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

[Giovenith]

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

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

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

General snark is not banned for anyone. Flaming, trolling, flamebaiting, etc. is. It's possible to do the former without the latter, as the majority of users demonstrate on a daily basis. Certain users' inability — or unwillingness — to learn the difference between mild snark and rulebreaking behavior, as most others do, does not constitute hypocrisy or inconsistency.

[Dawn Denac]

Should suggestiosn for GHR improvement go into technical or here? Asking for myself so it doesn't derail.

[Aureumterra]

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

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

General snark is not banned for anyone. Flaming, trolling, flamebaiting, etc. is. It's possible to do the former without the latter, as the majority of users demonstrate on a daily basis. Certain users' inability — or unwillingness — to learn the difference between mild snark and rulebreaking behavior, as most others do, does not constitute hypocrisy or inconsistency.

Of all the rules, flamebaiting seems the most widely differentiated, as in different mods seem to have wildly different opinions of what is considered baiting and what is considered non-actionable snark, from my observations

[Diarcesia]

General snark is not banned for anyone. Flaming, trolling, flamebaiting, etc. is. It's possible to do the former without the latter, as the majority of users demonstrate on a daily basis. Certain users' inability — or unwillingness — to learn the difference between mild snark and rulebreaking behavior, as most others do, does not constitute hypocrisy or inconsistency.

Of all the rules, flamebaiting seems the most widely differentiated, as in different mods seem to have wildly different options of what is considered baiting and what is considered non-actionable snark, from my observations

Ah, the vagaries of the text medium. It's hard to ascertain flamebaiting especially if it's a borderline case.

[Proctopeo]

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

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

I'd say that personality, rather than political views, would be more likely to affect decisions.

[WayNeacTia]

General snark is not banned for anyone. Flaming, trolling, flamebaiting, etc. is. It's possible to do the former without the latter, as the majority of users demonstrate on a daily basis. Certain users' inability — or unwillingness — to learn the difference between mild snark and rulebreaking behavior, as most others do, does not constitute hypocrisy or inconsistency.

Of all the rules, flamebaiting seems the most widely differentiated, as in different mods seem to have wildly different opinions of what is considered baiting and what is considered non-actionable snark, from my observations

Context is the key word here. It all depends on the context of the conversation.

[Mushet]

And nothing of value was lost.

I actually approve of the closing of these megathreads and have spoken out against their existence. Unlike many of these posters I was active on NSG well before the existence of these threads and can confirm good discussion can happen outside of them, moreso if people aren't concentrating so much energy in these two threads.

What I don't approve of are deletions of posts in the discussion for the nebulous reason of "bad faith", the mods may be empowered to do so, but that doesn't mean they should do it. It reeks of overreach and bad faith on their end, but seems more like something that was happening in the beginning of the thread. Interesting how this turned into something of a "NSG Culture" type thread, we'll see how it turns out.

[Salandriagado]

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

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

It seems to me that there's an utterly trivial solution that requires exactly zero changes to the code: just require mods to type their names at the bottom of their responses.

[The New California Republic]

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

It seems to me that there's an utterly trivial solution that requires exactly zero changes to the code: just require mods to type their names at the bottom of their responses.

Yes that was already suggested prior. The answer was staring me in the face.

[Grenartia]

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

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

'Right Wing' is perhaps a matter of perspective.

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

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

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

Oh, I welcome the bluntness. I am severely opposed to having ideological 'diversity hires' on the modteam, and I understand Moderation as an institution also doesn't want that. But as long as certain people are seriously suggesting it, I'm gonna rail against it.

The LWDT also never did shit like this: viewtopic.php?f=16&t=457511

That happened years ago and the RWDT wasn't shut down at the time.

Which is all the more evidence that moderation had allowed the toxic core of RWDT to fester for too long.

And for the record, I'm not sure that the mods were lenient enough on the players involved

What the actual fucking hell? Someone could have been SWATted or worse because of that bullshit, and you think the perpetrators didn't get off easy enough? Are you fucking baiting me?

(which is not synonymous with the RWDT regulars).

They were very prominent and regular posters on the RWDT, and very well-respected by the other prominent and regular posters on the RWDT. If that doesn't make one a RWDT regular, then a RWDT regular doesn't fucking exist.

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

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

The problem came when the so-called "friendly banter" was directed at people who were not friends.

