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

[Torisakia]

Delicious. Finally some good fucking moderation.

There's an alarming amount of people here who seem to forget that NS has more boards than just NSG. Also, we can't have "left" wing and "right" wing discussion threads without also having "up" and "down" wing discussion threads. Gotta have equity for all, you know.

How coincidental that the people who oppose NSG support this decision.

Shit's crazy, I know.

If someone is really contemplating their whole life's existence over the closures of some political threads on a game forum, there's probably some soul searching to be done.

[New Visayan Islands]

Reviewing the OP, I was admittedly surprised.

Perhaps we need a thread where rightwing politics can be discussed.

But then we'd be back to here with various posters accusing the moderators of anti-right-wing bias and whining about the board culture anyway.

Can confirm, I was mistaken for having an axe to grind the last time I narked on an RWDT regular for what was a case of "all X are Y." Had to point out that I had no such thing.

[The Notorious Mad Jack]

Delicious. Finally some good fucking moderation.

There's an alarming amount of people here who seem to forget that NS has more boards than just NSG. Also, we can't have "left" wing and "right" wing discussion threads without also having "up" and "down" wing discussion threads. Gotta have equity for all, you know.

How coincidental that the people who oppose NSG support this decision.

You know you're replying to someone who has 8,000 posts in NSG right?

[The New California Republic]

The RWDT was far more guilty of that though. And note that much of what is said in the OP did not apply to the LWDT. Cliques? Didn't apply to the LWDT. Encouraging non-reporting? Didn't apply to the LWDT. General patterns of rulebreaking that causes that problem in the first place? Didn't apply to the LWDT.

Make no mistake, the LWDT died in the crossfire here.

There were a couple of semi-regulars in the LWDT who repeatedly responded to any critique of leftist theory by calling opponents idiots.

And such things were stamped out pretty quickly, and it didn't involve cliques or actively discouraging reporting, which sits squarely upon the RWDT's shoulders.

It died in the crossfire only insofar as RWDT openly criticising the moderation team made the moderation team open to looking at the discussion threads as a problem that needed solving, which had previously been an angle they were reluctant to adopt (see previous threads on the topic).

But I dispute that the LWDT standing with its own warts and merits warranted stopping it completely.

[Torisakia]

How coincidental that the people who oppose NSG support this decision.

You know you're replying to someone who has 8,000 posts in NSG right?

Some of those came from years ago when I was 14-17 years old and wasn't aware of how terrible politics actually were. Most of them though were in the TET threads, so I'm not really inclined to say I'm knowledgeable about NSG. I occasionally still post in NSG though.

[Katganistan]

Then suggest Valentine Z as a Moderator. It might not happen, but that is a viable and realistic suggestion.

Hell no, do you see the essay you have to fill out? With the time it takes to do that I'd just model my own magnum opus of a moderation team and post it here tomorrow.

So let me understand: are you saying you really don't want to be suggesting tangible solutions because it's too much trouble, while expending all this energy flinging jabs at moderation and making what you admit to be unfeasible suggestions along with the suggestion that moderation is out to get you?

[Katganistan]

From now on, this shall officially be ‘G’. All who disagree shall have NS- in front of their names.


NO DOUBLE POSTING AAAAAAAA

Stop spamming.

[Esternial]

I believe that in that particular case migendering is specifically applied people who has announced their gender and refusing to use the pronouns they have asked people to use. While it would have to be done carefully, it is possible to argue that gender identities do not exist. A large part of that thread has consisted of people claiming that gender is a binary, meaning NB genders do not exist.

If one must carefully consult the rulebook and dance on a tightrope to be able to engage with the ostensible thread topic then there is a much higher bar for traditional "NSG-style" discussion to occur in that thread than in either of the ones that has been locked. The only reason that the current discussion going on there is occurring is because it's been merged in from another thread that was closed, more actual discussion on trans issues happens outside the thread than within it. The vast majority of the time it's a support/chat thread, which exists in a universe where support threads on other issues have been disallowed and threads primarily based on chat that aren't TET are now to be considered spam. It's very much an anomaly. Some groups on NSG are allowed to have non-NSG-style identity threads and others are not and it doesn't seem to be based on how much productive discussion happens in them. When rulings are being made about something as controversial as this, consistency and fairness in application of the principle is very important and I just can't see how the moderation team can square the circle of closing these threads and probably the feminist one yet leaving the trans one open.

