[DISCUSSION] Are naughty words now against the rules?

[United Republic Empire]

Second opinion: giving an example and then saying that one would not use it because it breaks the rules is not breaking the rules.

She wasn't using it as an example though, she was outright stating that's what she thought of him.

Trolling affects a public figure's supporters. Do I think Trump is an ass and a fool and a prating coxcomb? Absolutely. Would I use the modern equivalents to describe him in the forums? No, because that would not be civil, that would, in fact, be trolling. Similarly, if someone describes Joe Biden as a doddering old shithead, they're getting warned, too. As with everything, it is all in how you express yourself.

There is a 2nd part to that example you know. Context is key because it does show an example being made.

[The New California Republic]

We probably shouldn't turn this into an appeal thread, as that was not its intent.

[Punished UMN]

We probably shouldn't turn this into an appeal thread, as that was not its intent.

^this, the report thread was in bad faith and making this thread a rehash of it will simply make the mods dismiss this thread as bad faith

[New haven america]

We probably shouldn't turn this into an appeal thread, as that was not its intent.

^this, the report thread was in bad faith and making this thread a rehash of it will simply make the mods dismiss this thread as bad faith

No, it was made cause there was a rule that had been broken.

The Biden bit didn't get reported because they claimed it as a hypothetical, while the Trump bit was by admission their own personal opinion that they proceeded to express on the forum.

So shoo with that idea.

[Fahran]

It isn't "modest" at all, it's a pretty fundamental shift in light of the fact that many different Moderators have said in a number of precedents spanning years that swearing at politicians isn't trolling, and that also has the potential to catch many people out. Hell, I'd have likely been caught out by this had I not seen this farce unfolding, given I've called politicians some names in my time.

Depending on the specific post in question, the issue doesn't boil down solely to using naughty words in reference to politicians. People didn't get in trouble in a lot of cases simply for that. They got in trouble for trolling - which has always been against the rules. And a lot of the examples that have been cited or brought up looked like trolling if we're being frank. There's a point at which using incendiary language towards a group of people ceases to serve any constructive function and serves only to elicit negative and ugly reactions. A post that is meant to rile people up is trolling, plain and simple. When a post uses incendiary language and is more likely to elicit a negative reaction than an instance of an "All X is/are Y" post, it presents a problem to moderation and to the community.

[Outer Sparta]

^this, the report thread was in bad faith and making this thread a rehash of it will simply make the mods dismiss this thread as bad faith

No, it was made cause there was a rule that had been broken.

The Biden bit didn't get reported because they claimed it as a hypothetical, while the Trump bit was by admission their own personal opinion that they proceeded to express on the forum.

So shoo with that idea.

Who's "they?"

[Necroghastia]

It isn't "modest" at all, it's a pretty fundamental shift in light of the fact that many different Moderators have said in a number of precedents spanning years that swearing at politicians isn't trolling, and that also has the potential to catch many people out. Hell, I'd have likely been caught out by this had I not seen this farce unfolding, given I've called politicians some names in my time.

Depending on the specific post in question, the issue doesn't boil down solely to using naughty words in reference to politicians. People didn't get in trouble in a lot of cases simply for that. They got in trouble for trolling - which has always been against the rules.

This interpretation of "trolling," as has been repeatedly brought up, has not.

And a lot of the examples that have been cited or brought up looked like trolling if we're being frank. There's a point at which using incendiary language towards a group of people ceases to serve any constructive function and serves only to elicit negative and ugly reactions.

I wasn't aware a singular politician was a group of people.

A post that is meant to rile people up is trolling, plain and simple. When a post uses incendiary language and is more likely to elicit a negative reaction than an instance of an "All X is/are Y" post, it presents a problem to moderation and to the community.

What's the line of incendiary language? Trump is an idiotic jerk is fine, but Trump is a dumb c*** isn't? If we're ruling based on the idea that making a disparaging remark towards a politician is trolling that politician's supporters, than surely one is as bad as the other. They express the same core idea.

[Fahran]

Who's "they?"

Farn presumably. But, again, reporting that post only makes sense if we assume that using less than flattering language to describe political figures is the issue here rather than the issue being trolling in more generalized terms and the function of posts within the context of an ongoing conversation or debate.

[Fahran]

This interpretation of "trolling," as has been repeatedly brought up, has not.

