[Discussion] Critique of DEAT/DOS mod policy

[The New California Republic]

I'd rather you not make this about yourself again and detract from the thread's main point. For your sake and mine, it's for the best that you do something more productive than waste your time on this thread. Maybe I should follow suit and go do something more productive as well

You were talking about me, that was the cause of my response to set things straight. Bit of an odd attitude to have: "I can talk shit about you but you aren't allowed to respond to it!"

While I am notoriously curious and would like to follow along, there are good reasons why not. I don't know the exact internal tools or reasons on the NS boards, but my experience as mod and admin elsewhere gives me a short list:
- Private or otherwise confidential information. While site policies most often allow for broad collection of data, sharing that data publicly can be problematic for legal reasons. Especially if you're also doing business in the EU, and the information could be used to identify a specific person and data protected under GDPR. I have been made to sign DPAs before moderating to protect both company and user data before, for instance.
- Maintaining trust with users. Sure, you want to know. The issue then becomes, would you like everyone else to know in case you got banned for something? Having a moderation forum as open as this is, in my experience, very much not the norm because you don't want to have discussions with or about warned or banned users out in public.
- Internal procedures. Revealing what lead to a ban is also revealing much of what tools moderators have and how they work. While many things can be inferred, they may not want to open their mouths and reveal all doubt.
- Open discussions lead to flamewars. Both directed at users, especially if a banned person belonged to a clique at odds with another clique, and at mods.
- "Full transparency" can be a lot of hard work, and only doing it partially or on request leads inevitably to claims or partisanship. It may also risk revealing internal policy disagreements in a team that for morale and consistency purposes tries to defend the collective.

I don't think there's anything new to this list for people with broad internet fora experience. I also don't know exactly which points weigh heaviest for the NS moderators. But why should moderators disregard good reasons for keeping some decisions close to the chest, to satisfy what is essentially our curiosity?

Pretty much it. Enforcement of rules naturally entails a certain level of closed door policy. Having some kind of public trial system where we can see all the stuff that the Mods are acting on could seriously undermine their ability to moderate, as you can bet your bottom dollar that potential rulebreakers would scrutinise it to discern the mod tools and methodology. There is also a risk that letting everyone see the dirty laundry of a user would be degrading/humiliating.

[Northwest Slobovia]

Pretty much it. Enforcement of rules naturally entails a certain level of closed door policy. Having some kind of public trial system where we can see all the stuff that the Mods are acting on could seriously undermine their ability to moderate, as you can bet your bottom dollar that potential rulebreakers would scrutinise it to discern the mod tools and methodology. There is also a risk that letting everyone see the dirty laundry of a user would be degrading/humiliating.

Yup, especially the emphasized part when it comes to DOS users: the less Moderation says about how they find them, the better off the rest of us are.

Further, a big part of the reason Moderation maintains the current DOS policy is to avoid feeding the serious troublemakers. Saying "User X is really DOS user Y, banned from the site for <long list of reasons>." is precisely the attention they don't want to give DOS users.

[Socialist Macronesia]

Side note to everyone: according to the site rules and after further examination of the private policy and the data it has collected, I must note that NationStates has logged over twenty IP addresses of mine (probably from my recent move) and while it is unlikely I do believe that Wuchu may indeed have accidentally used another user's WA nation IP address due to his VPN. Or, even then, he could have been around someone who uses NS also and is in the WA, and may have interacted with their internet. I am no computer expert but if he got banned for WA multi-ing then that may be the problem. Now, if he did something truly egregious, then he deserves to be banned. However, I haven't seen any super controversial messages in his factbooks or forum posts, and he seemed to try to remain out of trouble (at least what I could see) and so although it isn't my concern by far, I think the mods may have made an honest mistake.

The problem is that if you don't say what Wuchu did, people will say it was mod-abuse, but if you do say what he did, he'll be humiliated.

There is precedent for seemingly innocent people getting blasted for using the same IP as someone else who did get DOS’d. To that person it could indeed seem unjust, but the mod team would have no means of proving that the folks are different people without violating other privacy laws.

The mods have full access to everyone's IP addresses, emails, and what browser they used, all it does is logs it when they view someone's. It might be hard, but not impossible.

