[Discussion] Continued Issues with Moderator Transparency

[Picairn]

So would this same event at this same magnitude have occurred if this had happened to any other player, popular or otherwise? Because I highly doubt that. You can't convince me that Rojava's popularity didn't have at least something to do with this issue.

Can't speak for others, but if GMS or Sai is declared DOS without explanation, you bet that I'm gonna raise questions in Moderation. Sorry to contradict your worldview but not everyone here is a selfish hack who only looks after their friends. I don't even know Rojava that well, only his prolific posting in NSG, but I'm pissed nonetheless.

[Punished UMN]

When 'the straw that broke the camel's back' was as flimsy as it was in this case, and the mitigating circumstances (extended period of good behavior, among other factors I could expound on more offsite), yes, it was a bad decision.

"Extended period of good behavior" doesn't sound like, to me, a mitigating circumstance to not receive punishment for "crimes" that have already been committed. I haven't had any big run-ins with moderation since about 2014, but I doubt I could use "but I've been on my best behavior for nearly 8 years" as a defense if I were to get in trouble for flaming or trolling. But that's why I'm not a mod.

I'm pretty lenient on the mods but I'm sorry this is bootlicking. Even the mods don't agree with this and have said as much in the thread, if someone has an extended period without serious infractions, they are given more leniency, which makes sense, especially as a site catering largely to a teenage demographic that will be maturing over time. I started using this site on my first nation (United Marxist Nations) ten years ago when I was 14, it would be pretty silly to use the record dating back that far. Plus, as I mentioned, you also have other mitigating circumstances such as mental illness and substance abuse while posting (I probably shouldn't say this, but I know for a fact that Reppy quietly made sure that I didn't get in trouble for submitting several absolutely deranged GHR's during a ban I had (which was unrelated to the GHR's oddly enough) during a stress-induced psychotic episode during my first year of university back in 2015 or early 2016.

[Punished UMN]

It might warrant an explanation if the guy the bouncers were escorting out has been one of the most prolific patrons at the bar for several year. It's not a popularity thing, it's a "literally everyone on the site knows who this guy is and will be weirded out by their absence so maybe there should be some explanation."

Would a similar explanation have been required if they had simply CTE'd? It is not like Rojava was Norm, and the entire site revolved around him and his opinions.

Of course not, because a CTE is easily verifiable by any person who can click at the username and has nothing to do with mod intervention.

[Grenartia]

It might warrant an explanation if the guy the bouncers were escorting out has been one of the most prolific patrons at the bar for several year. It's not a popularity thing, it's a "literally everyone on the site knows who this guy is and will be weirded out by their absence so maybe there should be some explanation."

Would a similar explanation have been required if they had simply CTE'd? It is not like Rojava was Norm, and the entire site revolved around him and his opinions.

False equivalence.

Yes, in both cases, the account gets ex-nation'd and there is a mystery to solve, but a simple search in the boneyard tells you whether or not the nation is "soiled". In the case of a "soiled" nation, yes, it is appropriate to ask about the circumstances in moderation. In the case of a CTE, you have to rely on their post history, last contacts, offsite methods of contact, etc to find out their fate.

[Torisakia]

"Extended period of good behavior" doesn't sound like, to me, a mitigating circumstance to not receive punishment for "crimes" that have already been committed. I haven't had any big run-ins with moderation since about 2014, but I doubt I could use "but I've been on my best behavior for nearly 8 years" as a defense if I were to get in trouble for flaming or trolling. But that's why I'm not a mod.

I've already said there are other factors in addition to that. You can continue to try to drag out this threadjack and cause the locking of this thread, or we can discuss this in a more appropriate venue. The choice is yours.

I'd rather not discuss this anywhere else, especially off-site. Though I didn't know I was causing a threadjack, so I'll end that here.

