[discussion] The State of Moderation

by **Minskiev** » Thu Oct 07, 2021 8:06 pm

by **Neutraligon** » Thu Oct 07, 2021 8:07 pm

Minskiev wrote:I'd send GHRs if THERE WERENT LITERALLY SO MANY EXAMPLES. Note: when the actual post doesn't seem actionable, look to what the post is quoting.
https://www.nationstates.net/page=rmb/postid=45080951
https://www.nationstates.net/page=rmb/postid=44820290
https://www.nationstates.net/page=rmb/postid=44820057
https://www.nationstates.net/page=rmb/postid=44569252
https://www.nationstates.net/page=rmb/postid=44569055
https://www.nationstates.net/page=rmb/postid=44450148
https://www.nationstates.net/page=rmb/postid=45196083
https://www.nationstates.net/page=rmb/postid=44893808
https://www.nationstates.net/page=rmb/postid=44828051
https://www.nationstates.net/page=rmb/postid=44993495
https://www.nationstates.net/page=rmb/postid=45283342
https://www.nationstates.net/page=rmb/postid=44988746
https://www.nationstates.net/page=rmb/postid=44988731
https://www.nationstates.net/page=rmb/postid=44457102 (compares homophobia to pedophilia)
https://www.nationstates.net/page=rmb/postid=44397176
https://www.nationstates.net/page=rmb/postid=45124671
https://www.nationstates.net/page=rmb/postid=45051463
https://www.nationstates.net/page=rmb/postid=45038112
https://www.nationstates.net/page=rmb/postid=45036007
https://www.nationstates.net/page=rmb/postid=45036755 (specifically ebergar's nonsense)
https://www.nationstates.net/page=rmb/postid=44991950
https://www.nationstates.net/page=rmb/postid=44954833
https://www.nationstates.net/page=rmb/postid=44954475
https://www.nationstates.net/page=rmb/postid=44940370
https://www.nationstates.net/page=rmb/postid=44116089
https://www.nationstates.net/page=rmb/postid=44116634
https://www.nationstates.net/page=rmb/postid=45277320
https://www.nationstates.net/page=rmb/postid=45102325
https://www.nationstates.net/page=rmb/postid=44404437
https://www.nationstates.net/page=rmb/postid=45282462 (context being talking about religious stereotypes)
https://www.nationstates.net/page=rmb/postid=45124389
https://www.nationstates.net/page=rmb/postid=45124627
https://www.nationstates.net/page=rmb/postid=45124540
https://www.nationstates.net/page=rmb/postid=44989288 (context is "If you could be in someone you hated's shoes, would you still hate them?")
https://www.nationstates.net/page=rmb/postid=44989103
https://www.nationstates.net/page=rmb/postid=44738963
https://www.nationstates.net/page=rmb/postid=44403841
https://www.nationstates.net/page=rmb/postid=44188203
https://www.nationstates.net/page=rmb/postid=44151811
https://www.nationstates.net/page=rmb/postid=45110697
https://www.nationstates.net/page=rmb/postid=44962230
https://www.nationstates.net/page=rmb/postid=44540951
https://www.nationstates.net/page=rmb/postid=45141467
https://www.nationstates.net/page=rmb/postid=45138313
https://www.nationstates.net/page=rmb/postid=45130494 ("brainwashed" to be an lgbtq+-supporting womens' rights-supporting liberal)
https://www.nationstates.net/page=rmb/postid=44989116
https://www.nationstates.net/page=rmb/postid=44952248
https://www.nationstates.net/page=rmb/postid=44938931
https://www.nationstates.net/page=rmb/postid=44806919
https://www.nationstates.net/page=rmb/postid=44583995
https://www.nationstates.net/page=rmb/postid=45130817
https://www.nationstates.net/page=rmb/postid=44989215
https://www.nationstates.net/page=rmb/postid=44941832

Among others.