[Outer Sparta]

Side note to everyone: according to the site rules and after further examination of the private policy and the data it has collected, I must note that NationStates has logged over twenty IP addresses of mine (probably from my recent move) and while it is unlikely I do believe that Wuchu may indeed have accidentally used another user's WA nation IP address due to his VPN. Or, even then, he could have been around someone who uses NS also and is in the WA, and may have interacted with their internet. I am no computer expert but if he got banned for WA multi-ing then that may be the problem. Now, if he did something truly egregious, then he deserves to be banned. However, I haven't seen any super controversial messages in his factbooks or forum posts, and he seemed to try to remain out of trouble (at least what I could see) and so although it isn't my concern by far, I think the mods may have made an honest mistake.

The problem is that if you don't say what Wuchu did, people will say it was mod-abuse, but if you do say what he did, he'll be humiliated.

There is precedent for seemingly innocent people getting blasted for using the same IP as someone else who did get DOS’d. To that person it could indeed seem unjust, but the mod team would have no means of proving that the folks are different people without violating other privacy laws.

People can clear their personal info collected on the site can't they?

[Imperial-Octavia]

Frankly I think that the slightest amount of transparency from the mod team would be nice. Now I don't know Wuchu so I don't have much personal stake in the inciting incident, but if the mods could just say why he's DOS or perhaps why they are unable to say why he's DOS, it would be good for everyone. Having the mod team be secretive really only hurts the community at large. That's what I think anyway.

[Godular]

Frankly I think that the slightest amount of transparency from the mod team would be nice. Now I don't know Wuchu so I don't have much personal stake in the inciting incident, but if the mods could just say why he's DOS or perhaps why they are unable to say why he's DOS, it would be good for everyone. Having the mod team be secretive really only hurts the community at large. That's what I think anyway.

Not discussing the circumstances behind a DOS ruling is longstanding NS mod policy... it has been that way for as long as I’ve been here.

People can clear their personal info collected on the site can't they?

I don’t really recall if any personal information is collected on this website outside of your email.

[Imperial-Octavia]

Frankly I think that the slightest amount of transparency from the mod team would be nice. Now I don't know Wuchu so I don't have much personal stake in the inciting incident, but if the mods could just say why he's DOS or perhaps why they are unable to say why he's DOS, it would be good for everyone. Having the mod team be secretive really only hurts the community at large. That's what I think anyway.

Not discussing the circumstances behind a DOS ruling is longstanding NS mod policy... it has been that way for as long as I’ve been here.

Just because that's how it has been, doesn't mean that it should be that way. Honestly the transparency problem goes far beyond DOS'ed users since that's usually pretty clear, but since Wuchu seemed like a pretty big community figure in F7 some sort of explanation would be good for the community in general. This could literally be cleared up with something as simple as "he was DOS'ed in the past."

[Kiu Ghesik]

Frankly I think that the slightest amount of transparency from the mod team would be nice. Now I don't know Wuchu so I don't have much personal stake in the inciting incident, but if the mods could just say why he's DOS or perhaps why they are unable to say why he's DOS, it would be good for everyone. Having the mod team be secretive really only hurts the community at large. That's what I think anyway.

Not discussing the circumstances behind a DOS ruling is longstanding NS mod policy... it has been that way for as long as I’ve been here.

People can clear their personal info collected on the site can't they?

I don’t really recall if any personal information is collected on this website outside of your email.

It's been that way for a long time, but if you go to the last page in moderation there's a thread from 2007 or 2009 where info is given as to a DOS, though it's implied to be a de facto bad thing.

[The New California Republic]

People can clear their personal info collected on the site can't they?

You can indeed! You can also view it. The request form is here: https://www.nationstates.net/page=private_info

[Godular]

Not discussing the circumstances behind a DOS ruling is longstanding NS mod policy... it has been that way for as long as I’ve been here.

Just because that's how it has been, doesn't mean that it should be that way. Honestly the transparency problem goes far beyond DOS'ed users since that's usually pretty clear, but since Wuchu seemed like a pretty big community figure in F7 some sort of explanation would be good for the community in general. This could literally be cleared up with something as simple as "he was DOS'ed in the past."

That is not your business.

I understand that there is some disappointment over the guy getting the boot in such an unceremonious manner, but as I told Bloodshade: If they're DOS, there was good reason for it. The Mod Team does not take such a decision lightly, nor unilaterally. Evidence is gathered and the decision is discussed before the ruling comes down.

Not discussing the circumstances behind a DOS ruling is longstanding NS mod policy... it has been that way for as long as I’ve been here.



I don’t really recall if any personal information is collected on this website outside of your email.

It's been that way for a long time, but if you go to the last page in moderation there's a thread from 2007 or 2009 where info is given as to a DOS, though it's implied to be a de facto bad thing.