[The Blaatschapen]

I'm very much aware of that, and I apologize if you think I think that way. But I think the Secret Hitler analogy is a very apt one to make. As a diehard socialist, I could care less about whether or not socialism or capitalism is more represented on the modteam. But I absolutely draw the line at individuals who think people who don't have the same religion, ideology, sexual orientation, gender identity, ability, citizenship status, or race/ethnicity shouldn't have basic human rights.

And I'm not entirely convinced the userbase of the RWDT wouldn't nominate individuals like that.

One way to counteract that concern would be to nominate any right-leaning players you're familiar with who you know don't show views of those sorts, and might make a good mod. There's no reason why someone who is socially conservative couldn't moderate the forums justly*, but yes an outright misogynist or racist, for example, would likely be a problem since it is important that mods are able to to treat players fairly.

*I'm out of touch these days with where my fellow mods' political views lie, for the most part, but there certainly have been socially conservative mods in the past who did the job well and fairly.

Speaking of mod nominations. I sent one in a few months ago, has it been received? (not looking for an answer to whether it was considered, but it might have gotten into spam instead)

[Forsher]

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

The problem came when the so-called "friendly banter" was directed at people who were not friends.

And that "friendly banter" is being conflated with needing to be able to troll/flame/bait/strawman other players in the first place. In my experience, actual friends tease each other based either on inside references that are completely innocuous without having "been there" at the time of the referent's origin, or drawing attention to little quirks that, again, don't have any inherent meaning to outsiders. If you can't banter without crossing the forum rules... you're not good at banter and whether it actually counts as banter is questionable (well, strawmanning and baiting possibly do).

But this is not a private discussion site. What is "intended" as "friendly banter" is read by everyone and sets the conversational norms... which thus become trolling/flaming/baiting/strawmanning is not only normal but it's how you, too, can develop a rapport with others on the site.

As several of the mods, myself and many other posters demonstrate, NSG is full of brusque individuals that come across as mean, hostile or merely just confrontational. We should work to make ourselves less like this instead of finding disingenuous reasons to further entrench it in the forum.

"What's going on there", is adequately explained by the moderator making a ruling. That the "not actionable" moderator ruling is never seen, doesn't seem like a big problem. Perhaps the moderator making such a ruling could disable the Report This Post button on that post.

Perhaps this system of anonymous reporting could be trialled without a code revision or reboot. Just make it permissible to lodge regular forum reports via Getting Help. Second opinions and Final Appeals I guess would have to go in Moderation.

You have to be able to find the moderation actions. And it will never be able to show you what people worry about is crossing the line. They're probably the most norm shaping posts because one looks at them and says "ah, that's where the line is" whereas a report that ends in redtext could be borderline or extreme (it's not possible to tell straight off).

would re-write the OSRS to allow rules-lawyering. Being able to talk about the rules more in appeals would help players and moderators make sense of the rules better. Obviously we can do that a bit, e.g. how I got a ban for flaming converted into a ban for bad faith posting (I don't like the bad faith rule... it's always seemed incredibly vague), but not banning it would allow this benefit without asking moderators to say "for these reasons, I have concluded this is X and therefore Y punishment is appropriate given player history and X".

tbh one of the weird things about NS is that they dislike rules lawyering but NS itself seems to have kind of weird common law style system where new laws and precedents are created on the fly and the only way to actually know what the rules are and find out what new rules mean is to live in moderation and be a huge rules lawyer

Well, it's an English speaking forum created to flesh out a game made to advertise a novel about a dystopia where companies have basically taken over society. It's probably inevitable that the moderation practice looks rather more like "guarantor of freedom" and "protector of English liberty" common law system than "here are the rules, they're very clear".

You tell me. Do they have cohesive topics? I don't think I have used them at all. For all I know they're more user experience threads, eg "today in confession Father Brah gave me 4000 hail Mary's and 49 keg stands" or "I hate the balance in the King James patch and want another, any suggestions?'

I mean, that's admittedly a fair criticism of the CDT. I think a workable solution would be a sub-subforum for these threads, kind of like how A&F has sub-subfora for NS cards and NS trivia. And threads about those subjects that pop up on NSG could get merged into the relevant thread in the sub-subforum.

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

I think it would be fair to say "look, you're about the user experience of a designed consumer product, therefore you go to A&F with the computer thread" which takes care of the gun and car threads. It's a bit less clear about how to handle the religion, sport and language threads. I don't think the language threads fall in the category of "designed consumer product" and so I don't see a relationship with NSG. On the other hand, the sport and religion threads, especially the sport ones, kind of do. But the sport threads aren't really about "one's fandom" or even "one's experience of the sport" but rather "what's happening in the other world" (where, in this case, the other world is the appropriate sports league). So, what I'm saying is that they act more like the Hong Kong thread or any other news event thread than a user experience thread.

