[D]On the etiquette between Players, Moderation, and Admins

[Tarsonis]

So, in a very admittedly uncharacteristic move, I'd like to attempt to turn my outrage into a productive discussion to hopefully better the experience for the players on NS, rather than burn it all down. During the discussions of transparency, a subject that commonly came up, and was then tabled for later discussion, was the issue of the way Moderators and the Admin team interact with players. Recent events have convinced me that maybe now's the time to have that dedicated conversation, between players/mods/admin, about the interactions between players and the mod/admin team. For an example of the issue hand, I just experienced the following:

To preface this I should first state that I owe Mallorea and Rivera and the rest of the Mod/Admin team an apology. I filed a GHR for moderator abuse over the following post:

As a note - let's keep the discussion focused on the MCU. That doesn't mean the DC side of things may not be relevant in some instances, but if you want a discussion thread on the DC universe, go make one. The below statement is wrong, and should be disregarded.

MCU has become thread to talk about all things Marvel and DC related. Deal with it.

Mallorea and Riva, NationStates Game Moderator

I made the report, because at the time I was reading it in the context of a sequence of events (a, deserved, 24 hour ban, among other things) by which I interpreted the post as Mall purposefully singling me out, adding insult to injury, and deliberately using their position as moderator to ​humiliate me in front of a thread that I regularly participate in. Now, with some distance from the event, I realize I completely misread the situation, and for that, especially to Mall, I apologize. I let my emotions, and not my reason do the thinking for me, and for that I'm truly sorry.


Now the reason for prefacing with that story, apart from being able to make that apology publicly, is because this is the response I got:...

Your mod abuse claim has been reviewed by [violet] as follows:

"ON THIS DAY the second of August in THE YEAR OF OUR LORD twenty twenty-one:

I do decree I have EXAMINED and SCRUTINIZED the case against the ACCUSED MODERATOR Mallorea and Riva, henceforth known as "Mall," in which it is ALLEGED that Mall did UNFAIRLY and CORRUPTLY EMBARRASS A PLAYER, henceforth known as "Tarsonis."

I find the FACTS of the matter to be:

(1) Tarsonis did utter an APPARENT STATEMENT OF FACT, to wit:

MCU has become thread to talk about all things Marvel and DC related. Deal with it.

(2) Mall did set forth the ALLEGED CORRUPTLY EMBARRASSING STATEMENT, to wit:

The below statement is wrong, and should be disregarded.

It is the FINDINGS of this examiner that:

(A) The MCU DISCUSSION THREAD is indeed for the discussion of the MCU UNIVERSE, and not "ALL THINGS MARVEL AND DC."

(B) Tarsonis's APPARENT STATEMENT OF FACT is, therefore, a FALSEHOOD.

(C) While it may be MILDLY EYEBROW-RAISING for a moderator to post that a player's STATEMENT OF OPINION is "WRONG, AND SHOULD BE DISREGARDED," this is not the case when dealing with a FALSEHOOD;

(D) This is PARTICULARLY SO when the subject of the player's FALSEHOOD directly OVERLAPS with the purview of a moderator, such as the CREATION and ENFORCEMENT of RULES pertaining to HOW PLAYERS MAY POST, including the determining of what is ON-TOPIC;

(E) It is not merely ACCEPTABLE but EXPECTED that a moderator CONTRADICT APPARENT STATEMENTS OF FACT that are FALSEHOODS likely to MISLEAD OTHERS as to the RULES under which they may post, such as what is ON-TOPIC.

(F) When issuing an ACCEPTABLE AND EXPECTED CONTRADICTION, a moderator's first priority is to do so CLEARLY AND DIRECTLY, and, as a secondary priority, to REFRAIN FROM UNDUE SNARK, no matter how tempting this may be, due to the size or scope of the FALSEHOOD, or the player's MISPLACED SENSE OF CONFIDENCE in their own FALSEHOOD.

(G) Mall's issuance of the above ACCEPTABLE AND EXPECTED CONTRADICTION fulfilled all such REQUIREMENTS.

I do therefore DISMISS the ALLEGATION with prejudice.

