be held to a high standard now? Due to the problems that both the left and right wing threads caused?

And when I say high standard will megathreads have a increase in Mods watching these threads?

I don't see how would matter. In the maga and election thread we have a number of posters that engage in bad faith, disruptive posting in oder to get actionable responses, and the mod ruling was that this is not only not against any rule, but that mods would be unabel to moderate effectively if it were. Which makes me not buy the "people weren't reporting stuff" argument. If you don't handle the behavior why would you expect people to report things?

[Bombadil]

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.

This. I never thought this would be a controversial opinion. We have established that there isn't enough moderation staff to babysit all the threads here. This is the next best thing we can have to a community that fosters constructive discussion.

Gosh, I'd rather a little more of my paragraph was quoted given, as quoted, it could seem to support the idea that Mods are responsible alone for finding reportable behaviour.. so..

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..

[Forsher]

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.

No, it's a valid concern.

Have you been on a forum in a death spiral? Because I have.

And two of the defining features of what happened were this:

• concentration of activity (e.g. megathreads)
• failure of concentration of activity to reproduce forum vitality (i.e. turnover, e.g. data you've been offered several times now)

And, yes, there were other problems going on there... way too many changes of hosts, the demise of the wider community of which the forum was a part, actual reliance on activity of "big name" posters... and there was much less activity, but these same features are in evidence here... on NSG.

NSG's vitality is in decline based on stats available to the playerbase. It is completely fair to wonder if that's terminal.

This. I never thought this would be a controversial opinion. We have established that there isn't enough moderation staff to babysit all the threads here. This is the next best thing we can have to a community that fosters constructive discussion.

Gosh, I'd rather a little more of my paragraph was quoted given, as quoted, it could seem to support the idea that Mods are responsible alone for finding reportable behaviour.. so..

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..

I'm 90% sure hey're agreeing with you. The only reason why it's not 100% is because you think they're disagreeing with you.

[Diarcesia]

This. I never thought this would be a controversial opinion. We have established that there isn't enough moderation staff to babysit all the threads here. This is the next best thing we can have to a community that fosters constructive discussion.

Gosh, I'd rather a little more of my paragraph was quoted given, as quoted, it could seem to support the idea that Mods are responsible alone for finding reportable behaviour.. so..

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..

Oops... yeah I meant to quote the entire thing. Thanks for pointing that out

[Grenartia]

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.

No, it's a valid concern.

Have you been on a forum in a death spiral? Because I have.

And two of the defining features of what happened were this:

• concentration of activity (e.g. megathreads)
• failure of concentration of activity to reproduce forum vitality (i.e. turnover, e.g. data you've been offered several times now)

And, yes, there were other problems going on there... way too many changes of hosts, the demise of the wider community of which the forum was a part, actual reliance on activity of "big name" posters... and there was much less activity, but these same features are in evidence here... on NSG.

NSG's vitality is in decline based on stats available to the playerbase. It is completely fair to wonder if that's terminal.

Forgive me for not taking "a thing that happened to me once" seriously as evidence that the forum is in a death spiral.

[The Church of Satan]

No, it's a valid concern.

Have you been on a forum in a death spiral? Because I have.

And two of the defining features of what happened were this:

• concentration of activity (e.g. megathreads)
• failure of concentration of activity to reproduce forum vitality (i.e. turnover, e.g. data you've been offered several times now)

And, yes, there were other problems going on there... way too many changes of hosts, the demise of the wider community of which the forum was a part, actual reliance on activity of "big name" posters... and there was much less activity, but these same features are in evidence here... on NSG.

NSG's vitality is in decline based on stats available to the playerbase. It is completely fair to wonder if that's terminal.

Forgive me for not taking "a thing that happened to me once" seriously as evidence that the forum is in a death spiral.

↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑
Definitely this. I've seen people claim that NS was coming to its end far more than I've seen people claim the world was coming to its end. And suddenly two megathreads are the very foundation of NationStates itself? Sorry but it's not happening. It just isn't. NationStates has a much longer life ahead of it.

[Washington Resistance Army]

Forgive me for not taking "a thing that happened to me once" seriously as evidence that the forum is in a death spiral.

↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑
Definitely this. I've seen people claim that NS was coming to its end far more than I've seen people claim the world was coming to its end. And suddenly two megathreads are the very foundation of NationStates itself? Sorry but it's not happening. It just isn't. NationStates has a much longer life ahead of it.

Not NationStates as a whole, but several people have expressed concerns about said megathreads being gone because they were the only halfway decent places left on General. Without a huge change in culture and how moderation does stuff that particular part of the forum is going to continue to wither and die as it has since 2015 or so.

[Forsher]

Forgive me for not taking "a thing that happened to me once" seriously as evidence that the forum is in a death spiral.

↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑
Definitely this. I've seen people claim that NS was coming to its end far more than I've seen people claim the world was coming to its end. And suddenly two megathreads are the very foundation of NationStates itself? Sorry but it's not happening. It just isn't. NationStates has a much longer life ahead of it.

No.

Let's say you're told that if a tiger is stalking you that there are three things you notice:

• the birds go quiet
• you feel strange, like there's something wrong
• you're somewhere a tiger could be stalking you

Ghost Land and myself have repeatedly provided Gren with data to substantiate the point that "NSG is less vital than it's been [in whatever time span]". I have similarly pointed out what I've seen in a death spiral.

My conclusion is... "it's a valid concern". Which you two are trying to pass off as "as evidence that the forum is in a death spiral".

No. I'm saying that if the birds are quiet and we feel strange in the, say, Sundarbans, it's completely reasonable to ask if a tiger's stalking us.