I've said it before... but the Abrahamic threads really should be merged and left in NSG. If they're just user experience threads, they can be "NSG religious experience thread" but probably with a less "report your miracle here" title... maybe even just "All Religions Welcome" with an OP that says something like "this is a thread to discuss your personal beliefs and practices with those of both your faith and others; feel welcome to compare your theologies but please no proselytising".

[Proctopeo]

And for the record, I'm not sure that the mods were lenient enough on the players involved

What the actual fucking hell? Someone could have been SWATted or worse because of that bullshit, and you think the perpetrators didn't get off easy enough? Are you fucking baiting me?

Swatting requires a location to send the teams to, so it wouldn't have happened without a doxx, which would be a much more significant concern than "these users defended child sexual exploitation, so stay away from them" could ever be.

Without a doxx, and with an account largely separate from one's actual life (which is the case for most users who frequent NSG, I've noticed), the main harm of such a statement are that the implicated users might feel a bit shit about being called out and they might lose some clout, which isn't even all that important on a forum.

[Sedgistan]

Speaking of mod nominations. I sent one in a few months ago, has it been received? (not looking for an answer to whether it was considered, but it might have gotten into spam instead)

Jan 31st? Yes, it was received. It would have been discussed in the run-up to Santheres, Giovenith and Zurkerx being modded.

[The Blaatschapen]

Speaking of mod nominations. I sent one in a few months ago, has it been received? (not looking for an answer to whether it was considered, but it might have gotten into spam instead)

Jan 31st? Yes, it was received. It would have been discussed in the run-up to Santheres, Giovenith and Zurkerx being modded.

Cool, thanks.

Another one of your colleagues TGed me about it as well.

[Vistulange]

I've said it before... but the Abrahamic threads really should be merged and left in NSG. If they're just user experience threads, they can be "NSG religious experience thread" but probably with a less "report your miracle here" title... maybe even just "All Religions Welcome" with an OP that says something like "this is a thread to discuss your personal beliefs and practices with those of both your faith and others; feel welcome to compare your theologies but please no proselytising".

While this sounds neat, it should probably be pointed out that demographically speaking, amongst the religious users of NS, Christians probably outnumber the Muslim and Jewish users by a large ratio. I obviously have no numbers for this, but merging the different religious threads into one large "Abrahamic Discussion Thread" would effectively make it a Christian Discussion Thread as the smaller demographics would be drowned out.

[Juristonia]

I've said it before... but the Abrahamic threads really should be merged and left in NSG. If they're just user experience threads, they can be "NSG religious experience thread" but probably with a less "report your miracle here" title... maybe even just "All Religions Welcome" with an OP that says something like "this is a thread to discuss your personal beliefs and practices with those of both your faith and others; feel welcome to compare your theologies but please no proselytising".

While this sounds neat, it should probably be pointed out that demographically speaking, amongst the religious users of NS, Christians probably outnumber the Muslim and Jewish users by a large ratio. I obviously have no numbers for this, but merging the different religious threads into one large "Abrahamic Discussion Thread" would effectively make it a Christian Discussion Thread as the smaller demographics would be drowned out.

Not to mention the fact that it'll probably turn in to one big red-text party.

[Nouveau Quebecois]

I've said it before... but the Abrahamic threads really should be merged and left in NSG. If they're just user experience threads, they can be "NSG religious experience thread" but probably with a less "report your miracle here" title... maybe even just "All Religions Welcome" with an OP that says something like "this is a thread to discuss your personal beliefs and practices with those of both your faith and others; feel welcome to compare your theologies but please no proselytising".

While this sounds neat, it should probably be pointed out that demographically speaking, amongst the religious users of NS, Christians probably outnumber the Muslim and Jewish users by a large ratio. I obviously have no numbers for this, but merging the different religious threads into one large "Abrahamic Discussion Thread" would effectively make it a Christian Discussion Thread as the smaller demographics would be drowned out.

Wait, wait, I'm out of the loop, did "they" take down the CDT as well?

[Farnhamia]

While this sounds neat, it should probably be pointed out that demographically speaking, amongst the religious users of NS, Christians probably outnumber the Muslim and Jewish users by a large ratio. I obviously have no numbers for this, but merging the different religious threads into one large "Abrahamic Discussion Thread" would effectively make it a Christian Discussion Thread as the smaller demographics would be drowned out.