Forum mods are quit literally incapable of dealing with these issues. Please send these to GHR.

by **Minskiev** » Thu Oct 07, 2021 8:11 pm

Neutraligon wrote:
Minskiev wrote:I'd send GHRs if THERE WERENT LITERALLY SO MANY EXAMPLES. Note: when the actual post doesn't seem actionable, look to what the post is quoting.
https://www.nationstates.net/page=rmb/postid=45080951
https://www.nationstates.net/page=rmb/postid=44820290
https://www.nationstates.net/page=rmb/postid=44820057
https://www.nationstates.net/page=rmb/postid=44569252
https://www.nationstates.net/page=rmb/postid=44569055
https://www.nationstates.net/page=rmb/postid=44450148
https://www.nationstates.net/page=rmb/postid=45196083
https://www.nationstates.net/page=rmb/postid=44893808
https://www.nationstates.net/page=rmb/postid=44828051
https://www.nationstates.net/page=rmb/postid=44993495
https://www.nationstates.net/page=rmb/postid=45283342
https://www.nationstates.net/page=rmb/postid=44988746
https://www.nationstates.net/page=rmb/postid=44988731
https://www.nationstates.net/page=rmb/postid=44457102 (compares homophobia to pedophilia)
https://www.nationstates.net/page=rmb/postid=44397176
https://www.nationstates.net/page=rmb/postid=45124671
https://www.nationstates.net/page=rmb/postid=45051463
https://www.nationstates.net/page=rmb/postid=45038112
https://www.nationstates.net/page=rmb/postid=45036007
https://www.nationstates.net/page=rmb/postid=45036755 (specifically ebergar's nonsense)
https://www.nationstates.net/page=rmb/postid=44991950
https://www.nationstates.net/page=rmb/postid=44954833
https://www.nationstates.net/page=rmb/postid=44954475
https://www.nationstates.net/page=rmb/postid=44940370
https://www.nationstates.net/page=rmb/postid=44116089
https://www.nationstates.net/page=rmb/postid=44116634
https://www.nationstates.net/page=rmb/postid=45277320
https://www.nationstates.net/page=rmb/postid=45102325
https://www.nationstates.net/page=rmb/postid=44404437
https://www.nationstates.net/page=rmb/postid=45282462 (context being talking about religious stereotypes)
https://www.nationstates.net/page=rmb/postid=45124389
https://www.nationstates.net/page=rmb/postid=45124627
https://www.nationstates.net/page=rmb/postid=45124540
https://www.nationstates.net/page=rmb/postid=44989288 (context is "If you could be in someone you hated's shoes, would you still hate them?")
https://www.nationstates.net/page=rmb/postid=44989103
https://www.nationstates.net/page=rmb/postid=44738963
https://www.nationstates.net/page=rmb/postid=44403841
https://www.nationstates.net/page=rmb/postid=44188203
https://www.nationstates.net/page=rmb/postid=44151811
https://www.nationstates.net/page=rmb/postid=45110697
https://www.nationstates.net/page=rmb/postid=44962230
https://www.nationstates.net/page=rmb/postid=44540951
https://www.nationstates.net/page=rmb/postid=45141467
https://www.nationstates.net/page=rmb/postid=45138313
https://www.nationstates.net/page=rmb/postid=45130494 ("brainwashed" to be an lgbtq+-supporting womens' rights-supporting liberal)
https://www.nationstates.net/page=rmb/postid=44989116
https://www.nationstates.net/page=rmb/postid=44952248
https://www.nationstates.net/page=rmb/postid=44938931
https://www.nationstates.net/page=rmb/postid=44806919
https://www.nationstates.net/page=rmb/postid=44583995
https://www.nationstates.net/page=rmb/postid=45130817
https://www.nationstates.net/page=rmb/postid=44989215
https://www.nationstates.net/page=rmb/postid=44941832

Among others.

Forum mods are quit literally incapable of dealing with these issues. Please send these to GHR.