[The Church of Satan]

Let's say you're told that if a tiger is stalking you that there are three things you notice:

• the birds go quiet
• you feel strange, like there's something wrong
• you're somewhere a tiger could be stalking you

Ghost Land and myself have repeatedly provided Gren with data to substantiate the point that "NSG is less vital than it's been [in whatever time span]". I have similarly pointed out what I've seen in a death spiral.

My conclusion is... "it's a valid concern". Which you two are trying to pass off as "as evidence that the forum is in a death spiral".

No. I'm saying that if the birds are quiet and we feel strange in the, say, Sundarbans, it's completely reasonable to ask if a tiger's stalking us.

Every website (even more so for forums) fluctuate. I've lived it. I've seen some look like they were on their last legs for a pretty substantial time only for things to pick up again and fluctuate again and die down again and so on. It's a cycle. Like any section of this forum, NSG will continue as it always has. As the rest of the forum always has.

[Forsher]

The hostility thing is classic. Forsher made a lot of hidden jabs at RWDT posters which I pointed out and as a result I was given a one day ban. Now I'm the one who has a "hostile approach" — do you think you'll be warned for trolling me? Do you think you're trolling me? .

No I fucking didn't.

And if you think I did, it's up to you to prove I did. Have fun.

No, actually, I hate this kind of shit and it's pretty obvious that if you're throwing my name out like this you'll do it again and expect to just not be challenged on it.

It's not personal. Don't make it personal. But since you have...

Here's the first problem. If I've got a problem with something I say it, where it's relevant:

I don't understand this.

Yes, that is correct. You have fundamentally failed to understand the point being raised.

or

Am I talking about reading NSG? No. Hell, am I even talking about posting in NSG? Again, no.

[...]

Nope. Try again. Not the context of the discussion. Here's the context:
[...]

For whatever reason you decided to take issue with the idea that we should and once did care about intellectual honesty, and did so by ignoring what I was saying so much that I had to start off with "not what I'm talking about but". Which is... exactly how you're following up to it?
[...]

And? Again, this is some bullshit rabbit warren you've created by ignoring what I'm saying and trying to take things completely out of context. You wanna dive down this hole? Fine. But I'm not going with you.

[...]

We. Are. Not. Having. A. Conversation.

We are currently demonstrating exactly what I was complaining about.

[...]

Cool beans. Shame it's got nothing to do with my argument.

[...]

"I have long since given up on anyone who doesn't give as much a shit about doing things the right way as me."

[...]

As an aside... are we seriously entertaining the idea that there's a problem with pointing out that a post is being misrepresented? That we can't complain about "people don't seem to care about the truth"? Because... seriously? I know people hate it when I say "that's not I wrote" but, you know, it is never what I wrote.

The second problem is that what you were doing before is this:

You're bitter about something. What is it?

In light of what you're saying now I'm rather forced to imagine (a) you've had more posts deleted for bad faith posting, (b) that when you were claiming I was obviously "bitter" what you were actually doing was claiming I was making hidden jabs at RWDT posters, which is an odd juxtaposition but okay, (c) you've been talking shit about me without using the name Forsher to do it, which is an even odder juxtaposition, or (d) some unknown combination of the above.

Let's run with (b)... the sheer arrogance to imagine that I'm bitter about... what... people in the RWDT? Seriously? My signature points out that I'm completely over misrepresentation and statements made without proof. You think it's fun writing completely emotionless posts? I don't. Many of my posts are full of jabs at Forsher and informed by points that I've come across before (e.g. the insistence on talking about nation versus player age), e.g.

You might as well DEAT me now for gloating 'cause my life's mission is complete.

[...]

Anyway... I imagine the feminist megathread has already come up, but now I shall find out.

And here's the third problem... how should you read... what? It's entirely unclear where I was making hidden jabs. I guess I'm being forced to play "what might Questers be trying to make a meal out of?" Oooh, boy. That sounds fun.

Those megathreads were chat threads that stopped other threads from being created. Want to talk about, say, legalising prostitution? Why bother making a thread about it? Just stick it in whichever megathread you and your buddies posted in and hoard the topic to the privileged few who use the thread.

Do you deny that megathread regulars often call themselves friends? Where's the jab?

Do you deny that people who get to engage with an interesting idea are privileged for the experience and few in their number? Where's the jab? Accurate language? Or do you imagine that I'm actually suggesting that the regular participants of megathreads have created some sort of Ancien Regime on NSG? That's a laugh.

Next!

Speaking as probably the only person who has tried? All that gets you is being called names...

[...]

If you've only been here since 2015, you really have no idea what you're talking about. Essential reading.

[...]

Now, the RWDT probably took it to an extreme (there were serious suggestions to ban reports from non-participants). [...] We're a huge part of the problem and trying to excuse us by pointing out that the moderators are worse has turned talking points that were clearly not new in 2012-13 into very old ones indeed.

To the first... i.e. there is no reward for putting in the effort. Hey... maybe I'm "bitter" about this? Just a thought, no?

To the second... as I said, I'm clear about the distinction between player age and nation age "if..., you..."

To the third... I'm clearly generalising about a group in which I identify. And I'm saying we, the playerbase as a whole (not the RWDT's regulars in particular), are a problem. And when I did talk about the RWDT in particular... hey, look, a link. Like my signature! (Although having read it back earlier today... it's slightly more nuanced than "ban non-participants from making reports".)

Next!

I mean, sure, I think there's generally less discussion of NSG as a culture than there used to be (for which I blame the megathread era and its privileging of the few over the many) but I, for one, still talk about very old threads. And for as long as I am here with a functioning memory I will continue to do so. I don't think I am unique in this.

[...]

To the extent moderation staff have made snide remarks about people with heterodox (but now official moderation policy) opinions in third party threads. For example.

Who indeed.

[...]

you get opportunities to join in and learn what NSG is like instead of getting shut out by hundreds of pages of pre-existing discussion among cliquey and, clearly, defensive existing posters.