So would this same event at this same magnitude have occurred if this had happened to any other player, popular or otherwise? Because I highly doubt that. You can't convince me that Rojava's popularity didn't have at least something to do with this issue.

i mean, maybe? like i mentioned to giovenith earlier, nobody's going to care about "pornspammer1984" being made DOS because the logic is very easy for everyone to see
but with rojava, there wasn't any of that
and because he was well known, even people who didn't like him were able to have developed some kind of idea of what his posting style looked like-and thus, be very confused by the DOSing out of-what, to us, looked like nowhere
like, there are posters who are unpopular, but if they were made DOS with no explanation until a full day later, there would probably be some sort of outcry
you've taken a position that just doesn't mesh with the issues that have been driving a lot of this discussion

I've just found the situation to be kind of stupid, honestly. Especially the proportion it's been blown into. But that's just my (rather unwanted and undesired) opinion.

"Extended period of good behavior" doesn't sound like, to me, a mitigating circumstance to not receive punishment for "crimes" that have already been committed. I haven't had any big run-ins with moderation since about 2014, but I doubt I could use "but I've been on my best behavior for nearly 8 years" as a defense if I were to get in trouble for flaming or trolling. But that's why I'm not a mod.

I'm pretty lenient on the mods but I'm sorry this is bootlicking. Even the mods don't agree with this and have said as much in the thread, if someone has an extended period without serious infractions, they are given more leniency, which makes sense, especially as a site catering largely to a teenage demographic that will be maturing over time. I started using this site on my first nation (United Marxist Nations) ten years ago when I was 14, it would be pretty silly to use the record dating back that far. Plus, as I mentioned, you also have other mitigating circumstances such as mental illness and substance abuse while posting (I probably shouldn't say this, but I know for a fact that Reppy quietly made sure that I didn't get in trouble for submitting several absolutely deranged GHR's during a ban I had (which was unrelated to the GHR's oddly enough) during a stress-induced psychotic episode during my first year of university back in 2015 or early 2016.

I did say that it's why I'm not a mod. And if that makes me a bootlicker, then so be it.

So would this same event at this same magnitude have occurred if this had happened to any other player, popular or otherwise? Because I highly doubt that. You can't convince me that Rojava's popularity didn't have at least something to do with this issue.

Can't speak for others, but if GMS or Sai is declared DOS without explanation, you bet that I'm gonna raise questions in Moderation. Sorry to contradict your worldview but not everyone here is a selfish hack who only looks for their friends. I don't even know Rojava that well, only his prolific posting in NSG, but I'm pissed nonetheless.

I've spent too much time on Discord servers, apparently. I just have a different view of everything, is all.

[Grenartia]

I've already said there are other factors in addition to that. You can continue to try to drag out this threadjack and cause the locking of this thread, or we can discuss this in a more appropriate venue. The choice is yours.

I'd rather not discuss this anywhere else, especially off-site. Though I didn't know I was causing a threadjack, so I'll end that here.

I mean, it was getting close to where I'd draw the line if I was a mod. And as much as moderation doesn't like that we keep talking about the circumstances of Rojava's DOS, those circumstances are what woke us up to the fact that there is a transparency problem with moderation. In essence, they are not easily separated. And without knowing what we know, I can easily understand why you would be skeptical of our motivations.

[Torisakia]

I'd rather not discuss this anywhere else, especially off-site. Though I didn't know I was causing a threadjack, so I'll end that here.

I mean, it was getting close to where I'd draw the line if I was a mod. And as much as moderation doesn't like that we keep talking about the circumstances of Rojava's DOS, those circumstances are what woke us up to the fact that there is a transparency problem with moderation. In essence, they are not easily separated. And without knowing what we know, I can easily understand why you would be skeptical of our motivations.

In any case, if moderation wants to hit me for threadjacking then so be it. I was just questioning the whole situation was all. Maybe everything will reach a solution soon.

[Grenartia]

I mean, it was getting close to where I'd draw the line if I was a mod. And as much as moderation doesn't like that we keep talking about the circumstances of Rojava's DOS, those circumstances are what woke us up to the fact that there is a transparency problem with moderation. In essence, they are not easily separated. And without knowing what we know, I can easily understand why you would be skeptical of our motivations.

In any case, if moderation wants to hit me for threadjacking then so be it. I was just questioning the whole situation was all. Maybe everything will reach a solution soon.