I should change my wording - I'd send GHRs now if there weren't so many examples.

by **Neutraligon** » Thu Oct 07, 2021 8:20 pm

Minskiev wrote:
Neutraligon wrote:
Forum mods are quit literally incapable of dealing with these issues. Please send these to GHR.

I should change my wording - I'd send GHRs now if there weren't so many examples.

I ask in all seriousness what is stopping you from sending the examples you have linked? Like I said forum mods are unable to do anything about these things because they do not have the tools to do anything.

by **Quebecshire** » Thu Oct 07, 2021 8:23 pm

I don't think you understand, Neutraligon. Between the attitude of several moderators that some things are supposedly just not that bad, there is a culture among the moderation staff that makes players hesitant to file game help requests for these sorts of things.

You guys tell us to GHR things, but in June I recall (while participating in defending) coming across a World Factbook Entry with another player that included the ableist term dubbed the r-slur. He filed a GHR, and told us the moderators responded by saying the site “doesn’t enforce political correctness”. I know that's not the only situation where reporting similar content yields a snarky response such as that. Similar dismissive behavior has been given in response to COVID-19 misinformation as well. It's extremely discouraging to players reporting problematic content, and at the very least shows that there is an issue of disrespect coming from site staff.

Furthermore, we have well known site staffers such as Sedgistan dismissing and minimizing concerns, including stating that a mute button for a region with a clear lack of ability to enforce its moderation standards will not happen because it was shotdown internally, and later in the thread he goes on to claim the issue arose from one player (which the original post of this thread clearly disputes). This behavior of snark and condescension from staff, when the community has been clear that action is insufficient, is downright unbecoming. Additionally, for a site that includes an express disclaimer that it does not have "free speech" due to its own terms, we have an odd number of site staff using that as their shield in defense of the status quo in the previous hell-thread on a TRR mute button.

So yeah, even if Minskiev files GHRs for everything he cited above and all of them are properly treated as actionable, this site's staff has some fucking work to do to rebuild the community's trust and confidence in them. The fact that it's a serious debate if TRR should be able to better handle those who don't even respect the personhood of some of its members is enough of an issue, and its seriously disappointing to see the direction that thread has taken in addition to the prior shortcomings of those meant to maintain and safeguard the NationStates community.

by **Lamoni** » Thu Oct 07, 2021 8:25 pm

Since you have been asked to take the matter to GHRs, and have not done so, there is nothing to discuss here. iLock.

by **Reploid Productions** » Thu Oct 07, 2021 9:28 pm

I'm going to unlock this, because there is in fact something worth discussing here, though I suspect it is not what Minskiev was aiming for.

I have not looked at the contents of any of those numerous examples yet. One of the others has already copy/pasted the list into a GHR so we can start going through them. Please be patient, as there are quite a few reported posts.

I have, however, searched through the Getting Help tasklist to see just how many of those examples were reported only to be ignored by moderation.

How are we supposed to even be aware there is a problem, let alone respond to it when nobody ever actually reported it? We have to very heavily rely on player reports to respond to problems, we lack the manpower or the fancy algorithms to more pro-actively seek out and deal with potentially rulebreaking material. There is certainly a problem here, and it's far more complicated than just "mods are too lax" or "mods aren't doing their jobs." It's also "mods cannot see everything and we cannot even begin to act on something we don't see and no one bothers to report."

I sincerely doubt any sort of malice in the lack of reporting. A more likely culprit I suspect is just folks mistakenly assuming "Somebody else probably already reported that, so I don't need to.", or perhaps mistakenly guessing "Mods probably won't think it's actionable so why bother?" Duplicate reports are at best a minor nuisance; if we get a slew of reports on the same guy, it doesn't take any sort of huge effort to clear the duplicates out. Warnings for frivolous reporting is an absolute rarity almost always reserved for players making outright fraudulent reports (IE: "So and so sent this nastygram!" ... and no such nastygram exists in the reported user's sent TGs.), so it's better to report those "... mods probably won't think it's actionable" borderline cases. At worst, it's not actionable. If it is actionable, then we're aware and can deal with it. If it's borderline, it begins to build the paper trail that we can use to go "Individually, that's not actionable, but looking at it all together merits a smiting."