[...]

Being right was never enough, there was always almost always a crowd who had your back no matter what you did or said, but there was always that idea... buried in those superficial appeals to informal logical fallacies... that there was something more that we (a) knew and (b) cared about.

[...]

Americans describing Americans talking about international talking points as international points of view... That's peak American.

(1)... I mean, how was it even a question "what are you bitter about?" Clearly, I'm a "it was better in the old days" kinda guy complaining about the new fangled thing. Compare.

(2)... oh, and apparently I'm a bit ticked off with the moderators for the "nah, we totally always thought this attitude" when shit like that was being posted. (No, but actually, it was a funny joke. As you see above, I've made it myself. So has Auze.)

(3)... so, are you going to say that the RWDT regulars posting in this thread haven't been defensive? That's why the word clearly is in there... it's meant to indicate that I'm characterising what we're seeing in this thread? Well, okay, if this is what hidden jabs are, lock me up and throw away the key.

(4)... if I'm saying "always" while also talking about how megathreads were always around, it is logically impossible for this to be a reference to the RWDT regulars.

(5)... Hakons is American. You and I? We're not. I don't know about you, but I don't like America. Like, in this very specific context. I don't know why you'd take it as a problem with the RWDT's posters rather than Americans but, then, that's the position I started with so better chuck it in.

So... what have we got... a perversion of the expression "hidden jab"? Next!

I mean, Christ, all Xero does is make the kind of layered theoretical threads that supposedly exist only in the RWDT and LWDTs. The threads aren't locked, usually, for threadjacking but because of all the other problems.

[...]

It might not get you anywhere (e.g. I'm disappointed to see this thread get talked about by moderation staff when we're still completely in the dark about whether or not anyone's even thinking about the proposed changes to the OSRS) but it's substantially more helpful than "waah, I hate the current rules"... which doesn't even say what's wrong with the current rules.

[...]

Now contrast:

• ITT people keep praising the quality of discussion on the RWDT and LWDTs
• I personally observe a fall in standards of intellectual honesty to the extent I now have "links of it's a God damned lie and you know it" in my signature
• ITT people who are defending the RWDT and LWDTs keep making truly terrible arguments without links or logical reasoning
• ITT these people identify themselves as posters in the RWDT and LWDTs
• Conclusion: maybe these threads weren't protectors of quality discussion after all?

Not a fantastic argument but you can see a sketch of the eventual conclusion from the arrangement of the facts. In your case... maybe people are just naturally inclined not to report people they know or are personally implicated in? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jEVA0l3rR48As%20it%20happens%20there's%20a%20movie%20scene%20that%20seems%20to%20describe%20the%20situation%20exactly. (First half of the video... eventually it leads to this line of dialogue.)

Self-interest is a powerful thing.

[...]

Hot take but there's no inherent problem with Gauthier style "generic one liner attacking replacement level right wing viewpoint". What is problematic is people reading past actual posts by specific people and reducing them to the same. Similarly, people treating Gauthier style posts as being in response to specifically existing people instead of challenging the wider characterisation's validity.

There are way too many people who do those latter two things.

(1)... I'm getting annoyed with the contention that megathreads were the places to go for a certain kind of discussion. It's a position about lies and inaccuracies not RWDT posters.

(2)... again, it should be clear that this isn't about RWDT posters.

(3)... this is a bit more complicated.

If you read what I'm replying to, I'm trying to demonstrate what an actual argument looks like. In particular, I've chosen what I call a bad argument. In context with everything else you've read it should be pretty clear that it's entirely ambiguous about whether or not this is a claim I'm actually making. But what's more... what is the claim? Well, that bad argument is attacking the notion that the *DWT threads were protectors of quality arguments. It's not saying that the participants created the fall in quality. It's saying that I do not find their posts to be of quality, therefore (by the terms of the bad argument) that the threads did not preserve quality (since it fell anyway). (The claim itself is now relevant, not merely the question of whether or not it's a jab, since it is manifestly not what Questers says I was arguing here.)

Okay, so maybe that's a hidden jab. Except... it's explicitly identifying "ITT people who are defending the RWDT and LWDTs [who] keep making truly terrible arguments without links or logical reasoning" in the context of a post where I complain three times about baseless statements (and this is being written in response to one of them).

Can we not say "I think that's a terrible argument" now? I mean, yeah, it's a jab. But it's not hidden. And, seriously, what is the problem with saying "that's a terrible argument"?

In the second part of this section... I am making the same argument that we have already seen, i.e. that the playerbase are the problem. While it is true that I'm now talking specifically about *WDT participants, I would again like to problematise the (implicit/presumed) assertion that suggesting people are self-interested is a jab. I have a degree in economics. It's a fair, humorous generalisation to claim that "self-interest" is the basis of the subject.

But I'm not actually even saying that. What I'm saying is that it's an alternative explanation for The Marlborough's phenomenon that hasn't been considered. I'm specifically saying is that it's a hypothesis that fits "the arrangement of facts" at hand. As it happens, it is a hypothesis I believe in... I'm pretty sure I've said it before... but it is not something I'm saying here.

(4)... obviously I think WRA is talking about Gormwood/Gauth(ier) and I'm offering my take on what I think they're doing. And what are the problems I take with how people respond?

• misrepresenting specific posts by specific people as being "replacement level [ideological] viewpoints"
• misrepresenting Gauthier style posts as being something that specific people believe in

Or, you know, what I've been complaining about this entire time: lies and inaccuracies.

Obviously I like generalisations but they're not hidden. If this is supposed to be a dig at RWDT people, why doesn't it say so? This is the same post we find "ITT people who are defending the RWDT and LWDTs". It is untenable to conclude that this is a remark about RWDT people. It is also weird to describe it as hidden since, you know, it's explicitly stating the problem, but if you're making the untenable argument that "actually Forsher's really talking just about RWDT members" then it is hidden. Conditional reasoning... based on an untenable condition.