We may also need to bring up the "language" threads. While I'm fond of them, I don't know how they fit within Mod policy.

How does Moderation enforce the rules on a thread where none of the Mods master the language used?

[The Archbishopric of York]

Delicious. Finally some good fucking moderation.

There's an alarming amount of people here who seem to forget that NS has more boards than just NSG. Also, we can't have "left" wing and "right" wing discussion threads without also having "up" and "down" wing discussion threads. Gotta have equity for all, you know.

What the fuck does this have to do with anything? If you prefer go post in another part of the forums, then you are entirely free to do so- there is absolutely no reason why you should have to acknowledge the existence of NSG or any particular threads in it.

[Katganistan]

Even a caveman can see it.Old GEICO tv commercial reference

I wouldn't say too much moderation is a problem. Harsh, aggressive, and inconsistent moderation is what they mean to say in detail.

OK, but how do these moderators moderate their communities? That's the kind of insights I'm interested in.

There's really only two theories for policing communities and virtual moderation follows the same insight. Aggressive or passive. Aggressive works better for larger communities, so I would prefer that. But no part of either theory contains inconsistency, or expecting said community to police themselves.

So which is it, since you're being inconsistent?

[The Reformed American Republic]

Delicious. Finally some good fucking moderation.

There's an alarming amount of people here who seem to forget that NS has more boards than just NSG. Also, we can't have "left" wing and "right" wing discussion threads without also having "up" and "down" wing discussion threads. Gotta have equity for all, you know.

What the fuck does this have to do with anything? If you prefer go post in another part of the forums, then you are entirely free to do so- there is absolutely no reason why you should have to acknowledge the existence of NSG or any particular threads in it.

I think there are some posters who want NSG to just be gone.

[No State Here]

So what are we left with? The orange man bad thread MAGAThread, the Joe Biden is a saint and the Democrats can do no wrong thread 2020 Election thread, and the Worship the EU they know what’s best UK Politics thread.

Why?

[Katganistan]

One post has been deemed to be bad faith, and has thusly it has been removed to the evidence locker per [violet]'s directive.

[Torisakia]

What the fuck does this have to do with anything? If you prefer go post in another part of the forums, then you are entirely free to do so- there is absolutely no reason why you should have to acknowledge the existence of NSG or any particular threads in it.

I think there are some posters who want NSG to just be gone.

The more I see what goes on there, the more I'm inclined to agree with that sentiment.

Delicious. Finally some good fucking moderation.

There's an alarming amount of people here who seem to forget that NS has more boards than just NSG. Also, we can't have "left" wing and "right" wing discussion threads without also having "up" and "down" wing discussion threads. Gotta have equity for all, you know.

What the fuck does this have to do with anything? If you prefer go post in another part of the forums, then you are entirely free to do so- there is absolutely no reason why you should have to acknowledge the existence of NSG or any particular threads in it.

Kinda hard when it's shoved down your throat so hard your nose bleeds. But okay, I'll give it a try.

[Luziyca]

So what are we left with? The orange man bad thread MAGAThread, the Joe Biden is a saint and the Democrats can do no wrong thread 2020 Election thread, and the Worship the EU they know what’s best UK Politics thread.

Why?

If only there was a way you can start a thread where you can talk about a specific subtopic that used to be discussed in one of the wing threads...

[The Reformed American Republic]

I think there are some posters who want NSG to just be gone.

The more I see what goes on there, the more I'm inclined to agree with that sentiment.