ALL RISE *bangs gavel* WOT WOT"

And sitting here having written, rewritten, and deleted a hundred scathing responses in my head, I'm just left now asking, Why? Why is this seen as okay? Why do some moderators and clearly admins, think it's okay to treat players this way? Because there is no other way to read this statement as thinly veiled, sanctimonious "Go fuck yourself." Even acknowledging my error in making the report, why is it okay, for then the Admin team to respond with actual abuse, of mockery, bullying, and flamebating. Instead of diffusing the situation with a 30 second explanation of why I was wrong, why is dumping gasoline on the fire, the go to move? We're told there's rules of moderator etiquette posted in the locker room, but we're not allowed to know what they are. And it feels more and more, that it must be because the only rule must be "try to be nice, but fuck em if they can't take a joke." Going back to the Transparency thread, the GHR was uniquely singled out as a place where this happens.

And this is why I decided to make this thread, and hope the mod team will allow it to go on and contribute in good faith, It's incredibly distressing, because these are the people we're supposed to be able to go to for help. How are we supposed to have faith in the system and its actors, if when we need to go to them, it seems like there's a good to fair chance they're just going to treat us like this?


To point this thread in the right direction, this shouldn't be a commiseration thread, a dissection of accounts, or a place to call out individual actors. Rather the discussion should focus on suggestions for:

How can we make this better?
How can we improve the relationship between the players and mod/admin team so that this us vs them mentality that, as the the transparency thread made evident, seems to undercurrent the player base?
Do we need to Amy Santiago the situation and have a detailed set of rules for Moderator/Player interaction?



For me, I think a good starting point is a formal definition of Moderation Abuse to be added to the One Stop Rules place/ or the About a Mod stickie. While digging through, I noticed there isn't one, at least not one that was easily found.

[New Odrana]

Tarsonis, Mall's response was literally one of the most mild, matter-of-fact statements you could have possibly received. Their response to you wasn't rude or mean in any way. All they did was contradict your statement in order to correct you, but you're taking it as a personal "fuck you." It reads to me like you haven't stepped away from the situation long enough. Mall's response to you was reasonable, as was [violet]'s ruling. You're not a victim of "mod abuse" or a "lack of transparency," you're just taking this situation way too personally.

[Tarsonis]

Tarsonis, Mall's response was literally one of the most mild, matter-of-fact statements you could have possibly received. Their response to you wasn't rude or mean in any way. All they did was contradict your statement in order to correct you, but you're taking it as a personal "fuck you." It reads to me like you haven't stepped away from the situation long enough. Mall's response to you was reasonable,

I know. That is what I said. Hence the apology.

as was [violet]'s ruling.

It's not the ruling, so much as the manner in which it was delivered. It was delivered in a manner to specifically demean, belittle, and infuriate, which is particularly abusive coming from a sysadmin.

You're not a victim of "mod abuse" or a "lack of transparency," you're just taking this situation way too personally.

I reads to me that you didn't actually read what I wrote, but skimmed it in order to gaslight me. For example: I never claimed to be a "victim of lack of transparency."


This is exactly what I didn't want. If you don't have anything constructive to add to the discussion, please refrain from commenting.

[Greater Cesnica]

If this response you received from site staff is indeed accurate, then it is quite apparent, at least to me, that they need to hold themselves to the same standards that are applied to the rest of the userbase. It's not the most egregious reply, but it strikes me as condescending and of a mocking nature. As for whether rules are needed for moderator-to-player interaction, I presume that such rules already exist behind the scene. Perhaps making such a ruleset public would go a long way.

How can we improve the relationship between the players and mod/admin team so that this us vs them mentality that, as the the transparency thread made evident, seems to undercurrent the player base?

I think you meant "so that we can do away with this us vs them mentality that, as the transparency thread made evident, seems to undercurrent the player base" or something along those lines. I would agree with the need to do away with such a dynamic, though I am undecided as to how much of a concern it actually is at the moment. Simply more positive interactions between site staff and players could definitely help rid us of that problem.

[Luminesa]

When the mod actually responds like they’re in Forum 7 or like they’re in the World Assembly.

[Tarsonis]

When the mod actually responds like they’re in Forum 7 or like they’re in the World Assembly.