I should say so. It would both be against that longstanding policy, and a violation of the DOS nation's privacy.

[Ghost Land]

I mean it's fully possible that he was previously made DOS and the mods just didn't catch onto that this was the same user until just now.

I'm not saying that's what happened, but it has happened, I can't remember their username off the top of my head, but there was that one nation themed after Imperial Germany (or something like that), who I think always used Harley Quinn flags, who got DOS after a history of rulebreaking and bans and stuff, and then a little later on, there was a new nation that was supposedly some Muslim teenage girl (or something like that) but it turned out that it was that DOS user trying to sneak back in, so their new account got deleted after some months too.

As for the second part, her initial nation was Renewed Imperial Germany (RIG), and her reincarnation, which actually lasted longer than her first one did, was Cappuccina. Somehow someone had a suspicion Cappuccina was a returning DoS, and then she just vanished, very little opportunity for discussion after that, which ever since that happened led me to wonder:

What is the particular purpose of DoS anyway? Is it to get rid of a problem behaviour pattern, or is it specifically to get rid of a problem user, regardless of how he/she is acting?

The fact that people like Beeker and SEMO have been able to return from their DoS'es seems to suggest it's the former, considering both people upon returning were no longer causing the trouble that got them DoS'd in the first place, but deletions of high-profile DoS users like Zeth Rekia and RIG that managed to steer clear of the ire of the mods, until getting nuked a year or more later, would suggest the latter.

Personally, I've always wanted there to be more transparency as to why notable nations have been deleted or declared DoS. I've had people I've interacted with, and people I've just seen around, just seem to vanish at the hands of the mods for no discernible reason from what I could tell, and upon filing a GHR to try to find out why, gotten the canned response of "<nation> is the only person who has a need to know. If you want to know that badly, you could ask him/her." Before my time, there was the case of 2nd PLT, who was a pretty high-profile and well-liked user in 2009-2010 who suddenly just vanished one night. From what I read later on, there was some cybersex thing going on, but the post in the thread basically just said "11 mods and Max wanted you kicked off, so yeah, bugger off." No questions allowed to be asked after that point, as dozens of his friends and acquaintances were left wondering what on earth just happened. That's why with the Predator scandal of 2 April 2016 and the cybersex scandal of less than a month later (1 May 2016), I actually appreciated the moderator transparency involved in the decisions, with threads being created explaining who got deleted and DoS'd and, without going into too much graphic detail, why. I'm not asking for paragraphs; I'm just looking for a publicly available comment at the time of a DEAT or DoS of a long-term/notable user saying, for example, "Ghost Land was deleted for continued flaming, spam, and ban evasion here." Something simple like that so other people who had come into contact with the user and wondered what had happened can know.

This is longer than I thought it would be and probably strays off the intended topic of the thread, but I just wanted to leave my own two cents here considering I've had concerns regarding this topic for a long time.

Frankly I think that the slightest amount of transparency from the mod team would be nice. Now I don't know Wuchu so I don't have much personal stake in the inciting incident, but if the mods could just say why he's DOS or perhaps why they are unable to say why he's DOS, it would be good for everyone. Having the mod team be secretive really only hurts the community at large. That's what I think anyway.

Totally.

[Shazbotdom]

Since when do the NationStates Moderators have to tell the Community why someone was ruled as a DOS? That is between Moderation and the person who they handed down the strictest sanction they can.


We have no reason to know why someone was DEATed or DOSed.

[Socialist Macronesia]

Frankly I think that the slightest amount of transparency from the mod team would be nice. Now I don't know Wuchu so I don't have much personal stake in the inciting incident, but if the mods could just say why he's DOS or perhaps why they are unable to say why he's DOS, it would be good for everyone. Having the mod team be secretive really only hurts the community at large. That's what I think anyway.

Not discussing the circumstances behind a DOS ruling is longstanding NS mod policy... it has been that way for as long as I’ve been here.

People can clear their personal info collected on the site can't they?

I don’t really recall if any personal information is collected on this website outside of your email.

It collects your IP, which THEY THEMSELVES state that, although your IP itself is not enough to trace you, combined with other personal info, you can figure out in general who someone is. Me saying "i just moved" means you could look around in every neighborhood around where my IP is and find all the just sold homes. Pretty soon, you have a list of houses that I might be in. Would be mods be absolutely insane and try FBI-style track people down, no. But don't say that would stop a desperate person.