Next!

What's happening in this thread isn't even close to being like what was happening back then and that people think it is? It's laughable.

I mean, Christ, I can't even remember if we're even allowed to talk about the incident any more. I'm pretty sure we can't talk about the crime at hand at all. But that might be 1000 Cats' crime. Maybe it's both???

[...]

Having been on the receiving end of one of the worst fucking instances of "it's okay, we're just having a laugh" I've seen on NSG... preach.

Their standard does nothing but leave people lost and confused in circlejerks, dogpiles and popularity contests with absolutely 0 ability to trust that the rules are actually on their side, that this kind of behaviour is not just tolerated but encouraged and so on.

[...]

NSG has a terrible culture of bullying.

[...]

Yes and the causes of this dynamic have just suffered what is hopefully the first step in the eventual victory of the Old NSG over the New NSG.

(1) & (2)... more obvious indications of why I might come across as bitter, frustrated or grumpy or whatever. Again, how anyone can pretend it's "an honest question" beggars belief.

(3),... clearly a knife in the front towards the entire forum.

(4)... maybe if you're taking this ruling as an attack against certain players, this looks like a jab against other players but not only have I never presented megathreads in those terms before but how does the reference to Old vs New NSG make sense in that context? Obviously the causes are megathreads... not players.

Next!

No, what's annoying is that you're not reading my posts. I know people don't read signatures. In case you haven't noticed, but you can actually turn them off so you don't see them at all. That is literally a function on this site. But anyone who wants to talk shit about nation ages who doesn't look at signatures is doing something inherently funny. Especially if they're clearly talking about "long ago and far away".

Again, I really wonder if this is meant to be the standard of conversation that the RWDT created. A complete refusal to do research, a blustering pride at ignoring text and indignant, chip on the shoulder responses when challenged. Yeah...

And we've got basically everything we talked about so far.

And, hey, maybe this is something that can be called a hidden jab in that second paragraph. But it's actually a specific criticism of a specific post tied to ITT claims about the nature of conversation created by the RWDT. There's nothing hidden here. It's another example of "you keep telling me that I'll see this one thing but I'm not seeing it, I'm seeing the opposite".

I'm calling out a specific bad post and describing what I'm seeing as responses to doing so.

Can we just talk about how banter somehow became equated with "I need to be able to flame and troll my supposed friends" for a minute because it's getting kind of crazy?

[...]

"I beseech you, in the bowels of Christ, think it possible that you may be mistaken"

People are allowed to be wrong. Can we please stop jumping on people for concluding they were mistaken?

[...]


At best they can just go... "Well, Forsher's been here for years but literally no-one appears to like him, like, at all and, also, that includes us so we're not going to believe him and, what's more, DoS him for making shit up... probably. Also, we'll ban New Zealand again, just in case. Fuck the other six players from NZ, they were probably in on it, too."

(1)... more misrepresentations... (2)... another reason for frustration/bitterness... (3)... another demonstration of what I see as the actual emotional tone to read into my posts...

Oh, hey, it's you... the random poster who got all indignant when I pointed out that the RWDT wasn't what it was sold as:

sorry who are you

Who is irrelevant. What matters. And that little exchange, right there, is the RWDT not caring that it's not meant to be a chat thread and rejecting the possibility of being "self-moderated" into being what it's supposed to be.


[...]

As far as I'm concerned, the baggage is the wagon circling the mods did to protect the megathreads.

[...]

No, being right is more important. If I thought it was wrong, investigating how it happened would be important. We're never going to get transparency.

What you also have to remember, and aside from anything else, I vividly remember moderation threads directly and indirectly about these very subjects. Events seem to have conspired to make the moderation staff realise that they were wrong.

This isn't the real world. This is NSG. It's opaque. It's headscratching. The moderation stuff are needlessly hostile and some of them seem to personally dislike me (I certainly don't like some of them). Transparent it is not and never has been. Responsive? Sure. If you can stand the snark. And that's enough.

Which should hopefully lay out everything. That supposedly serious question? That's answered more completely than you could possibly imagine by this point. The idea that I make hidden jabs instead of specifically stating what I think is going on? Well, that's a weird claim given that opening.

I don't like megathreads. It's really that simple. I've been against them for years. I have articulated, many times, the problems I see with them. Questers will later (than where these posts are) go on to completely misrepresent why I think megathreads need to go and the likely consequences we'll get from being rid of them.

But if we want answers to that supposedly serious question we have:

• I don't like what I think megathreads have done to the forum
• I've been watching the moderators pull their usual shit to defend megathreads for years but, hey, here we are
• It's literally just how I post
• I'm completely done with lies and misrepresentations but have been coming across them a lot... in particular in relation to what megathreads do and do not provide
• I've had really fucked up experiences on this forum and I've seen similar happen to other players... and in most of those cases it comes back to trying to deal with lies and misrepresentations
• I really, really, really do not like people misrepresenting people and their motivations
• I'm acutely aware that what something is doesn't matter so long as someone else wants it to be another way

And for all that the only time I think you're close to having a point are these two passages:

you get opportunities to join in and learn what NSG is like instead of getting shut out by hundreds of pages of pre-existing discussion among cliquey and, clearly, defensive existing posters.

which is nothing more than a matter of fact description of how to post in a megathread, although you might wonder why the defensiveness of the posters involved matters. I'll tell you... it means you can't complain about getting shut out. You can't complain about megathreads because it's seen as an attack on the players that use them. And, clearly, it all boils down to just being summarised as "bitter". Doesn't fucking matter. Never did. We used to seem to care about that.

and

Again, I really wonder if this is meant to be the standard of conversation that the RWDT created. A complete refusal to do research, a blustering pride at ignoring text and indignant, chip on the shoulder responses when challenged. Yeah...