I could probably answer a lot of your questions in TG, but based on Mall's reaction a few pages ago, there seems to be a point where moderation will begin to think I'm "proxying for Rojava". Hell, they probably already think I am. Which is why I'm so reluctant to just straight up TG you about it.

As for reaching a solution, that depends on whether and how many of our suggestions the 'Moderation Development Manager' decides to actually implement. Given that individual is Fris, odds seem slim.

[Torisakia]

In any case, if moderation wants to hit me for threadjacking then so be it. I was just questioning the whole situation was all. Maybe everything will reach a solution soon.

I could probably answer a lot of your questions in TG, but based on Mall's reaction a few pages ago, there seems to be a point where moderation will begin to think I'm "proxying for Rojava". Hell, they probably already think I am. Which is why I'm so reluctant to just straight up TG you about it.

As for reaching a solution, that depends on whether and how many of our suggestions the 'Moderation Development Manager' decides to actually implement. Given that individual is Fris, odds seem slim.

Even if TG were an option, I'd still rather not discuss it. I don't like TGs.

If anything is implemented, lets hope it's done in a clear and concise way. Otherwise we'll end up having transparency issues with mod transparency. All the best luck, though.

[The Free Joy State]

Psssst. The genders. You see a she and you have our new mod.

Might not work since I respond to he as well.

Anyway, am I right that I have everything listed?

I suggested -- where practical -- a period of prior discussion before changes that will impact players as a whole. This would not be aimed at the implementation of punishments (which -- even if I thought it plausible -- would be undesirable as it would prevent Mods doing your jobs), but rather to ensure that players and Mods are on the same page regarding (for example) what new rule is coming in, and thus make sure the wording is understandable that what it means for players is clear.

Obviously in a fast-moving situation, such as with the COVID rules, that would not be possible. And, obviously, it's still a matter of "Max's house, Max's rules", but by making it more routine to discuss such changes and explaining what they will mean, it would improve both perceptions of transparency and player understanding of the rules, and give players a place of reference.

Also, I've noticed some people talking about being unclear about the bad faith rules in Moderation. In GI, we have a separate sticky for it. I wonder if it may be helpful to have a sticky to highlight bad faith rules in Moderation? I know Moderation has a fair number of stickies (so does Got Issues?), but I know -- in GI -- it's been a handy direct point of reference.

[Grenartia]

Might not work since I respond to he as well.

Anyway, am I right that I have everything listed?

I suggested -- where practical -- a period of prior discussion before changes that will impact players as a whole. This would not be aimed at the implementation of punishments (which would prevent Mods doing your jobs), but rather to ensure that players and Mods are on the same page regarding (for example) what new rule is coming in, and so make sure the wording is understandable that what it means for players is clear.

Obviously, in a fast-moving situation, such as with the COVID rules, that would not be possible. And, obviously, it's still a matter of "Max's house, Max's rules", but by making it more routine to discuss changes and explaining what they will mean, it would improve both transparency and player understanding of the rules, and give players a place of reference.

Also, I've noticed some people talking about being unclear about the bad faith rules in Moderation. In GI, we have a separate sticky for it. I wonder if it may be helpful to have a sticky to highlight bad faith rules in Moderation? I know Moderation has a fair number of stickies (so does Got Issues?), but I know -- in GI -- it's been a handy direct point of reference.

Speaking of bad faith and the questions surrounding it, I never did get any answers to my questions from this post:

To quote a previous unaddressed point I made on the subject:

As I noted before in the thread, a moderator code of conduct with regards to things like what rulings need to look like is I think an obvious first step. Snarky posts like 'you're not welcome here, go away' are not helpful and reflect poorly on moderation's ability to engage constructively with a community that they are at least in theory part of.

And:

And [those snarky posts] highlight[] what I think is one of the big flaws of the 'bad faith' system - specifically that 'bad faith' removal or requirements for discussion only go one way. If a sarcastic post in this thread by a user in regards to a moderator decision is grounds for removal, isn't a moderator's snarky ruling in response to a user's action equally contrary to that spirit of maintaining 'good faith' relationships between Moderation and the community?