I mean...I wouldn't mind getting a hammer thingy

[Luminesa]

When the mod actually responds like they’re in Forum 7 or like they’re in the World Assembly.

I mean...I wouldn't mind getting a hammer thingy

I could use a hammer-thingy for a lot of things.

LegalEagle, where is your review of Billy and Mandy?!

[[violet]]

I'm very sorry that you received this reply, which absolutely should never have happened. I want to apologize for the incident, and thank you for raising it.

Short explanation: I wrote that response and posted it in our private moderators forum, intending it to only be seen by other than mods. Frisbeeteria forwarded it to you, which he should not have done.

Long explanation: Your initial appeal was forwarded to me because you titled it "Moderator abuse." All allegations of moderator abuse or corruption are forwarded to admin, since we don't think mods should police themselves. As you might imagine, some allegations are more serious than others: Sometimes there are serious questions as to whether a moderator overstepped their authority or was careless in an important way; other times, it's just as thing players say when they dislike a mod's ruling. I don't respond to players about these directly unless they're very serious; I just post in the mod forum whether I think the complaint can be dismissed or not, and sometimes we have a conversation about the issues it raises.

Because this was a relatively petty allegation of mod abuse, I wrote a playful response. I never intended it to be seen by anyone other than the mod/admin team, and was very surprised that Fris forwarded it to you.

The team and I will discuss this among ourselves, because it's pretty embarrassing to see something I posted in a private mod forum wind up in public. But I also apologize for poking fun at your expense, regardless of who the intended audience was.

[Greater Cesnica]

I'm very sorry that you received this reply, which absolutely should never have happened. I want to apologize for the incident, and thank you for raising it.

Short explanation: I wrote that response and posted it in our private moderators forum, intending it to only be seen by other than mods. Frisbeeteria forwarded it to you, which he should not have done.

Long explanation: Your initial appeal was forwarded to me because you titled it "Moderator abuse." All allegations of moderator abuse or corruption are forwarded to admin, since we don't think mods should police themselves. As you might imagine, some allegations are more serious than others: Sometimes there are serious questions as to whether a moderator overstepped their authority or was careless in an important way; other times, it's just as thing players say when they dislike a mod's ruling. I don't respond to players about these directly unless they're very serious; I just post in the mod forum whether I think the complaint can be dismissed or not, and sometimes we have a conversation about the issues it raises.

Because this was a relatively petty allegation of mod abuse, I wrote a playful response. I never intended it to be seen by anyone other than the mod/admin team, and was very surprised that Fris forwarded it to you.

The team and I will discuss this among ourselves, because it's pretty embarrassing to see something I posted in a private mod forum wind up in public. But I also apologize for poking fun at your expense, regardless of who the intended audience was.

Though I'm not an involved party, I commend you for writing a sincere, detailed response back. Your explanation does seem reasonable to me.

[Tarsonis]

I'm very sorry that you received this reply, which absolutely should never have happened. I want to apologize for the incident, and thank you for raising it.

Short explanation: I wrote that response and posted it in our private moderators forum, intending it to only be seen by other than mods. Frisbeeteria forwarded it to you, which he should not have done.

Long explanation: Your initial appeal was forwarded to me because you titled it "Moderator abuse." All allegations of moderator abuse or corruption are forwarded to admin, since we don't think mods should police themselves. As you might imagine, some allegations are more serious than others: Sometimes there are serious questions as to whether a moderator overstepped their authority or was careless in an important way; other times, it's just as thing players say when they dislike a mod's ruling. I don't respond to players about these directly unless they're very serious; I just post in the mod forum whether I think the complaint can be dismissed or not, and sometimes we have a conversation about the issues it raises.

Because this was a relatively petty allegation of mod abuse, I wrote a playful response. I never intended it to be seen by anyone other than the mod/admin team, and was very surprised that Fris forwarded it to you.

The team and I will discuss this among ourselves, because it's pretty embarrassing to see something I posted in a private mod forum wind up in public. But I also apologize for poking fun at your expense, regardless of who the intended audience was.