The information the players state, even in an off-hand manner, is enough to easily locate a few places the user might be. The IP just narrows everything down to a neighborhood or two. You can clear your info, but they'll still keep your current IP and if you are a WA nation, they'll keep your email, too. So, they know your email, your IP, and you've said you had a degree in X or just moved or something like that, and people can usually figure the rest out from there.

Now, if they know all of that, with ABSOLUTELY NO checks and balances other than "I saw you looked at X's account" then they surely should be able to investigate a fairly prominent F7 nation and his sudden DOS. From what I can tell, he doesn't even know why, and this has basically ruined NS for him.

Privacy matters, but if Wuchu really did get banned for WA multing...

...that still probably isn't grounds for an immediate DOS. And even then, as stated in the One-Stop Rules Shop and TOS, you can appeal and ask why you were banned, no exceptions LISTED. The fact that his asking of an appeal has gone ignored shows that the mods don't seem to really care. And that hurts, when a prominent F7 nation gets banned and can't say why, or people get banned over anti-moderation comments, that don't flame.

Please, sort this out. Because that comment by Sedgistan is a borderline violation of the One Stop Rules Shop's right to an appeal. Should Wuchu have posted in a separate appeals thread or the getting help area, yes. But that's no grounds to flat-out ignore to see why he got a DOS order. If I were Wuchu, I'd appeal to an admin if further requests were denied.

I don't mean to trash the mods, but this seems like an iffy-at-best ruling. At the very least WUCHU HIMSELF should know why he got DOS'd, much less everyone here.

Thank you, mods, for assisting in these matters.

[Northwest Slobovia]

Not discussing the circumstances behind a DOS ruling is longstanding NS mod policy... it has been that way for as long as I’ve been here.

Just because that's how it has been, doesn't mean that it should be that way. Honestly the transparency problem goes far beyond DOS'ed users since that's usually pretty clear, but since Wuchu seemed like a pretty big community figure in F7 some sort of explanation would be good for the community in general. This could literally be cleared up with something as simple as "he was DOS'ed in the past."

That is what Sedge said. The usage "You're DOS." means "You were declared DOS some time ago, and that's why your latest nations were nuked." It doesn't mean, "I randomly declared you DOS." If that's all you want, wait for a Mod to come by and confirm that's what Sedge meant.

Honestly, Moderation is, if anything, slow on the DOS trigger. Being declared DOS takes either losing many nations, seriously violating the ToS (e.g., doxxing people), or breaking RL laws using the site (threatening violence against other users, for example).

[Outer Sparta]

Frankly I think that the slightest amount of transparency from the mod team would be nice. Now I don't know Wuchu so I don't have much personal stake in the inciting incident, but if the mods could just say why he's DOS or perhaps why they are unable to say why he's DOS, it would be good for everyone. Having the mod team be secretive really only hurts the community at large. That's what I think anyway.

If they open it up then everyone will inquire why they are DOS and that goes into shady territory. If someone is DOS but didn't get forum warnings, it's always the gameside aspect.

[The New California Republic]

Honestly, Moderation is, if anything, slow on the DOS trigger. Being declared DOS takes either losing many nations, seriously violating the ToS (e.g., doxxing people), or breaking RL laws using the site (threatening violence against other users, for example).

Exactly. The average number of DEATs per user that I've seen before the mods reach for the DOS button to initiate DOS discussions is three. That's three nation deletions, and the user will have clocked up a considerable number of rule violations on each nation for each DEAT to happen. Adding those all up, that is a shit-ton of rule violations before DOS is considered.

But as you said, really serious rule violations such as death threats etc rightly makes the Mods much less patient, with even a single instance of that kind of behaviour enough to trigger DOS proceedings.

[Godular]

Not discussing the circumstances behind a DOS ruling is longstanding NS mod policy... it has been that way for as long as I’ve been here.



I don’t really recall if any personal information is collected on this website outside of your email.

It collects your IP, which THEY THEMSELVES state that, although your IP itself is not enough to trace you, combined with other personal info, you can figure out in general who someone is. Me saying "i just moved" means you could look around in every neighborhood around where my IP is and find all the just sold homes. Pretty soon, you have a list of houses that I might be in. Would be mods be absolutely insane and try FBI-style track people down, no. But don't say that would stop a desperate person.

The information the players state, even in an off-hand manner, is enough to easily locate a few places the user might be. The IP just narrows everything down to a neighborhood or two. You can clear your info, but they'll still keep your current IP and if you are a WA nation, they'll keep your email, too. So, they know your email, your IP, and you've said you had a degree in X or just moved or something like that, and people can usually figure the rest out from there.