On the enforcement side of things, we do seem to oscillate over time between "too harsh" and "too lax." To use Efergar (so sick of that guy but he's a good example,) we probably did not need to waste time letting him rack up his three DEAT events before throwing him out on his ass as a troll; sign that we're on the "too lax" side of the pendulum swing. Maybe we've gotten a bit too stuck in that routine of "3 DEATs before DOS." That is presently under discussion backstage. Additionally, other topics raised such as Holocaust denial and the various -isms and -phobias and "Crack down on TRR's RMB?" are currently being discussed as well.

by **Great Algerstonia** » Thu Oct 07, 2021 9:32 pm

Yeah, this has me even more convinced now that this was hugely blown out of proportion. The fact that not a single one of these messages were reported makes this whole thing a bunch of needless nonsense.

by **Great Algerstonia** » Thu Oct 07, 2021 9:36 pm

I'm also not sure what on earth we're supposed to discuss here. All this is is a bunch of links. How is this OP sufficient?

by **Lord Dominator** » Thu Oct 07, 2021 10:07 pm

I don’t know much about the TRR situation and what reports have been done or not, but I am rather more interested in why there’s a GHR reply template that says something about “not enforcing political correctness” - as best I’m aware that’s a term that’s been pretty politicized for quite awhile now, and thus comes off as needlessly hostile in response to me.

by **The Reformed American Republic** » Thu Oct 07, 2021 10:11 pm

[Redacted]

by **Neutraligon** » Thu Oct 07, 2021 10:11 pm

Lord Dominator wrote:I don’t know much about the TRR situation and what reports have been done or not, but I am rather more interested in why there’s a GHR reply template that says something about “not enforcing political correctness” - as best I’m aware that’s a term that’s been pretty politicized for quite awhile now, and thus comes off as needlessly hostile in response to me.

Honestly, likely because the template is rather old. Old enough that political correctness did not have the current connotations.

member · by **Eluvatar** » Thu Oct 07, 2021 10:17 pm

That template dates to March 2008, yes.

by **Reploid Productions** » Thu Oct 07, 2021 10:20 pm

Eluvatar wrote:That template dates to March 2008, yes.

... 1) Holy fuck, mod TG templates are that old?!
2) Yeeeah, the phrasing on that one could probably stand to get an update.

member · by **Eluvatar** » Thu Oct 07, 2021 10:21 pm

Reploid Productions wrote:
Eluvatar wrote:That template dates to March 2008, yes.

... 1) Holy fuck, mod TG templates are that old?!
2) Yeeeah, the phrasing on that one could probably stand to get an update.

7 of them are, yes.

by **Lord Dominator** » Thu Oct 07, 2021 10:35 pm

Reploid Productions wrote:
Eluvatar wrote:That template dates to March 2008, yes.

... 1) Holy fuck, mod TG templates are that old?!
2) Yeeeah, the phrasing on that one could probably stand to get an update.

I raised that one (and attempted to get copies of others) in the vein of checking the phrasing and such - particularly considering those are likely to be one of the main ways many people will have gameside interaction with mods

by **Francois Isidore** » Thu Oct 07, 2021 11:23 pm

Perhaps you guys should update those seven templates then? That would be a start at the very least for those criticizing moderator responses. If you guys rely on scripts that are so noticeably outdated that they’re beginning to cause problems then you should probably look into updating them accordingly so that such issues don’t arise in the future.

by **The Seeker of Power** » Thu Oct 07, 2021 11:51 pm

And before people asks why the mods use templates, let me answer you from the perspective of someone who is NOT a Mod here but has been a mod in other large communities: because when you have to reply to repeated reports, reports with the same rule breaking, day in and day out and day in of the same problems... Templates are the easiest way to keep both your sanity and a certain consistency haha. Same story - by the way - why tech support, customer service and help desk use them too.