Which, in context, isn't "made a lot of hidden jabs at RWDT posters" at all. In isolation it looks bad. But that's just the thing. It's not a comment made in isolation. It's a comment made in a particular context in a particular fashion. When it's take for what it is, it's just another in an endless series of complaints of the sort my signature consists mostly of:

That it Could be What it Is, Is What it Is

Stop making shit up, though. Links, or it's a God-damn lie and you know it

No-one complains about my signature.

Every website (even more so for forums) fluctuate. I've lived it. I've seen some look like they were on their last legs for a pretty substantial time only for things to pick up again and fluctuate again and die down again and so on. It's a cycle. Like any section of this forum, NSG will continue as it always has. As the rest of the forum always has.

You'll note that I expect getting rid of these threads to increase vitality.

[Grenartia]

↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑
Definitely this. I've seen people claim that NS was coming to its end far more than I've seen people claim the world was coming to its end. And suddenly two megathreads are the very foundation of NationStates itself? Sorry but it's not happening. It just isn't. NationStates has a much longer life ahead of it.

No.

Let's say you're told that if a tiger is stalking you that there are three things you notice:

• the birds go quiet
• you feel strange, like there's something wrong
• you're somewhere a tiger could be stalking you

Ghost Land and myself have repeatedly provided Gren with data to substantiate the point that "NSG is less vital than it's been [in whatever time span]". I have similarly pointed out what I've seen in a death spiral.

My conclusion is... "it's a valid concern". Which you two are trying to pass off as "as evidence that the forum is in a death spiral".

No. I'm saying that if the birds are quiet and we feel strange in the, say, Sundarbans, it's completely reasonable to ask if a tiger's stalking us.

Meanwhile, we're actually in the middle of a large city.

[Forsher]

No.

Let's say you're told that if a tiger is stalking you that there are three things you notice:

• the birds go quiet
• you feel strange, like there's something wrong
• you're somewhere a tiger could be stalking you

Ghost Land and myself have repeatedly provided Gren with data to substantiate the point that "NSG is less vital than it's been [in whatever time span]". I have similarly pointed out what I've seen in a death spiral.

My conclusion is... "it's a valid concern". Which you two are trying to pass off as "as evidence that the forum is in a death spiral".

No. I'm saying that if the birds are quiet and we feel strange in the, say, Sundarbans, it's completely reasonable to ask if a tiger's stalking us.

Meanwhile, we're actually in the middle of a large city.

It's a jungle out there.

[The Archregimancy]

A while ago, there was a general organised conference set up to address problems in r/d gameplay, from a technical standpoint, and some recommendations (some of which actually got implemented!) were brought forward from that. Perhaps a similar organised conference, regarding addressing issues that sections of the community have with moderators could be set up? It'd be a good way to make sure that the dialogue was more about suggestions than sniping (I admit I've been guilty of the latter though.)

Good suggestion, given that there are WDT regulars that genuinely feel isolated from the modding process.

Right; out of bed. Good morning from Cairo.

GVH's suggestion of a 'general organised conference' is not, I think, appropriate at this stage. It's not an idea I would entirely dismiss for the future, but I don't think under the current climate this is presently the way forward (stressing that I haven't discussed this with the rest of the team).

What I would do, however, is challenge those of you who genuinely want to improve NS to use this thread in a more organised fashion to present constructive ideas on what you would do to improve the site. So long as it's not 'let site users elect the moderation team'; assume that's a non-starter.


While I recognise that I'm oversimplifying, and I won't attempt to quantify the different groups, contributors to the present thread can likely be broadly broken down into the following categories:

1) Posters who believe the mods are petty and vindictive people who have made a terrible decision that deliberately targets a specific group, and are all actively lying about that decision. There can be no negotiation with the mods.

2) Posters who believe the mods made a terrible decision that deliberately targets a specific group, and are perhaps not being entirely truthful about that decision, but who still care about the site enough to see if there's a way to move forward.

3) Posters who believe the mods made a poor decision and communicated it badly, but accept that they nonetheless acted in good faith while making that badly communicated poor decision; perhaps there are ways to help avoid this happening again in the future.

4) Posters who broadly support the decision, but think it could have been communicated better.

5) Posters who support the decision and don't really see what the problem is.

6) Posters who don't have much of an opinion on the rights and wrongs of the decision, but think some of the rhetoric on all sides is maybe getting a bit overheated given that we're talking about a couple of threads in an online discussion forum.


Any attempt to engage with category 1 is likely a lost cause (though no doubt we can expect further fulmination on the iniquities of the lying moderation team) so these next comments are addressed to the rest of you....

We've now spent several days and dozens of pages rehashing the rights and wrongs of the decision, and why we think it was terrible/not terrible but badly communicated/absolutely fine. I think we can safely assume that, at this point, almost one one's minds are going to be changed.

So why not use this opportunity to offer your suggestions on what could be done better in the future, whether on this type of decision specifically or across site moderation generally, in a more organised fashion.

Starting a post with 'these are my ideas for improving the situation', or similar language, will help signal that this is your specific intent. If you've already made suggestions in this thread, feel free to make them again - there's a lot of thread to wade through, after all, even for those of us who've read every page.

I'm not going to insult your intelligence by claiming that we'll treat every suggestion equally, or that suggestions will inevitably lead to action; but I'm offering you an overt opportunity to at least try, and for all of us - at least those of us who don't believe moderation is already a lost cause - to move past mutual recrimination and see if there might not be a way to build some bridges.