Furthermore, it begs the question of who gets to determine what is and is not bad faith, and on what basis is that decision made? The obvious answer, at least currently, is that the people who determine what is bad faith are just as often, the same people being criticized.

Which further begs the questions: Does it not reek of a conflict of interest for the same group who is being criticized to also be the sole arbiters of what is and is not valid criticism? Does it not seem counterproductive that there is at least the appearance of those being criticized removing criticism of their performance with little to no noticeable oversight?


On a different note:

Rojava's history of prior rule violations and account deletions caught up to him. Offsite admissions had nothing to do with any of it, we already knew he was behind the troll account with on-site evidence. Those who play at satire are walking a very risky line between being funny and trolling and he crossed it.

While it is good to hear that no off-site evidence was used to make the decision, the decision itself was still objectively bad. How is this line between satire and trolling decided? And does it not follow that if someone can be deemed to be breaking the rules for posting only what other people have been saying for months unchecked, that those other people are also rulebreaking?

Furthermore, can we expect any announcement on mods being held to stricter standards when it comes to the rules and off-site behavior? That would go a long way towards calming down the community, especially after a mod committed what can only be described as a gross violation of ethics.

I sense that the response to this post will be something along the lines of "rules lawyering", or potentially even "bad faith" itself. I want to pre-emptively point out that the questions I'm asking are purely for the sake of transparency, as the current rules and known policies render these areas murkier than a swamp. The classic comparison of 4 blind guys feeling an elephant and describing vastly different things comes to mind. We as a community need clarification.

[Ayytaly]

Is this a bad time to apply for the position of modetator?

[Grenartia]

Is this a bad time to apply for the position of modetator?

I'd say the problem isn't a lack of moderators, its more institutional than anything. Every time there have previously been brewhahas, one of the first things to get suggested is "new mods". But then we end up right back at square one with the same problems. Most of the mods are fine people, don't get me wrong. I consider several of them my friends. But the problems we have are only going to be resolved by meaningful policy changes. And I pray that anyone in charge of making those changes recognizes that.

[Sedgistan]

That led to him using a puppet to inquire as to why it was deleted, and that is when he got the snarky admin response that he was DOS. Only a few hours later did he get any sort of email announcing he was DOS.

You're being fed incorrect information. It wasn't myself that enacted the DOS, but I can see that Rojava was emailed to inform them that they were DOS within 6 minutes of the nations being deleted.

[Grenartia]

That led to him using a puppet to inquire as to why it was deleted, and that is when he got the snarky admin response that he was DOS. Only a few hours later did he get any sort of email announcing he was DOS.

You're being fed incorrect information. It wasn't myself that enacted the DOS, but I can see that Rojava was emailed to inform them that they were DOS within 6 minutes of the nations being deleted.

Which doesn't mean he didn't get that email hours later, to be entirely fair.

[Valentine Z]

Plus, you can only nominate someone, so if you self-appoint moderator in the e-mail, that's not gonna work.

But I digress, because that's another subject matter.

[Punished UMN]

You're being fed incorrect information. It wasn't myself that enacted the DOS, but I can see that Rojava was emailed to inform them that they were DOS within 6 minutes of the nations being deleted.

Which doesn't mean he didn't get that email hours later, to be entirely fair.

I mean yes, but the mods can't be responsible for players checking their email.

[Grenartia]

Which doesn't mean he didn't get that email hours later, to be entirely fair.

I mean yes, but the mods can't be responsible for players checking their email.

Or shitty email clients, admittedly.

[WayNeacTia]

Is this a bad time to apply for the position of modetator?

But the problems we have are only going to be resolved by meaningful policy changes. And I pray that anyone in charge of making those changes recognizes that.

Site growth would seem to disagree with that opinion. I really fail to see any problems at this time. The moderators did their jobs.

[Ayytaly]

Is this a bad time to apply for the position of modetator?

I'd say the problem isn't a lack of moderators, its more institutional than anything. Every time there have previously been brewhahas, one of the first things to get suggested is "new mods". But then we end up right back at square one with the same problems. Most of the mods are fine people, don't get me wrong. I consider several of them my friends. But the problems we have are only going to be resolved by meaningful policy changes. And I pray that anyone in charge of making those changes recognizes that.