Now, if they know all of that, with ABSOLUTELY NO checks and balances other than "I saw you looked at X's account" then they surely should be able to investigate a fairly prominent F7 nation and his sudden DOS. From what I can tell, he doesn't even know why, and this has basically ruined NS for him.

Privacy matters, but if Wuchu really did get banned for WA multing...

...that still probably isn't grounds for an immediate DOS. And even then, as stated in the One-Stop Rules Shop and TOS, you can appeal and ask why you were banned, no exceptions LISTED. The fact that his asking of an appeal has gone ignored shows that the mods don't seem to really care. And that hurts, when a prominent F7 nation gets banned and can't say why, or people get banned over anti-moderation comments, that don't flame.

Please, sort this out. Because that comment by Sedgistan is a borderline violation of the One Stop Rules Shop's right to an appeal. Should Wuchu have posted in a separate appeals thread or the getting help area, yes. But that's no grounds to flat-out ignore to see why he got a DOS order. If I were Wuchu, I'd appeal to an admin if further requests were denied.

I don't mean to trash the mods, but this seems like an iffy-at-best ruling. At the very least WUCHU HIMSELF should know why he got DOS'd, much less everyone here.

Thank you, mods, for assisting in these matters.

A DOS is rarely if ever handed down for a single incident. I already pointed out that Shtet had admitted to using a VPN that was also used by someone who WAS WA multi-ing, and may well have engaged in other gameside issues. If THAT guy gets DOS'd, then by extension so too does anybody else connected to a guy in that manner. Shtet may not PERSONALLY have been the one DOS'd, but he would have been caught up, with unfortunately little recourse.

[Shazbotdom]

Please, sort this out. Because that comment by Sedgistan is a borderline violation of the One Stop Rules Shop's right to an appeal. Should Wuchu have posted in a separate appeals thread or the getting help area, yes. But that's no grounds to flat-out ignore to see why he got a DOS order. If I were Wuchu, I'd appeal to an admin if further requests were denied.

But, that's not how the Appeals process works. If you are a DOS, then your ONLY option to appeal that would be via the GHR Page, by inputting an Email Address into the text box and letting them know that you are filing a "Final Appeal", as that is your only choice. BUT, As the Mods stated, Discussion Threads are not for rehashing Moderation decisions. So, I would drop that line, if I were you.

[The Radio Operator]

Hey guys, whats up? The Black Party/Nouveau Quebecois here. Can't wait to add my opinionated two cents to this fine, detailed thread!

[Shazbotdom]

Please, sort this out. Because that comment by Sedgistan is a borderline violation of the One Stop Rules Shop's right to an appeal. Should Wuchu have posted in a separate appeals thread or the getting help area, yes. But that's no grounds to flat-out ignore to see why he got a DOS order. If I were Wuchu, I'd appeal to an admin if further requests were denied.

But, that's not how the Appeals process works. If you are a DOS, then your ONLY option to appeal that would be via the GHR Page, by inputting an Email Address into the text box and letting them know that you are filing a "Final Appeal", as that is your only choice. BUT, As the Mods stated, Discussion Threads are not for rehashing Moderation decisions. So, I would drop that line, if I were you.

I will also note, a DOS decision is not made lightly. I believe several mods and admins (perhaps all of them, I don't remember) discuss the matter and then they, collectively, make the decision to either DOS the person or allow them to continue to play the game.

[Greater vakolicci haven]

Definitely agree with the OP (and Cekoviu's very well-written response) on this.
I didn't even know this guy, honestly never heard the name. I've had to ask why people I knew on the game who I now have no way of contacting are deated/dos though and received nothing but stock answers in response. Don't you think that maybe if the moderators explained what someone did to earn the punishment, their friends might not be quite as pissed off by the decision? I get that they don't care about pr, but this one is easy.

[Imperial-Octavia]

Just because that's how it has been, doesn't mean that it should be that way. Honestly the transparency problem goes far beyond DOS'ed users since that's usually pretty clear, but since Wuchu seemed like a pretty big community figure in F7 some sort of explanation would be good for the community in general. This could literally be cleared up with something as simple as "he was DOS'ed in the past."

That is not your business.

I understand that there is some disappointment over the guy getting the boot in such an unceremonious manner, but as I told Bloodshade: If they're DOS, there was good reason for it. The Mod Team does not take such a decision lightly, nor unilaterally. Evidence is gathered and the decision is discussed before the ruling comes down.