While it is useful to spell out novel interpretations in explicit terms, the broad definition of trolling sufficiently covers a lot of the more acerbic posts that attracted the attention of the moderation team. I would recommend appeals on a few of the rulings, but I think attempts to rules lawyer about this are largely ignoring the point.

Trolling is defined as posts that are made with the aim of angering people. (like 'ALL JEWS ARE [insert vile comment here]' for example). Someone disagreeing with you does not equate to trolling. Intent is incredibly important and will be judged by the moderators to the best of their abilities. Honest belief does not excuse trolling. Disagreements are expected and conducting yourself in a civil manner is ideal. Trollbaiting is the action of making posts that attract trolls. A prime example of trollbaiting would be gloating over the results of an election.

I have no idea how a reasonable person could interpret repeatedly using extremely vitriolic language about a political or religious figure in an aggravated and aggressive manner could have any intention beyond eliciting a negative reaction from people who oppose those characterizations. Calling Trump or Mohammed or Jesus or Tony Blair an "ass" hits a lot differently from calling any of them a "cunt" every time you mention them or going on a tirade that incorporates numerous instances of profanity. The context is altered significantly by the rest of a post.

I wasn't aware a singular politician was a group of people.

Some of the posts that initiated this conversation actually involved more than one person.

What's the line of incendiary language? Trump is an idiotic jerk is fine, but Trump is a dumb c*** isn't? If we're ruling based on the idea that making a disparaging remark towards a politician is trolling that politician's supporters, than surely one is as bad as the other. They express the same core idea.

"Idiot" and "jerk" aren't as vitriolic as the word "cunt." The connotations of words, as well as the substantive content and intent of a post, matter in defining trolling because it's not based on whether a particular word is naughty or mean. It's based on whether it can be inferred that the overall intention of a post is to elicit negative reactions. In a heated political climate, writing aggressive tirades where you employ naughty words directed at a political figure multiple times looks like trolling. And, really, I don't know why anyone would think it's a useful thing to do on NSG where practically everyone has their guard up all the time regardless of the context.

[United Republic Empire]

^this, the report thread was in bad faith and making this thread a rehash of it will simply make the mods dismiss this thread as bad faith

No, it was made cause there was a rule that had been broken.

The Biden bit didn't get reported because they claimed it as a hypothetical, while the Trump bit was by admission their own personal opinion that they proceeded to express on the forum.

So shoo with that idea.

I agree with NEC and PUMN - making a report about a post that is already in moderation does sound like bad faith. We all know the mods are going to read the posts here in moderation, if they felt it was rule breaking then another mod would of took care of it. Besides though, you got the second opinion and both mods agreed on the ruling. If you feel like the mods are abusing their power then there is always the GHR route available as well.

[Twilight Imperium]

I agree with NEC and PUMN - making a report about a post that is already in moderation does sound like bad faith. We all know the mods are going to read the posts here in moderation, if they felt it was rule breaking then another mod would of took care of it. Besides though, you got the second opinion and both mods agreed on the ruling. If you feel like the mods are abusing their power then there is always the GHR route available as well.

Also, reporting a moderator in Moderation just makes one look ridiculous.

[The Reformed American Republic]

We probably shouldn't turn this into an appeal thread, as that was not its intent.

^this, the report thread was in bad faith and making this thread a rehash of it will simply make the mods dismiss this thread as bad faith

This. We're trying to get a consistent guideline, not call out Farn.

[Outer Sparta]

She wasn't using it as an example though, she was outright stating that's what she thought of him.

There is a 2nd part to that example you know. Context is key because it does show an example being made.

And New Haven America is still trying to appeal more?

[Mathuvan Union]

Wait, does this mean I could get a trolling warning for saying ‘Fuck Prince Phillip because he’s a racist’?

[New haven america]

Wait, does this mean I could get a trolling warning for saying ‘Fuck Prince Phillip because he’s a racist’?

So far it seems that they're only focusing on US politicians atm, but maybe, yeah.

[Mathuvan Union]

Wait, does this mean I could get a trolling warning for saying ‘Fuck Prince Phillip because he’s a racist’?

So far it seems that they're only focusing on US politicians atm, but maybe, yeah.

I mean, I can see it riling up his supporters, but it’s a fact, ideology biased or not.

[Fahran]

Also, reporting a moderator in Moderation just makes one look ridiculous.