I do think, tho, that some review of them may be needed when they are so old that they could be in High School now

by **Wymondham** » Fri Oct 08, 2021 3:19 am

So, from what I have seen (and this is merely intended as a summary of what I have seen being sad on the forums and on various off-site platforms), there are a few issues at play here.

Firstly, it is important to note that the TRR mute thread is in many ways a manifestation of these various frustrations, not the cause. It has caused those frustrations to bubble over, certainly, but the reaction in the thread is undoubtedly the culmination of these frustrations, rather than these frustrations being solely caused by the scenario that directly lead to the thread's creation. If we do not separate these two issues, we will end up running around in circles as the thread that shall not be named has descended into. Thus, it is important to view the mute thread as the spark that lit the powder, not the powder itself.

The first issue that seems to have caused much chagrin is the perceived disconnect between moderation and the GP section of this site on where acceptable free speech stops and where unacceptable bigotry starts, especially towards the LGBTQIA+ community. While we can quibble over whether such perception is valid or not, I am not attempting to make such judgements, it doubtless exists. Such a perception in and of itself presents a fundamental problem, as Reppy said the mods rely on reports to do their job, and such a perception encourages people to avoid reporting content out of the view that "the mods won't do anything anyway", which of course feeds the perception thus causing a vicious cycle.

The second issue that appears to be at play. which is also very closely connected to the first issue, is the feeling that the moderation team lacks diversity. That part of the reason the moderation team has this perceived disconnect is because the moderation team is made up of largely the same sort of people, who started on the internet at largely the same time, meaning that they all share the same sort of "internet culture", that of the early to late 2000s. Which, I think we can all agree, is rather different to the culture of the internet today. Again, I am not attempting to judge whether such views are correct or not, however the fact that such a perception exists, is again problematic for largely the same reasons as the first issue.

The third reason is the way moderation is perceived to respond to reports or issues or complains. There is a line between amusing snark and coming across as rather mean spirited, while that line is fundamentally fluid, it is difficult to argue that this is a line that moderation avoids crossing on a semi-regular basis. A point that I have seen made off-site is that while snark itself is not necessarily a bad thing, when it comes from a position of power imbalance as every interaction with moderation does, it is much more likely to be taken badly, especially in a situation that needs to be taken seriously. This view is based upon issues such as the GHR templates, the palaver around Fris' response to a GHR a few months ago, with the way the complaints in the technical thread were initially greeted before the thread descended into a version of hell so nasty I can smell the sulphur one forum over. While there are, to put it lightly, undoubtedly stresses and irritations in the role of moderation, professionalism is always paramount and there perhaps needs to be a consideration of how mods respond to GHRs and forum topics and how those responses can potentially damage community trust. The is an issue because, again, it discourages reports and decreases trust in the moderation team.

At risk of repeating myself and sounding like a broken record, I just wanted to explain why anything that discourages reports or decreases community trust in the moderation team is fundamentally bad. Discouraging reports is perhaps the easiest to explain, moderation relies on reports, as reppy has stated, and if players do not report content, there is neither the man hours nor the technology to moderate the site effectively. Decreasing community trust is slightly more difficult, but, in essence, a decrease in trust is gonna lead to a decrease in reports which makes moderating more difficult as I have pointed out earlier in this post.

So, what is there to be done about these issues? I note that Reppy has stated that discussions are ongoing, so I do implore people to give the mods some time to have those discussions. Reasoned feedback upon these issues and upon these discussions in a swift manner would also be appreciated, especially around the issue of the diversity of the mod team. Whilst I do not personally have an issue with the concept of templates, the content of those templates obviously needs to be reviewed. Sharing a list of templates would also be helpful.