Thank you. I appreciate the apology, and to reiterate I realize my report was just me connecting dots that weren't there and in retrospect is quite embarrassing. I'm sorry, for wasting yours and the mod team's time and especially to Mall who didn't deserve the report. (and I can't blame you for having a laugh on the private mod thread. Truth be told , I'd probably have done the same in your position.)

[Luminesa]

I'm very sorry that you received this reply, which absolutely should never have happened. I want to apologize for the incident, and thank you for raising it.

Short explanation: I wrote that response and posted it in our private moderators forum, intending it to only be seen by other than mods. Frisbeeteria forwarded it to you, which he should not have done.

Long explanation: Your initial appeal was forwarded to me because you titled it "Moderator abuse." All allegations of moderator abuse or corruption are forwarded to admin, since we don't think mods should police themselves. As you might imagine, some allegations are more serious than others: Sometimes there are serious questions as to whether a moderator overstepped their authority or was careless in an important way; other times, it's just as thing players say when they dislike a mod's ruling. I don't respond to players about these directly unless they're very serious; I just post in the mod forum whether I think the complaint can be dismissed or not, and sometimes we have a conversation about the issues it raises.

Because this was a relatively petty allegation of mod abuse, I wrote a playful response. I never intended it to be seen by anyone other than the mod/admin team, and was very surprised that Fris forwarded it to you.

The team and I will discuss this among ourselves, because it's pretty embarrassing to see something I posted in a private mod forum wind up in public. But I also apologize for poking fun at your expense, regardless of who the intended audience was.

I mean it wasn’t like you murdered Tars or insulted his mom, but the genuine response is appreciated.

[The Python]

If this response you received from site staff is indeed accurate, then it is quite apparent, at least to me, that they need to hold themselves to the same standards that are applied to the rest of the userbase. It's not the most egregious reply, but it strikes me as condescending and of a mocking nature. As for whether rules are needed for moderator-to-player interaction, I presume that such rules already exist behind the scene. Perhaps making such a ruleset public would go a long way.

This.

[New Odrana]

Tarsonis, Mall's response was literally one of the most mild, matter-of-fact statements you could have possibly received. Their response to you wasn't rude or mean in any way. All they did was contradict your statement in order to correct you, but you're taking it as a personal "fuck you." It reads to me like you haven't stepped away from the situation long enough. Mall's response to you was reasonable,

I know. That is what I said. Hence the apology.

as was [violet]'s ruling.

It's not the ruling, so much as the manner in which it was delivered. It was delivered in a manner to specifically demean, belittle, and infuriate, which is particularly abusive coming from a sysadmin.

Complete and absolute nonsense. It was written a logically flowing way that's very obviously inspired by the way legal documents are written. Is it a little silly to hand down a ruling on a forum for an online game in that same style? Probably, but it's not meant to "demean, belittle, and infuriate." I will also point out that you're the one who posted this [violet]'s response publicly for all of us to see, so if you really did feel demeaned/belittled by this, it must not be that severe. Or you just want people to feel sorry for you.
EDIT: No longer relevant after reading [violet]'s response in this thread.

I reads to me that you didn't actually read what I wrote,

I read every word start to finish. This is just ad hominem bullshit because you don't have an actual response to what I said.

but skimmed it in order to gaslight me.

Give me a fucking break. I'm random guy on the internet, not your abusive ex-boyfriend. No one's "gaslighting" you, you just can't handle even the slightest amount of criticism without reacting like someone just tried to shoot your mother.

For example: I never claimed to be a "victim of lack of transparency."

Right, because implicit statements don't exist. You posted an OP about a mod-abuse report that didn't go the way you wanted and tried to connect it with existing criticisms from completely unrelated users in completely different circumstances from yourself, specifically the lack of transparency in how those users were dealt with. You explicitly attempted to link this frivolous GHR ruling with the ongoing debate over mod transparency, but sure, you're totally not claiming to be a "victim of a lack of transparency," because you never explicitly said those words!

Speaking of "gaslighting," the attempt at emotional manipulation here is blatantly obvious: try to associate your completely open-and-shut case with already-existing negative feelings towards the mods to try and piss off other users and get them on your side, regardless of the actual merit of your own case.