Moderators have broken the rules in the past and have gotten in trouble for it. It's not really that ridiculous so long as we strive to avoid conflicts of interest. The issue is that the report in question was tantamount to a gotcha to prove a point that would have been better served by discussing it here. Plus Farn wasn't trolling and I doubt any reasonable person could have interpreted her post as trolling.

[Fahran]

Wait, does this mean I could get a trolling warning for saying ‘Fuck Prince Phillip because he’s a racist’?

So far it seems that they're only focusing on US politicians atm, but maybe, yeah.

Yeah, this is why we definitely do need some clarification. Some of the posts that earned swats seemed comparatively mild despite the harsh language. It'd definitely be useful to know exactly where the line is. But I don't really buy a lot of the indignation since some of what got swatted was very obvious trolling and arguably more egregious than a lot of stuff that routinely earns swats.

[New haven america]

Also, reporting a moderator in Moderation just makes one look ridiculous.

Moderators have broken the rules in the past and have gotten in trouble for it. It's not really that ridiculous so long as we strive to avoid conflicts of interest. The issue is that the report in question was tantamount to a gotcha to prove a point that would have been better served by discussing it here. Plus Farn wasn't trolling and I doubt any reasonable person could have interpreted her post as trolling.

How many times do I have to fucking clarify it?

I didn't report what they said about Biden because that was a hypothetical. However, their claims about Trump were by self admission not hypothetical, that was a genuine attack directed towards him, which 4-5 of us so far have been warned for doing.

And no, I'm done trying to get another opinion on it, as it seems this "always having existed" rule isn't going to be dished out equally. Your the only ones here continually bringing it up.

[Outer Sparta]

Moderators have broken the rules in the past and have gotten in trouble for it. It's not really that ridiculous so long as we strive to avoid conflicts of interest. The issue is that the report in question was tantamount to a gotcha to prove a point that would have been better served by discussing it here. Plus Farn wasn't trolling and I doubt any reasonable person could have interpreted her post as trolling.

How many times do I have to fucking clarify it?

I didn't report what they said about Biden because that was a hypothetical. However, their claims about Trump were by self admission not hypothetical, that was a genuine attack directed towards him.

And no, I'm done trying to get another opinion on it, as it seems this "always having existed" rule isn't going to be dealt out equally. Your the only ones here continually bringing it up.

Are you still trying to appeal the Farn case?

[Infected Mushroom]

So let me get this straight:
People are upset because they aren’t allowed to call politicians mean names on a forum?

This is a thing?

Wow

[New haven america]

How many times do I have to fucking clarify it?

I didn't report what they said about Biden because that was a hypothetical. However, their claims about Trump were by self admission not hypothetical, that was a genuine attack directed towards him.

And no, I'm done trying to get another opinion on it, as it seems this "always having existed" rule isn't going to be dealt out equally. Your the only ones here continually bringing it up.

Are you still trying to appeal the Farn case?

I see you didn't read my post.

Moderators have broken the rules in the past and have gotten in trouble for it. It's not really that ridiculous so long as we strive to avoid conflicts of interest. The issue is that the report in question was tantamount to a gotcha to prove a point that would have been better served by discussing it here. Plus Farn wasn't trolling and I doubt any reasonable person could have interpreted her post as trolling.

How many times do I have to fucking clarify it?

I didn't report what they said about Biden because that was a hypothetical. However, their claims about Trump were by self admission not hypothetical, that was a genuine attack directed towards him.

And no, I'm done trying to get another opinion on it, as it seems this "always having existed" rule isn't going to be dished out equally. Your the only ones here continually bringing it up.

[New haven america]

So let me get this straight:
People are upset because they aren’t allowed to call politicians mean names on a forum?

This is a thing?

Wow

Well it didn't used to be a thing.

Until me and ~3-5 other users started getting dinged for apparently trolling by riling up Trump supporters by saying mean things about him. And this wasn't told by the mods, at all, they just started doing it without telling anyone and then claiming that it's a rule that always existed and that you shouldn't question it.

Like guys, come on, either admit that you messed up, or announce it as a new rule plain as day in a way that all of the forum can see so that more users don't get caught up in this invisible net that's currently trawling about.

[Katganistan]

viewtopic.php?f=20&t=479978

Just leaving this here....

[New haven america]

https://forum.nationstates.net/viewtopic.php?f=20&t=479978

Just leaving this here....

And absolutely nothing in there says that personal attacks towards politician aren't allowed.

Are you seeing the issue we're having?