I hope that this serves as a somewhat useful summary of what has been said both on and off-site regarding the issues at play. I also want to reiterate that I am not attempting to make judgements of validity upon the perceived issues, nor am I attempting to focus in upon the actions of any moderator in particular.

by **Flanderlion** » Fri Oct 08, 2021 4:16 am

I agree with the issues.

1. Agree that there is a disconnect between NSGP and moderation, but think it is more symptomatic of the wider disconnect of NSGP and NS. NS views being a far broader (both moderate and extreme in all directions) range, while NSGP being made up of a general range of players who tolerate NSGP. I don't think NSGP is something to emulate, and I think status quo is a good balance judging by complaints from all directions for opposing reasons.

2. Agreed, but there is always a good solution for that: Suggest a mod.

3. Yeah. Personally I like snark, but given the number of complaints/people just not getting it and being offended (not specifically GPers) I've seen over the years, templates need to be sanitised from a viewpoint of 'who can this offend' and made as neutral/personality free as possible. Users/customers get offended easily, hence why most big sites remove personality from their templates for more serious stuff. Also, would we be able to see the templates (before and after) so we can weigh in on wording?

by **Ghost Land** » Fri Oct 08, 2021 6:15 am

Reploid Productions wrote:I sincerely doubt any sort of malice in the lack of reporting. A more likely culprit I suspect is just folks mistakenly assuming "Somebody else probably already reported that, so I don't need to.", or perhaps mistakenly guessing "Mods probably won't think it's actionable so why bother?"

Responding to this part in particular - another reason some stuff doesn't get reported is that the people seeing it aren't offended by it and don't see it as breaking any rules. To use the examples of the posts referring to COVID-19 vaccines in particular - while there are some things ("vaccines cause autism", "the covid vaccine has tracking chips in it", "the covid vaccine makes you magnetic", "5G networks cause covid") that can be easily debunked as conspiracy BS and have as a result become memes to a certain extent, whether to get vaccinated is still a personal decision in most places that I'm aware of, and people shouldn't be penalized for being skeptical or disapproving of the COVID-19 vaccines if they aren't bringing up easily debunked conspiracy theories or otherwise being harmful by way of spreading misinformation (which, I should note, is occurring on BOTH sides of the aisle, including from mainstream media and government sources).

Other than that (as I know my beliefs regarding the coronavirus are a bit touchy), I too have noticed the epidemic of spam and trolling on the TRR RMB, which has also sparked considerable amounts of discussion and debate in its own thread over in Technical. My thoughts on adding a mute button are kind of mixed, as I do think TRR should have its own way of getting rid of spammers and trolls - but if TRR had a mute button, people in other regions would probably want a mute button too, forgetting that they can do the simple thing that already exists and banject the problem users. I do worry that TRR's unique status is kind of enabling these problem users, though, as they know they can spam and troll in TRR in ways they can't in other regions because they know they can't get ejected.

But as has been touched on by others - if you see a post you think is problematic, report it. You've got nothing to lose unless you're abusing the GHR system or making reports on random posts out of malice. You can't just sit there while a bunch of people screw around, not do anything about it, and then complain when nothing is done about it. As mods themselves have said, this site's moderation system relies on user reports, as we're a site of over 200,000 user accounts (not counting our millions of dead and DEAT'd nations), moderated by a team of less than 30 people.

Lord Dominator wrote:I don’t know much about the TRR situation and what reports have been done or not, but I am rather more interested in why there’s a GHR reply template that says something about “not enforcing political correctness” - as best I’m aware that’s a term that’s been pretty politicized for quite awhile now, and thus comes off as needlessly hostile in response to me.

Something along the lines of "we don't enforce political correctness, nor do we guarantee you won't be offended"? That was actually one of the first mod messages I got when I was new to the site. I fail to see the problem with it (other than that a lot of the newer enacted rules and policies do seem to err on the side of enforcing political correctness); I think it's actually a good boilerplate response.