So you want a mod that's different from most other mods in terms of ideology and stances to bring balance to the forum, as all things should be? Is that what you mean?

Also, I misspelled moderator... ugh.

[CoraSpia]

But the problems we have are only going to be resolved by meaningful policy changes. And I pray that anyone in charge of making those changes recognizes that.

Site growth would seem to disagree with that opinion. I really fail to see any problems at this time. The moderators did their jobs.

Site growth? Activity on the site is at one of its lowest levels since I joined back in 2009.

[Ghost Land]

yeah, what purpose does transparency serve
it's not like closure or greater trust that the moderators are doing their jobs right is bolstered by a basic explanation or anything
this is an extremely bad point

So would this same event at this same magnitude have occurred if this had happened to any other player, popular or otherwise? Because I highly doubt that. You can't convince me that Rojava's popularity didn't have at least something to do with this issue.

Heck, I didn't even particularly care for Rojava and I'm still here advocating for greater transparency on the part of the mods. Whether I like him is irrelevant; he was a prolific poster, well known among the ranks of NSG posters, who just seemed to vanish randomly with no comment other than:

No mistake. You're DOS. Find another site to troll.

That was the only explanation we got when he tried to ask in Moderation - and no wonder so many of us were confused as to what he could have done to get such a sentence handed down upon him. I didn't even realize the MaximumOverdrive account was him; I just dismissed it as another summer troll at best.

The comment that discussing DoS'ing Rojava had been going on for a year and that this was just the straw that broke the camel's back is also interesting, considering that prior to this, he had lost only one main nation (Rojava Free State), which if I'm recalling correctly wasn't deleted for anything particularly egregious, just an accumulated pattern of offenses over two years. I understand that the decision to declare someone DoS is done on a case-by-case basis, but to jump to a DoS discussion after just one DEAT seems a bit rushed to me. Not unless he had another nation before RFS that I don't know about, but my point still stands.

Is this a bad time to apply for the position of modetator?

From everything I've read, self-nominations are not accepted, and generally simply ignored - and IMO for good reason.

[The Notorious Mad Jack]

The comment that discussing DoS'ing Rojava had been going on for a year and that this was just the straw that broke the camel's back is also interesting, considering that prior to this, he had lost only one main nation (Rojava Free State), which if I'm recalling correctly wasn't deleted for anything particularly egregious, just an accumulated pattern of offenses over two years. I understand that the decision to declare someone DoS is done on a case-by-case basis, but to jump to a DoS discussion after just one DEAT seems a bit rushed to me. Not unless he had another nation before RFS that I don't know about, but my point still stands.

He had lost three nations.

[Ghost Land]

The comment that discussing DoS'ing Rojava had been going on for a year and that this was just the straw that broke the camel's back is also interesting, considering that prior to this, he had lost only one main nation (Rojava Free State), which if I'm recalling correctly wasn't deleted for anything particularly egregious, just an accumulated pattern of offenses over two years. I understand that the decision to declare someone DoS is done on a case-by-case basis, but to jump to a DoS discussion after just one DEAT seems a bit rushed to me. Not unless he had another nation before RFS that I don't know about, but my point still stands.

He had lost three nations.

Three only if you include the "Greater Sundiata Shores" and "MaximumOverdrive" disposable troll puppets. Only one main nation. Besides, I can think of several people here off the top of my head who've lost three or more nations, whether they be disposable troll puppets and/or multiple nations lost in a single ban evasion spree, who are still here without the threat of DoS looming over them.

[Ethel mermania]

He had lost three nations.

Three only if you include the "Greater Sundiata Shores" and "MaximumOverdrive" disposable troll puppets. Only one main nation. Besides, I can think of several people here off the top of my head who've lost three or more nations, whether they be disposable troll puppets and/or multiple nations lost in a single ban evasion spree, who are still here without the threat of DoS looming over them.

This isn't a was the DOS justified thread. This is a thread about moderation communications with the community.

The one question I have for you though is why in your mind do you weigh puppets deliberately created to troll specific posters less than a warnable offense by the main?