What the fuck does this have to do with anything? If you prefer go post in another part of the forums, then you are entirely free to do so- there is absolutely no reason why you should have to acknowledge the existence of NSG or any particular threads in it.

Kinda hard when it's shoved down your throat so hard your nose bleeds. But okay, I'll give it a try.

How is it shoved down your throat?

[Atheris]

So... what now? Granted, I only posted in those a couple times, but this still seems like an overall bad decision.

[The Reformed American Republic]

So what are we left with? The orange man bad thread MAGAThread, the Joe Biden is a saint and the Democrats can do no wrong thread 2020 Election thread, and the Worship the EU they know what’s best UK Politics thread.

Why?

If only there was a way you can start a thread where you can talk about a specific subtopic that used to be discussed in one of the wing threads...

Creating new topics is time consuming. OPs have to meet a certain standard you know. The wing threads allowed for a smooth and quick transition in an informal environment.

[Forsher]

I feel like it is harder to have sweeping theoretical or historical discussions in non-megathreads because of the risk of getting in trouble for threadjacking.

Hmm... https://forum.nationstates.net/viewtopic.php?f=20&t=218918historical%20and%20conceptual.

Have you even tried?

And, yeah, that thread's ancient but that's just because I happened to have a list of my OPs open already. And there are clear patterns to what I want to talk about that don't fit this bill.

Pick a subject -- something that you might have posted as a sub-topic within RWDT -- and give it a try.

Then when that has a sub-sub topic, then the red text flies out.

There was a reason why this ruling pissed people off... because it was extremely unusual. Read what we're saying.

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.

There is something we can do, it’s called pressure the mods to make a set of rules that makes sense.

Or... maybe write a list of better rules and give it to them?

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.

Note that the current iteration of the OSRS came about because of this kind of "pressure" so, as they say, the proof is in the pudding.

The rules as they stand now are consistent, and they make logical sense. It only appears this way because people don't report everything that violates the rules.

Some of them, sure. The Harassment/Griefing rule? Not on your life. Terrible rule.

God, this is just absolutely disgusting. Completely repulsive to read. The Administration's infatuation with this perfect, self-snitching community of Stasi agents who will rat out their own community members and actively be punished for not doing so by the same people of which it is their job is downright disgusting.

It's called retroactive moderation. The two alternatives are (a) no moderation and (b) pre-approval.

(b) sucks. Never tried (a).

Also if 80% of rule breaking is let slide, that should a) tell moderators people's willingness to let brief personal sleights go by and don't overly harm discussions in the long run b) how pervasive the "Don't report to moderation" attitude has spread across the forum. Which, in turn, should maybe cause some introspection.

Doesn't follow. You're trying to indicate a specific causal relationship from an outcome and nothing else. You're literally doing the same thing as this:

• 9/11 *exists*
• Therefore, Bush did 9/11

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.

Wow, this is really interesting. I've been on Nationstates for years, and I don't think I've ever seen this much backlash against moderation.

Unless there's something been boiling away for months that I've missed, you should've. For example. Perhaps more explicit.

Isn't a mrgathread just a thread with a lot of replies

No.

Megathreads are basically meant to aggregations of several other threads. So, the Feminist Megathread exists to have all the topics that might charitably be called "Feminist" into one place, the MAGAthread exists to lump all the Trump topics into one thread and the RWDT was meant to gather all sorts of topics related to right wing politics into one place. The problem, of course, is that if you're a right winger or a feminist, literally everything is germane to the thread since it's always the analytical framework you use.

Back in the say, megathreads used to be just about discrete issues like US elections that generated a lot of topics in a short span of time that the mods created in order to have a "we're watching" warning in the OP.

They're hardly fair and just, this sites rules are a meme. Actual trolling is freely allowed (see certain users lasting for years and years on General whilst contributing nothing more than low effort snark and bait, which any sensible ruleset and mod team would axe quickly) but light jabs between people who are friendly with one another leads to warns and bans.

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.

[Torisakia]

The more I see what goes on there, the more I'm inclined to agree with that sentiment.