Wymondham wrote:The first issue that seems to have caused much chagrin is the perceived disconnect between moderation and the GP section of this site on where acceptable free speech stops and where unacceptable bigotry starts, especially towards the LGBTQIA+ community. While we can quibble over whether such perception is valid or not, I am not attempting to make such judgements, it doubtless exists. Such a perception in and of itself presents a fundamental problem, as Reppy said the mods rely on reports to do their job, and such a perception encourages people to avoid reporting content out of the view that "the mods won't do anything anyway", which of course feeds the perception thus causing a vicious cycle.

The second issue that appears to be at play. which is also very closely connected to the first issue, is the feeling that the moderation team lacks diversity. That part of the reason the moderation team has this perceived disconnect is because the moderation team is made up of largely the same sort of people, who started on the internet at largely the same time, meaning that they all share the same sort of "internet culture", that of the early to late 2000s. Which, I think we can all agree, is rather different to the culture of the internet today. Again, I am not attempting to judge whether such views are correct or not, however the fact that such a perception exists, is again problematic for largely the same reasons as the first issue.

The third reason is the way moderation is perceived to respond to reports or issues or complains. There is a line between amusing snark and coming across as rather mean spirited, while that line is fundamentally fluid, it is difficult to argue that this is a line that moderation avoids crossing on a semi-regular basis. A point that I have seen made off-site is that while snark itself is not necessarily a bad thing, when it comes from a position of power imbalance as every interaction with moderation does, it is much more likely to be taken badly, especially in a situation that needs to be taken seriously. This view is based upon issues such as the GHR templates, the palaver around Fris' response to a GHR a few months ago, with the way the complaints in the technical thread were initially greeted before the thread descended into a version of hell so nasty I can smell the sulphur one forum over. While there are, to put it lightly, undoubtedly stresses and irritations in the role of moderation, professionalism is always paramount and there perhaps needs to be a consideration of how mods respond to GHRs and forum topics and how those responses can potentially damage community trust. The is an issue because, again, it discourages reports and decreases trust in the moderation team.

At risk of repeating myself and sounding like a broken record, I just wanted to explain why anything that discourages reports or decreases community trust in the moderation team is fundamentally bad. Discouraging reports is perhaps the easiest to explain, moderation relies on reports, as reppy has stated, and if players do not report content, there is neither the man hours nor the technology to moderate the site effectively. Decreasing community trust is slightly more difficult, but, in essence, a decrease in trust is gonna lead to a decrease in reports which makes moderating more difficult as I have pointed out earlier in this post.

Other content snipped for length and because these are the relevant parts I'm replying to. As for free speech vs. bigotry - I don't see why the current trolling rules aren't sufficient, assuming actionable posts are being reported. We don't need a specific extra new rule against "bigotry" (which can be subjectively defined as well, as can most things) when we already have a "trolling" rule that includes "all X are Y" comments and most forms of prejudice. To use your example of the LGBT community, relevant as much of the trolling in the linked posts did veer toward the homophobic - whether you're fine with homosexuality or think it's an abomination is one thing, and it's possible to argue for either side without crossing a line. (Personally I don't think gender dysphoria should be normalized by society, though I don't see a problem with same-sex relationships - but again, that's just me.) Equating homosexuality to pedophilia or making comments of the "God hates fags" variety is quite clearly not kosher - and I'm certain that if these posts had been reported, they probably would have been dealt with.

I'd say there's plenty of age diversity among the NS mod team - we've got some mods like NVI who are still in their 20s, and others like Fris, Arch, and Farn who are in their 50s and 60s. Fris and Arch in particular have even mentioned being online before the advent of the World Wide Web, so they've certainly been on the Internet longer than the "early to late 2000s" you reference - though if you were referring to how long members of the mod team had been on NationStates (which I'd by all means has developed its own culture that has decidedly evolved a lot since the site launched in 2002), you'd have a point. Not that I think it's as big of a deal as you seem to be making it out to be, though, as I do believe the best people to moderate a site are people who have plenty of experience posting on it, know how the site works, and have been on here longer than the current presidential administration. I know join date isn't an exact science, as there are certainly people with 2012-2016 join dates who subjectively would make a better moderator than some of the 2002-2005 mods we currently have - but join date is the best easily accessible proxy for site experience. It's probably not the best thing if everyone on the mod team is an old curmudgeon, or a 16-year-old who knows very little of the political and social context of the posts he's moderating, but I'd say it makes sense that most of our mods have pre-2010 join dates.