[Greater vakolicci haven]

Well, what I would have done to improve this decision is to communicate more. This has been a refresher course in why it's important to communicate your intent; I believe that for many posters the decision came as a shock. Decisions regarding the closure of large threads with their own community around them should not come as a shock, they should be clearly communicated beforehand with the players affected told how they could fix what they were doing in order to avert the closure of the communigies.
If the players in question totally refused to do it following a few warnings like the chill/chat regulars did, that's another story entirely. However, I'm not seing where an attempt was tried.

[Danubian Peoples]

Hello, thread. I'm here too, I guess. I don't have much of a stake in this, as I was never really one to post in either of the 'wing' megathreads, or anywhere in NSG for that matter. But reading through this thread is, disheartening, so say the least.Even if I'm not actively participating in General, every banner on my screen, every hour I spend logged on here, is a boon for Nationstates. And if Nationstates' moderation is as reprehensible as some of these posts make it out to be, I'm wondering if I can in good conscience continue participating in this site. I've dug my feet into communities, committed myself to roleplays, and I'm wondering if it would be worth cutting all of that if it meant not supporting this supposedly 'evil' site.

I mean, the moderators probably aren't as bad as what this thread's contents seem to suggest, but consider me a tad distressed nonetheless. If anyone has suggestions for grappling with this feeling, do tell. Apologies if this is off-topic or anything.

As for suggestions, which The Archregimancy seems to be asking for right now, I would personally suggest, perhaps some sort of disclosure? Maybe a 'hey we're going to do this thing which might be really important to a lot of you' so as to give the community a heads up? Because it seems that some of the people in this thread are more annoyed at the out-of-the-blue nature of this ruling than anything else. And here's another apology in advance, incase I'm out of depth or anything like that. Been here for only 2 or so years, and as I stated earlier, I don't have much of a stake in NSG.

[Bombadil]

1. Change the forum description from:

For discussion and debate about anything. (Not a roleplay related forum; out-of-character commentary only.)

To:

For discussion and debate about topical events. (Not a roleplay related forum; out-of-character commentary only.)

Therefore, to start a thread it needs to be related to a topical narrative - so 'wow, they just discovered a new tomb outside Cairo, how will this impact our views on ancient Egyptian culture', that allows for a discussion of Egyptian culture based around the new finds. (That's for you Arch, don't say I never think of people..)

..or, 'hey, that Canadian guy hero of the alt-right just launched a new video on why the left are babies', how does this inform the right wing agenda and narrative?'

Then it's at least a little easier to drive a topic around something relatively topical as opposed to 'duh big megathread', and thus easier to say 'stay on topic'.

It still allows for, say, the CDT but each version is based around at least something topical rather than just a blaggy formless discussion that devolves into the same old people.. because each topical aspect allows for new people to have a POV.

Beyond that, yeah, perhaps a more formal means in terms of repeating megathreads of stating 'gu-als, this thread is degenerating into spam, here's our reasons, and we're going to lock it in 7 days if you don't buck up'. Like an extended coffee break, I will call it a Parole Break, since I invented Coffee Break and you all stole it anyway.

[The New California Republic]

Starting a post with 'these are my ideas for improving the situation', or similar language, will help signal that this is your specific intent. If you've already made suggestions in this thread, feel free to make them again - there's a lot of thread to wade through, after all, even for those of us who've read every page.

I made the suggestion that two Mods should be needed to DEAT someone who is at the end of the rope in terms of warnings, to improve the perception of forum users that there is adequate oversight of such decisions, and that they are not taken lightly. For example, it'd likely involve something resembling the following:

Blah blah blah, flame flame flame, troll troll troll, blah blah blah!

This is your fourth warning this month, after just coming off a two-week ban. The warnings clearly aren't sinking in. As such, [mod warn text]trollnationlandia, DEAT pending for flaming and trolling, 1st Mod concurs.[/mod warn text]

This is your fourth warning this month, after just coming off a two-week ban. The warnings clearly aren't sinking in. As such, [mod warn text]trollnationlandia, DEAT pending for flaming and trolling, 1st Mod concurs.[/mod warn text]

Having examined trollnationlandia's history and continuing disregard for the rules I concur with the above DEAT decision. As such, [mod warn text]trollnationlandia is now DEAT for flaming and trolling, 2nd Mod concurs.[/mod warn text]

It'd involve having a section of the mod cave that would flag up DEAT decisions that are pending a second Mod, so that second approval is prompt.

Of course the second Mod could also say no to the decision of the first Mod, if they think there are good reasons why a DEAT may not be justified or excessive, which they would then list in the ruling. The DEAT would then not go ahead. If the first Mod really takes issue with that, then they can go to a senior Mod for arbitration.

[The Sherpa Empire]

Hello, thread. I'm here too, I guess. I don't have much of a stake in this, as I was never really one to post in either of the 'wing' megathreads, or anywhere in NSG for that matter. But reading through this thread is, disheartening, so say the least.Even if I'm not actively participating in General, every banner on my screen, every hour I spend logged on here, is a boon for Nationstates. And if Nationstates' moderation is as reprehensible as some of these posts make it out to be, I'm wondering if I can in good conscience continue participating in this site. I've dug my feet into communities, committed myself to roleplays, and I'm wondering if it would be worth cutting all of that if it meant not supporting this supposedly 'evil' site.

I mean, the moderators probably aren't as bad as what this thread's contents seem to suggest, but consider me a tad distressed nonetheless. If anyone has suggestions for grappling with this feeling, do tell. Apologies if this is off-topic or anything.

As for suggestions, which The Archregimancy seems to be asking for right now, I would personally suggest, perhaps some sort of disclosure? Maybe a 'hey we're going to do this thing which might be really important to a lot of you' so as to give the community a heads up? Because it seems that some of the people in this thread are more annoyed at the out-of-the-blue nature of this ruling than anything else. And here's another apology in advance, incase I'm out of depth or anything like that. Been here for only 2 or so years, and as I stated earlier, I don't have much of a stake in NSG.