This is exactly what I didn't want. If you don't have anything constructive to add to the discussion, please refrain from commenting.

In other words, "How dare you criticize me on a thread that I made so that people could feel bad for me and tell me I'm a victim! If you're not going to validate my persecution complex, please refrain from commenting."

[The Reformed American Republic]

Right, because implicit statements don't exist. You posted an OP about a mod-abuse report that didn't go the way you wanted and tried to connect it with existing criticisms from completely unrelated users in completely different circumstances from yourself, specifically the lack of transparency in how those users were dealt with.

He posted this not because his abuse report did not go his way, but rather, because of the response he got, which would naturally tie in to other situations where people did not have good experiences with the moderators. I don't know why you're being so hostile. [Violet] explicitly said the response should not have been sent.

[WayNeacTia]

Right, because implicit statements don't exist. You posted an OP about a mod-abuse report that didn't go the way you wanted and tried to connect it with existing criticisms from completely unrelated users in completely different circumstances from yourself, specifically the lack of transparency in how those users were dealt with.

He posted this not because his abuse report did not go his way, but rather, because of the response he got, which would naturally tie in to other situations where people did not have good experiences with the moderators. I don't know why you're being so hostile. [Violet] explicitly said the response should not have been sent.

I tend to agree. Airing this one out in the open was probably for the best, and likely will have a positive outcome in the end.

[Drop Your Pants]

How can we improve the relationship between the players and mod/admin team so that this us vs them mentality that, as the the transparency thread made evident, seems to undercurrent the player base?

Following the site rules is a good start. It's really not that hard.

The transparency thread was mostly NSG, which doesn't count for a lot of the player base. There was a few GPers too.

[Nilokeras]

A disappointing incident on multiple levels. In the last thread on moderation reforms - triggered, it should be mentioned, in part by another act of mod snark - it was argued in the face of requests for moderator codes of conduct or equal bad faith rules that the mods have their own private code of conduct, and that they wouldn't be instituting said code or bad faith rules changes. A sincere effort would be made by said moderators to 'cut down on the snark' on their own accord, and that would be enough.

I think that time has passed. This incident is concrete evidence of a locker room culture within the mod forum that entirely disrespects the standard of 'good faith' laid out and expected by the OSRS. The fact that the evidence of that locker room culture came from the pen of the very admin who wrote the bad faith rules just underlines the real necessity for rules that don't just exist posted on a wall in said locker room with god knows what content. This forum has been around for a long time, and has grown a lot in the almost decades since NS was created. It's high time that moderation's governance becomes formalized, not only as a way to repair the damage this incident caused but to help usher in the new fora that are already in the works in the technical threads.

As always you'll have a willing group of players ready to help you draft these changes and implement them. All that remains is whether or not you decide to take us up on the offer.

[Washington Resistance Army]

It'd be wonderful if the team in general could stop larping because it makes it hard to take the team seriously at times and feeds into a lot of negative stereotypes that almost certainly fuel more vitriol towards you all. You're not a judge, a lawyer, a forum-empress or anything else. You enforce rules on a forum and an incredibly basic game. Stop taking it so seriously and be more laid back and casual, regulars to the site will respond in kind*. Also, yes, Nilokeras as always makes a bunch of great points as always. You can't keep saying "we're sorry" and then not actually change things, it has to start with the team and work its way down.

*Source: was a mod elsewhere and did the above and the community responded very well to it

[CoraSpia]

Remember in the transparency thread when I said that having discussions about 'problem' players long before they are made DoS creates self-fulfilling prophecies because mods are much more likely to view anything they do in a bad light further down the line? The same is true if their is a tendency to discuss player complaints in such mocking terms in backstage forums. It's obvious that this is going to breed a culture in which such complaints are taken less seriously as it has been shown that admins are perfectly willing to do it.

I might also add that the message from violet isn't formatted as a legal judgement should be and that barring any special circumstances it would definitely be seen in a bad light by future scholars of rules law.

[Wymondham]

How can we improve the relationship between the players and mod/admin team so that this us vs them mentality that, as the the transparency thread made evident, seems to undercurrent the player base?