It's been that way for a long time, but if you go to the last page in moderation there's a thread from 2007 or 2009 where info is given as to a DOS, though it's implied to be a de facto bad thing.

I should say so. It would both be against that longstanding policy, and a violation of the DOS nation's privacy.

You see, it isn't about Wuchu really as it is about general transparency. As I said, I don't know the guy but I think that it would be easier for all parties if the mods just explained more. The same thing happened with the LDTW and RDTW threads which the mods snapped out is existence seemingly out of the blue with no community input. That is not a good way to moderate anything. And for this incident itself, all one of them would have to say is that he was DOS'ed in the past which would clear up the problem. That literally reveals nothing except for why it was done while also explaining to the community why a prominent member has been deleted so harshly without any further details. Or maybe explain why they are unable to talk about why people have been DOS'ed which would also clear up the problem

I've modded a few places before and the way the mods here handle things is far too secretive for the things they do this over. I really don't think a bit of transparency would hurt at all, if anything it would help massively with maintaining community trust.

[Shazbotdom]

Definitely agree with the OP (and Cekoviu's very well-written response) on this.
I didn't even know this guy, honestly never heard the name. I've had to ask why people I knew on the game who I now have no way of contacting are deated/dos though and received nothing but stock answers in response. Don't you think that maybe if the moderators explained what someone did to earn the punishment, their friends might not be quite as pissed off by the decision? I get that they don't care about pr, but this one is easy.

That information is only privileged (due to privacy concerns) between the Mods, Admins, and the person who was DEATed/DOSed. Why should the rest of the community know? If you want to know, as the person who it happened to via other forms of communication other than the NationStates Website.

Otherwise, honestly, it's none of your goddamn business.

[Outer Sparta]

That is not your business.

I understand that there is some disappointment over the guy getting the boot in such an unceremonious manner, but as I told Bloodshade: If they're DOS, there was good reason for it. The Mod Team does not take such a decision lightly, nor unilaterally. Evidence is gathered and the decision is discussed before the ruling comes down.



I should say so. It would both be against that longstanding policy, and a violation of the DOS nation's privacy.

You see, it isn't about Wuchu really as it is about general transparency. As I said, I don't know the guy but I think that it would be easier for all parties if the mods just explained more. The same thing happened with the LDTW and RDTW threads which the mods snapped out is existence seemingly out of the blue with no community input. That is not a good way to moderate anything. And for this incident itself, all one of them would have to say is that he was DOS'ed in the past which would clear up the problem. That literally reveals nothing except for why it was done while also explaining to the community why a prominent member has been deleted so harshly without any further details. Or maybe explain why they are unable to talk about why people have been DOS'ed which would also clear up the problem

I've modded a few places before and the way the mods here handle things is far too secretive for the things they do this over. I really don't think a bit of transparency would hurt at all, if anything it would help massively with maintaining community trust.

But then it would go into privacy concerns and then the rest of the community will just harp on moderation about every DOS case. My assumption is Wuchu did some gameside stuff, and it probably got noted in their history. Otherwise, it wouldn't be my business to know everything about them and their moderation history.

[Godular]

That is not your business.

I understand that there is some disappointment over the guy getting the boot in such an unceremonious manner, but as I told Bloodshade: If they're DOS, there was good reason for it. The Mod Team does not take such a decision lightly, nor unilaterally. Evidence is gathered and the decision is discussed before the ruling comes down.



I should say so. It would both be against that longstanding policy, and a violation of the DOS nation's privacy.

You see, it isn't about Wuchu really as it is about general transparency. As I said, I don't know the guy but I think that it would be easier for all parties if the mods just explained more. The same thing happened with the LDTW and RDTW threads which the mods snapped out is existence seemingly out of the blue with no community input. That is not a good way to moderate anything. And for this incident itself, all one of them would have to say is that he was DOS'ed in the past which would clear up the problem. That literally reveals nothing except for why it was done while also explaining to the community why a prominent member has been deleted so harshly without any further details. Or maybe explain why they are unable to talk about why people have been DOS'ed which would also clear up the problem

I've modded a few places before and the way the mods here handle things is far too secretive for the things they do this over. I really don't think a bit of transparency would hurt at all, if anything it would help massively with maintaining community trust.

They don't need your trust, nor are they beholden to you. If you do not like how moderation comports itself, you're more than welcome to find other websites upon which you can RP.