Why the fuck would you feel the need to boycott a site over something you had no stake in? Just because some other people are outraged? What does that have to do with you? You've got zero evidence that the mods have done anything wrong. Zero evidence that any of the outrage is justified.

Why would you abandon something you enjoy just because some total strangers are angry about some unrelated drama? That makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.

[Esternial]

Starting a post with 'these are my ideas for improving the situation', or similar language, will help signal that this is your specific intent. If you've already made suggestions in this thread, feel free to make them again - there's a lot of thread to wade through, after all, even for those of us who've read every page.

I made the suggestion that two Mods should be needed to DEAT someone who is at the end of the rope in terms of warnings, to improve the perception of forum users that there is adequate oversight of such decisions, and that they are not taken lightly. For example, it'd likely involve something resembling the following:

This is your fourth warning this month, after just coming off a two-week ban. The warnings clearly aren't sinking in. As such, [mod warn text]trollnationlandia, DEAT pending for flaming and trolling, 1st Mod concurs.[/mod warn text]

Having examined trollnationlandia's history and continuing disregard for the rules I concur with the above DEAT decision. As such, [mod warn text]trollnationlandia is now DEAT for flaming and trolling, 2nd Mod concurs.[/mod warn text]

It'd involve having a section of the mod cave that would flag up DEAT decisions that are pending a second Mod, so that second approval is prompt.

Of course the second Mod could also say no to the decision of the first Mod, if they think there are good reasons why a DEAT may not be justified or excessive, which they would then list in the ruling. The DEAT would then not go ahead. If the first Mod really takes issue with that, then they can go to a senior Mod for arbitration.

I personally have my doubts whether this would be an impactful change.

I think there's a subset of users that don't see much meaning in the "second opinion" of Moderators (see also: Archregimancy's definition of the "first group" above). Having the same procedure but moving it up the workflow will likely not resolve that overall sentiment, and people that don't have this sentiment likely trust the second opinion to reverse a DEAT if it is truly unwarranted.

That's just my own view on it, though.

[The Sherpa Empire]

Starting a post with 'these are my ideas for improving the situation', or similar language, will help signal that this is your specific intent. If you've already made suggestions in this thread, feel free to make them again - there's a lot of thread to wade through, after all, even for those of us who've read every page.

I made the suggestion that two Mods should be needed to DEAT someone who is at the end of the rope in terms of warnings, to improve the perception of forum users that there is adequate oversight of such decisions, and that they are not taken lightly. For example, it'd likely involve something resembling the following:

This is your fourth warning this month, after just coming off a two-week ban. The warnings clearly aren't sinking in. As such, [mod warn text]trollnationlandia, DEAT pending for flaming and trolling, 1st Mod concurs.[/mod warn text]

Having examined trollnationlandia's history and continuing disregard for the rules I concur with the above DEAT decision. As such, [mod warn text]trollnationlandia is now DEAT for flaming and trolling, 2nd Mod concurs.[/mod warn text]

It'd involve having a section of the mod cave that would flag up DEAT decisions that are pending a second Mod, so that second approval is prompt.

Of course the second Mod could also say no to the decision of the first Mod, if they think there are good reasons why a DEAT may not be justified or excessive, which they would then list in the ruling. The DEAT would then not go ahead. If the first Mod really takes issue with that, then they can go to a senior Mod for arbitration.

I would not wish this extra bureaucracy on any of the mods, even the ones who annoy me.

[Esternial]

Good suggestion, given that there are WDT regulars that genuinely feel isolated from the modding process.

Right; out of bed. Good morning from Cairo.

GVH's suggestion of a 'general organised conference' is not, I think, appropriate at this stage. It's not an idea I would entirely dismiss for the future, but I don't think under the current climate this is presently the way forward (stressing that I haven't discussed this with the rest of the team).

What I would do, however, is challenge those of you who genuinely want to improve NS to use this thread in a more organised fashion to present constructive ideas on what you would do to improve the site. So long as it's not 'let site users elect the moderation team'; assume that's a non-starter.


While I recognise that I'm oversimplifying, and I won't attempt to quantify the different groups, contributors to the present thread can likely be broadly broken down into the following categories:

1) Posters who believe the mods are petty and vindictive people who have made a terrible decision that deliberately targets a specific group, and are all actively lying about that decision. There can be no negotiation with the mods.

2) Posters who believe the mods made a terrible decision that deliberately targets a specific group, and are perhaps not being entirely truthful about that decision, but who still care about the site enough to see if there's a way to move forward.

3) Posters who believe the mods made a poor decision and communicated it badly, but accept that they nonetheless acted in good faith while making that badly communicated poor decision; perhaps there are ways to help avoid this happening again in the future.

4) Posters who broadly support the decision, but think it could have been communicated better.

5) Posters who support the decision and don't really see what the problem is.

6) Posters who don't have much of an opinion on the rights and wrongs of the decision, but think some of the rhetoric on all sides is maybe getting a bit overheated given that we're talking about a couple of threads in an online discussion forum.


Any attempt to engage with category 1 is likely a lost cause (though no doubt we can expect further fulmination on the iniquities of the lying moderation team) so these next comments are addressed to the rest of you....

We've now spent several days and dozens of pages rehashing the rights and wrongs of the decision, and why we think it was terrible/not terrible but badly communicated/absolutely fine. I think we can safely assume that, at this point, almost one one's minds are going to be changed.

So why not use this opportunity to offer your suggestions on what could be done better in the future, whether on this type of decision specifically or across site moderation generally, in a more organised fashion.

Starting a post with 'these are my ideas for improving the situation', or similar language, will help signal that this is your specific intent. If you've already made suggestions in this thread, feel free to make them again - there's a lot of thread to wade through, after all, even for those of us who've read every page.