Following the site rules is a good start. It's really not that hard.

The transparency thread was mostly NSG, which doesn't count for a lot of the player base. There was a few GPers too.

This tbh. I really cannot emphasise enough that NSG is not the majority of the player base and far from it, yet it somehow seems to consistently have the most issues with the mods when the rest of us seem to manage just fine the vast majority of the time.

[The Python]

Following the site rules is a good start. It's really not that hard.

The transparency thread was mostly NSG, which doesn't count for a lot of the player base. There was a few GPers too.

This tbh. I really cannot emphasise enough that NSG is not the majority of the player base and far from it, yet it somehow seems to consistently have the most issues with the mods when the rest of us seem to manage just fine the vast majority of the time.

Probably because NSG can become more heated for obvious reasons.

[CoraSpia]

This tbh. I really cannot emphasise enough that NSG is not the majority of the player base and far from it, yet it somehow seems to consistently have the most issues with the mods when the rest of us seem to manage just fine the vast majority of the time.

Probably because NSG can become more heated for obvious reasons.

That and issues with the mods in nsg are both more public than gameplay (they're always forumside) and often more subjective than roleplay (what breaks the pg-13 rule, despite the fact that that rule has gotten far stricter in recent years) is often more subjective than 'is this particular borderline case trolling.'

[Nilokeras]

How can we improve the relationship between the players and mod/admin team so that this us vs them mentality that, as the the transparency thread made evident, seems to undercurrent the player base?

Following the site rules is a good start. It's really not that hard.

The transparency thread was mostly NSG, which doesn't count for a lot of the player base. There was a few GPers too.

Edge cases are always where policy failures are first detected. NSG (and to an extent the other fora) is public-facing and as GVH pointed out, tends to deal with more inflammatory subject matter than the average region's RMB. It's also the tyranny of the anecdote that most of NS is siloed away in individual regions where moderation recourse is sought via private, black box Getting Help Requests. We hear about NSG more in the moderation forum because it's, well, on the forum. We don't hear about most of the rest of NS in the same way.

[Nanatsu no Tsuki]

So, in a very admittedly uncharacteristic move, I'd like to attempt to turn my outrage into a productive discussion to hopefully better the experience for the players on NS, rather than burn it all down. During the discussions of transparency, a subject that commonly came up, and was then tabled for later discussion, was the issue of the way Moderators and the Admin team interact with players. Recent events have convinced me that maybe now's the time to have that dedicated conversation, between players/mods/admin, about the interactions between players and the mod/admin team. For an example of the issue hand, I just experienced the following:

To preface this I should first state that I owe Mallorea and Rivera and the rest of the Mod/Admin team an apology. I filed a GHR for moderator abuse over the following post:

As a note - let's keep the discussion focused on the MCU. That doesn't mean the DC side of things may not be relevant in some instances, but if you want a discussion thread on the DC universe, go make one. The below statement is wrong, and should be disregarded.


Mallorea and Riva, NationStates Game Moderator

I made the report, because at the time I was reading it in the context of a sequence of events (a, deserved, 24 hour ban, among other things) by which I interpreted the post as Mall purposefully singling me out, adding insult to injury, and deliberately using their position as moderator to ​humiliate me in front of a thread that I regularly participate in. Now, with some distance from the event, I realize I completely misread the situation, and for that, especially to Mall, I apologize. I let my emotions, and not my reason do the thinking for me, and for that I'm truly sorry.


Now the reason for prefacing with that story, apart from being able to make that apology publicly, is because this is the response I got:...

Your mod abuse claim has been reviewed by [violet] as follows:

"ON THIS DAY the second of August in THE YEAR OF OUR LORD twenty twenty-one:

I do decree I have EXAMINED and SCRUTINIZED the case against the ACCUSED MODERATOR Mallorea and Riva, henceforth known as "Mall," in which it is ALLEGED that Mall did UNFAIRLY and CORRUPTLY EMBARRASS A PLAYER, henceforth known as "Tarsonis."