Kinda hard when it's shoved down your throat so hard your nose bleeds. But okay, I'll give it a try.

How is it shoved down your throat?

That 'Latest Forum Topics' thing works in mysterious ways.

[The Archregimancy]

The RWDT was far more guilty of that though. And note that much of what is said in the OP did not apply to the LWDT. Cliques? Didn't apply to the LWDT. Encouraging non-reporting? Didn't apply to the LWDT. General patterns of rulebreaking that causes that problem in the first place? Didn't apply to the LWDT.

Make no mistake, the LWDT died in the crossfire here.

There were a couple of semi-regulars in the LWDT who repeatedly responded to any critique of leftist theory by calling opponents idiots but who got away with it because the right-leaning posters didn't want to play snitch. And remember Torra's exploits in deliberately winding up the RWDT? It died in the crossfire only insofar as RWDT openly criticising the moderation team made the moderation team open to looking at the discussion threads as a problem that needed solving, which had previously been an angle they were reluctant to adopt (see previous threads on the topic).

The RWDT didn't draw fire on you, that was the moderation team's resolutely "only things directly reported to us stance" which effectively rewarded rather than properly punished professional low-effort baitposters and made not only the discussion threads but any other thread that attracted a large amount of activity into a cesspit of shitty psyops.

Just a quick comment on both of the above posts.

The initial catalyst for the internal moderator discussion on the two threads was neither directed at the RWDT nor at the culture of rule-breaking in the latter.

The moderator who first opened the two threads to discussion earlier this year titled his discussion 'LWDT & RWDT' - with the LWDT mentioned first - and was narrowly focused on the extent to which the two threads were increasingly devolving into chat threads. This was the sole initial focus.

It would be fair to note that the internal culture of the RWDT did subsequently become a focus of discussion, but that was only quite late in the day, and by the time that happened the majority of the moderator team was already in favour of shutting down both threads.

So to be clear:

The internal culture of the RWDT (whether we frame perceptions of the latter positively or negatively) may have been the final catalyst in taking action, but it was not the initial cause of the internal discussion, and the decision to lock had been taken before 'rule breaking' and 'non-reporting' had come into focus.

The LWDT was therefore not 'caught in the crossfire'.


It's the source of some regret to me that so much of the discussion in this thread has been focused on rule-breaking on the part of some RWDT participants when this isn't what initially led to the moderation team discussing the two threads and taking the decision to lock them. I can see why that's been the focus of much of the discussion, and many of our own posts and announcements have helped to build this perception. We perhaps haven't been as clear on this point as I might have hoped; but I would stress the distinction between immediate catalyst and initial cause.

Nobody should read too much into this post; that I wish we had been clearer in outlining some points is simply a matter of stress, not a disagreement in policy.

[The Reformed American Republic]

How is it shoved down your throat?

That 'Latest Forum Topics' thing works in mysterious ways.

Ignore it then. I normally don't even pay attention to it.

[Katganistan]

Where do you live, work or go to school? We don't know that. Shame.

you could probably learn it from a majority of posters by just running a lookup on them lol

N-Q could similarly do such a thing as well.

[Esternial]

There's really only two theories for policing communities and virtual moderation follows the same insight. Aggressive or passive. Aggressive works better for larger communities, so I would prefer that. But no part of either theory contains inconsistency, or expecting said community to police themselves.

So which is it, since you're being inconsistent?

I think his main grievance is inconsistency in mod rulings, which is a topic as old as the forum I think.

I don't really believe there's a fix that would satisfy anyone here, but maybe there could be ideas out there none of us has thought of before. It's unfortunate these kind of discussions are inflated with complaints of people that feel personally wronged.

Wouldn't you like a fancy RoboMod AI though? ;)

[Torisakia]

That 'Latest Forum Topics' thing works in mysterious ways.

Ignore it then. I normally don't even pay attention to it.

I would if uBlock would actually work for once when I choose 'Block Element'. Also stuff from NSG will spill over into other forums from time to time.