I'm not going to insult your intelligence by claiming that we'll treat every suggestion equally, or that suggestions will inevitably lead to action; but I'm offering you an overt opportunity to at least try, and for all of us - at least those of us who don't believe moderation is already a lost cause - to move past mutual recrimination and see if there might not be a way to build some bridges.

I think the challenge here (to me), for "improving communication", would be to identify what acts would require Moderation to "check-in" with the larger community first.

If I'm not mistaken, Moderation made it clear to the impacted communities of the megathreads that they were threading on thin ice. This came to everyone else as a surprise, sure, but was it a surprise for the parties involved?

[The New California Republic]

I personally have my doubts whether this would be an impactful change.

I think there's a subset of users that don't see much meaning in the "second opinion" of Moderators (see also: Archregimancy's definition of the "first group" above). Having the same procedure but moving it up the workflow will likely not resolve that overall sentiment, and people that don't have this sentiment likely trust the second opinion to reverse a DEAT if it is truly unwarranted.

That's just my own view on it, though.

Well yes, there will always be that subset where any change to Moderating won't make a difference, but I think it would improve the overall perception that there is adequate oversight and openness.

---

I would not wish this extra bureaucracy on any of the mods, even the ones who annoy me.

I don't think it would result in much extra bureaucracy, as the number of DEATs each week for accumulated offences is quite small.

---

If I'm not mistaken, Moderation made it clear to the impacted communities of the megathreads that they were threading on thin ice. This came to everyone else as a surprise, sure, but was it a surprise for the parties involved?

There were some hints in the RWDT, but it pretty much blindsided the LWDT.

[The Archregimancy]

Hello, thread. I'm here too, I guess. I don't have much of a stake in this, as I was never really one to post in either of the 'wing' megathreads, or anywhere in NSG for that matter. But reading through this thread is, disheartening, so say the least.Even if I'm not actively participating in General, every banner on my screen, every hour I spend logged on here, is a boon for Nationstates. And if Nationstates' moderation is as reprehensible as some of these posts make it out to be, I'm wondering if I can in good conscience continue participating in this site. I've dug my feet into communities, committed myself to roleplays, and I'm wondering if it would be worth cutting all of that if it meant not supporting this supposedly 'evil' site.

I mean, the moderators probably aren't as bad as what this thread's contents seem to suggest, but consider me a tad distressed nonetheless. If anyone has suggestions for grappling with this feeling, do tell. Apologies if this is off-topic or anything.

As for suggestions, which The Archregimancy seems to be asking for right now, I would personally suggest, perhaps some sort of disclosure? Maybe a 'hey we're going to do this thing which might be really important to a lot of you' so as to give the community a heads up? Because it seems that some of the people in this thread are more annoyed at the out-of-the-blue nature of this ruling than anything else. And here's another apology in advance, incase I'm out of depth or anything like that. Been here for only 2 or so years, and as I stated earlier, I don't have much of a stake in NSG.

Why the fuck would you feel the need to boycott a site over something you had no stake in? Just because some other people are outraged? What does that have to do with you? You've got zero evidence that the mods have done anything wrong. Zero evidence that any of the outrage is justified.

Why would you abandon something you enjoy just because some total strangers are angry about some unrelated drama? That makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.

Can we try and be a little less confrontational and a little bit more constructive, please?

I'm making a deliberate effort to dial back the confrontation and anger on the part of all parties in this thread, and move towards constructive discussion.

This level of aggression towards someone who's made only one post in this thread isn't necessarily helping.

[Danubian Peoples]

Hello, thread. I'm here too, I guess. I don't have much of a stake in this, as I was never really one to post in either of the 'wing' megathreads, or anywhere in NSG for that matter. But reading through this thread is, disheartening, so say the least.Even if I'm not actively participating in General, every banner on my screen, every hour I spend logged on here, is a boon for Nationstates. And if Nationstates' moderation is as reprehensible as some of these posts make it out to be, I'm wondering if I can in good conscience continue participating in this site. I've dug my feet into communities, committed myself to roleplays, and I'm wondering if it would be worth cutting all of that if it meant not supporting this supposedly 'evil' site.

I mean, the moderators probably aren't as bad as what this thread's contents seem to suggest, but consider me a tad distressed nonetheless. If anyone has suggestions for grappling with this feeling, do tell. Apologies if this is off-topic or anything.

As for suggestions, which The Archregimancy seems to be asking for right now, I would personally suggest, perhaps some sort of disclosure? Maybe a 'hey we're going to do this thing which might be really important to a lot of you' so as to give the community a heads up? Because it seems that some of the people in this thread are more annoyed at the out-of-the-blue nature of this ruling than anything else. And here's another apology in advance, incase I'm out of depth or anything like that. Been here for only 2 or so years, and as I stated earlier, I don't have much of a stake in NSG.

Why the fuck would you feel the need to boycott a site over something you had no stake in? Just because some other people are outraged? What does that have to do with you? You've got zero evidence that the mods have done anything wrong. Zero evidence that any of the outrage is justified.

Why would you abandon something you enjoy just because some total strangers are angry about some unrelated drama? That makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.

First of all, that response seems a tad rude, sorry for necessitating such a reply, and secondly, you have a fair point. And don't worry I'm not actually leaving NS or anything, just stating that I have this slight feeling that maybe I should. Probably should have worded that better. As for my reasoning behind this train of thought, well, reading through this thread made it sound like that the moderators were actively trying to hurt people. and that's not something I want to support. It's reasoning similar to the way some people don't buy stuff made using unethical practices (think blood diamonds). It may not be hurting them, but it is hurting people. In reality, that probably isn't the case, and such reasoning probably shouldn't be used on such a small site anyway. Thanks for the reply, even if it came off a little rude.

EDIT:It appears that The Archregimancy beat me to the rudeness thing.