Wait, wait, I'm out of the loop, did "they" take down the CDT as well?

No, "we" did not. You could have checked NSG yourself to see.

[Grenartia]

I mean, that's admittedly a fair criticism of the CDT. I think a workable solution would be a sub-subforum for these threads, kind of like how A&F has sub-subfora for NS cards and NS trivia. And threads about those subjects that pop up on NSG could get merged into the relevant thread in the sub-subforum.

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

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

I think it would be fair to say "look, you're about the user experience of a designed consumer product, therefore you go to A&F with the computer thread" which takes care of the gun and car threads.

Agreed.

It's a bit less clear about how to handle the religion, sport and language threads. I don't think the language threads fall in the category of "designed consumer product" and so I don't see a relationship with NSG. On the other hand, the sport and religion threads, especially the sport ones, kind of do.

On the contrary. The only category you listed there that actually does fall under "designated consumer product" is sports. Sports, with the exception of merchandise, may not be a tangible item, but they are still arguably a consumer product.

But the sport threads aren't really about "one's fandom" or even "one's experience of the sport" but rather "what's happening in the other world" (where, in this case, the other world is the appropriate sports league). So, what I'm saying is that they act more like the Hong Kong thread or any other news event thread than a user experience thread.

What you've done here is you've taken a minor point with some validity, and then run off in a completely different direction with it from reality. Its hard to truly explain how off-base that take is without causing a terrible threadjack.

Yes, sports hinges on "what's happening lately", but that's actually not very different from, say, a new development WRT Magic The Gathering, or a new episode of Star Trek. Therefore, A&F.

I've said it before... but the Abrahamic threads really should be merged and left in NSG.

That is an INCREDIBLY bad idea.

If they're just user experience threads, they can be "NSG religious experience thread" but probably with a less "report your miracle here" title... maybe even just "All Religions Welcome" with an OP that says something like "this is a thread to discuss your personal beliefs and practices with those of both your faith and others; feel welcome to compare your theologies but please no proselytising".

Then what would be the point? All discussion of religions can be interpreted as proselytizing. Furthermore:

While this sounds neat, it should probably be pointed out that demographically speaking, amongst the religious users of NS, Christians probably outnumber the Muslim and Jewish users by a large ratio. I obviously have no numbers for this, but merging the different religious threads into one large "Abrahamic Discussion Thread" would effectively make it a Christian Discussion Thread as the smaller demographics would be drowned out.

Hell, even the CDT as it stands is effectively the Catholic Discussion Thread, with all the other parts of Christianity drowned out.

[La Xinga]

I've said it before... but the Abrahamic threads really should be merged and left in NSG. If they're just user experience threads, they can be "NSG religious experience thread" but probably with a less "report your miracle here" title... maybe even just "All Religions Welcome" with an OP that says something like "this is a thread to discuss your personal beliefs and practices with those of both your faith and others; feel welcome to compare your theologies but please no proselytising".

I disagree with you m8. Take a look at the Christian Discussion Thread and the Jewish discussion Thread, and I think there's a Muslim Discussion Thread too, maybe, anyway, look at the threads, they all look very different. Merging them would create a whole horrible mess and would probably give the mods more work than they already have.

[Dawn Denac]

It is a -really really really- bad idea to bring any religious group by force to another group, much the same can be said for those of opposing political views. Saying this in regards to the Abrahamic merger suggestion, since I can't quote today apparently.

[State of Turelisa]

Congrats on fucking over a huge portion of the user base. Think I'm gonna head off the site for good, since LWDT and RWDT were the only halfway decent things to do on this site. Go ahead and deat me so I don't have a reason to come back.

Include me in. Besides, the forums are filled with hateful atheist left-wingers.

[The New California Republic]

Congrats on fucking over a huge portion of the user base. Think I'm gonna head off the site for good, since LWDT and RWDT were the only halfway decent things to do on this site. Go ahead and deat me so I don't have a reason to come back.

Include me in. Besides, the forums are filled with hateful atheist left-wingers.

It's quite easy to leave the site: just never visit ever again. Don't see why you feel the need to announce it here, especially when your leaving isn't relevant to the thread...

[Esternial]

Include me in. Besides, the forums are filled with hateful atheist left-wingers.

It's quite easy to leave the site: just never visit ever again. Don't see why you feel the need to announce it here, especially when your leaving isn't relevant to the thread...

It's also doesn't reflect all too well if you follow someone who summarily threw a fit in order to get DEAT'ed...