I find the FACTS of the matter to be:

(1) Tarsonis did utter an APPARENT STATEMENT OF FACT, to wit:


(2) Mall did set forth the ALLEGED CORRUPTLY EMBARRASSING STATEMENT, to wit:


It is the FINDINGS of this examiner that:

(A) The MCU DISCUSSION THREAD is indeed for the discussion of the MCU UNIVERSE, and not "ALL THINGS MARVEL AND DC."

(B) Tarsonis's APPARENT STATEMENT OF FACT is, therefore, a FALSEHOOD.

(C) While it may be MILDLY EYEBROW-RAISING for a moderator to post that a player's STATEMENT OF OPINION is "WRONG, AND SHOULD BE DISREGARDED," this is not the case when dealing with a FALSEHOOD;

(D) This is PARTICULARLY SO when the subject of the player's FALSEHOOD directly OVERLAPS with the purview of a moderator, such as the CREATION and ENFORCEMENT of RULES pertaining to HOW PLAYERS MAY POST, including the determining of what is ON-TOPIC;

(E) It is not merely ACCEPTABLE but EXPECTED that a moderator CONTRADICT APPARENT STATEMENTS OF FACT that are FALSEHOODS likely to MISLEAD OTHERS as to the RULES under which they may post, such as what is ON-TOPIC.

(F) When issuing an ACCEPTABLE AND EXPECTED CONTRADICTION, a moderator's first priority is to do so CLEARLY AND DIRECTLY, and, as a secondary priority, to REFRAIN FROM UNDUE SNARK, no matter how tempting this may be, due to the size or scope of the FALSEHOOD, or the player's MISPLACED SENSE OF CONFIDENCE in their own FALSEHOOD.

(G) Mall's issuance of the above ACCEPTABLE AND EXPECTED CONTRADICTION fulfilled all such REQUIREMENTS.

I do therefore DISMISS the ALLEGATION with prejudice.

ALL RISE *bangs gavel* WOT WOT"

And sitting here having written, rewritten, and deleted a hundred scathing responses in my head, I'm just left now asking, Why? Why is this seen as okay? Why do some moderators and clearly admins, think it's okay to treat players this way? Because there is no other way to read this statement as thinly veiled, sanctimonious "Go fuck yourself." Even acknowledging my error in making the report, why is it okay, for then the Admin team to respond with actual abuse, of mockery, bullying, and flamebating. Instead of diffusing the situation with a 30 second explanation of why I was wrong, why is dumping gasoline on the fire, the go to move? We're told there's rules of moderator etiquette posted in the locker room, but we're not allowed to know what they are. And it feels more and more, that it must be because the only rule must be "try to be nice, but fuck em if they can't take a joke." Going back to the Transparency thread, the GHR was uniquely singled out as a place where this happens.

And this is why I decided to make this thread, and hope the mod team will allow it to go on and contribute in good faith, It's incredibly distressing, because these are the people we're supposed to be able to go to for help. How are we supposed to have faith in the system and its actors, if when we need to go to them, it seems like there's a good to fair chance they're just going to treat us like this?


To point this thread in the right direction, this shouldn't be a commiseration thread, a dissection of accounts, or a place to call out individual actors. Rather the discussion should focus on suggestions for:

How can we make this better?
How can we improve the relationship between the players and mod/admin team so that this us vs them mentality that, as the the transparency thread made evident, seems to undercurrent the player base?
Do we need to Amy Santiago the situation and have a detailed set of rules for Moderator/Player interaction?



For me, I think a good starting point is a formal definition of Moderation Abuse to be added to the One Stop Rules place/ or the About a Mod stickie. While digging through, I noticed there isn't one, at least not one that was easily found.

Violet’s response reads like an inquisitorial statement and is frankly appalling to read. More so because you, a Catholic poster, are the subject of her mockery. I’m sure the irony is not missed by you. I know she apologized to you but wow. Makes one wonder what she or the mods think of the different players and what sort of crap is said behind our backs.

[Torisakia]

Is this going to be an every week thing? A mod response is formatted in a way that someone doesn't like and we're going to raise shit about it? Sure, [violet]'s response isn't the most professional, but last I checked neither was this site. It's not like anyone's mom was called fat or something juvenile. Seriously, is there anything that this forum won't complain about? (rhetorical question)