You then touch on the issue of moderators' tone in their responses to user reports. I do think snarky or unprofessional responses have been a problem for some time - but I also have noticed a general trend in that there have been improvements in this area since the series of debacles we had this summer. You're exactly right that professionalism is important, and that rude mod responses will contribute to decreased community trust in moderation and thus less of a tendency for actionable posts to be reported. But I'm also a believer in giving credit where credit is due - and in particular, I don't see the problem with template GHR responses when we do have a small number of moderators compared to the number of users we have, and a lot of the requests and reports are pretty similar in nature. Are there some moderators I don't particularly care for at all, and who I still to this day think are way too snarky, rude, and/or unprofessional for their own good? Yes. Are there moderators who make politically biased rulings or seem to have an agenda in the way they moderate? Of course. But that's beside the point, and there are some moderators who do a very good job at remaining both friendly and professional. And part of the burden does fall upon the user base: if you think something is an issue, report it. It's not good form, as Reppy alluded to and as I mentioned earlier in this post, to sit there while a problem unfolds, do nothing, and complain when moderation does nothing about reports they didn't get.

by **The Reformed American Republic** » Fri Oct 08, 2021 7:30 am

Ghost Land wrote:Something along the lines of "we don't enforce political correctness, nor do we guarantee you won't be offended"?

I'm against moderators being overly snarky, but I also don't see an inherent problem with moderators using the term "political correctness" in that context, because its true in cases when one makes a non-trolling point that is objectionable, but as written does not violate NationStates' rules. It should be obvious that moderators here are not ultra-conservatives out to stomp on what they consider to be "special snowflakes," which is the more modern (and abusive) conservative term of mockery to be honest, not "political correctness," which existed for quite some time before it was used by some as just a snarl term.

Left-wing players are also not the only ones who have reports dismissed because players can have controversial opinions (to a certain extent) on this site. "Conservative correctness" isn't enforced here either, and there's nothing wrong with moderators using that term as well when something can be offensive from a right-wing perspective, but also does not run afoul of the rules.

by **Guess and Check** » Fri Oct 08, 2021 7:39 am

I think changing the "political correctness" template to be less aggravating is a good idea, given its seemingly innocent nature from 2008 no longer applies in the present. Will do a bit to help resolve that player perception issue Wym was talking about.

I also think Wym accurately summarized a lot of the current situation, fwiw.

by **Quebecshire** » Fri Oct 08, 2021 9:51 am

Like others have said, I think the first step here is re-evaluating those templates. The next step is re-evaluating what things that get those templates sent as a non-actionable response (such as the r-slur).

Considering how outdated they are, there is some plausible deniability in that language such as that term has not always been viewed as it is today, but that's another thing the site staff really needs to look at, as there's no reason that sort of thing should be tolerated.

Another clear example of something that needs to be re-evaluating is COVID-19 misinformation. That being ruled not actionable in response to GHRs is another concern. Again, the times could be an excuse there, vaccine denialism and other disease nonsense was not as big of a deal before the pandemic, but we need to be doing better with that too.

by **Crazy girl** » Fri Oct 08, 2021 12:02 pm

Question for Minsk: we're slowly making our way through the posts reported in the OP (not taken action on any yet) and have found that a number of them are posts from either yourself or other ROs quoting posts which have been mod-suppressed (so 1. not able to link it directly and 2. have been dealt with by us already). Is there a reason these were included here?

[discussion] The State of Moderation

[discussion] The State of Moderation

Who is online