NationStates

Pretty sure slavery threads are not allowed:
viewtopic.php?f=6&t=527256

idk but it became fun quick

It probably doesn't matter that it's slavery, just that this Warriorium's doing it for kicks - that is apparent from the lack context and abrasive tone.

The free city of Kravolec wrote:idk but it became fun quick

Don't reply in a moderation thread unless you are a mod, the person making the report or bringing useful and relevant evidence to the table.


The thread topic is legal - we have allowed slave threads before.

Second opinion requested. A long time ago I sent-up an RP thread for having slaves and one of the older mods said it was not allowed. I would dig it up but there is precedent against it.

Upon consulting the Deep Archives of Moderation™, I have found multiple instances of precedent ruling them legal as long as they manage to not violate *other* rules in the process. That's the key bit there. *Other* rules.

United Calanworie wrote:Upon consulting the Deep Archives of Moderation™, I have found multiple instances of precedent ruling them legal as long as they manage to not violate *other* rules in the process. That's the key bit there. *Other* rules.

Could these "other rules" be made explicit so that we, as players, don't have to worry about stepping over boundaries by accident?

This is a problem I have with moderation on this site. It seems like an insular club, ruled by an idiosyncratic groupthink, whose rules are consistently either unclear or unjust.

Hahoalki wrote:

United Calanworie wrote:Upon consulting the Deep Archives of Moderation™, I have found multiple instances of precedent ruling them legal as long as they manage to not violate *other* rules in the process. That's the key bit there. *Other* rules.

Could these "other rules" be made explicit so that we, as players, don't have to worry about stepping over boundaries by accident?

This is a problem I have with moderation on this site. It seems like an insular club, ruled by an idiosyncratic groupthink, whose rules are consistently either unclear or unjust.

Yeah, they're right here.

United Calanworie wrote:

Hahoalki wrote:
Could these "other rules" be made explicit so that we, as players, don't have to worry about stepping over boundaries by accident?

This is a problem I have with moderation on this site. It seems like an insular club, ruled by an idiosyncratic groupthink, whose rules are consistently either unclear or unjust.

Yeah, they're right here.

Again, I'm unclear on how these rules could be applied objectively in any specific case. For example, there are rules against gloating that include "gloating over election results" as a punishable offense.

But the title of the American Politics thread was, for a considerable period of time after the American midterms, "Red Wave meet Blue Wall" - which seems to me to be obvious gloating. So, clearly, the mods have extensive discretionary powers regarding what offenses they will actually prosecute. And just like you can't be sure if a prima facie rulebreaking post will draw the wrath of Moderation, you also can't be sure if a prima facie law-abiding post will avoid it.

So, I'm not asking for a link to existing resources. I am asking you to make the rules, as they apply to this specific situation, explicit and transparent. I want to know where exactly the line between acceptable roleplay and unacceptable roleplay lies. Not a link to the vague principles the mods can use to justify taking action if they feel like it that day.

Hahoalki wrote:

United Calanworie wrote:Yeah, they're right here.

Again, I'm unclear on how these rules could be applied objectively in any specific case. For example, there are rules against gloating that include "gloating over election results" as a punishable offense.

But the title of the American Politics thread was, for a considerable period of time after the American midterms, "Red Wave meet Blue Wall" - which seems to me to be obvious gloating. So, clearly, the mods have extensive discretionary powers regarding what offenses they will actually prosecute. And just like you can't be sure if a prima facie rulebreaking post will draw the wrath of Moderation, you also can't be sure if a prima facie law-abiding post will avoid it.

So, I'm not asking for a link to existing resources. I am asking you to make the rules, as they apply to this specific situation, explicit and transparent. I want to know where exactly the line between acceptable roleplay and unacceptable roleplay lies. Not a link to the vague principles the mods can use to justify taking action if they feel like it that day.

There is no exact, precise line. The rules are the rules, and they are subject to interpretation to cover whatever situation we find ourselves in. I would suggest that instead of trying to rules lawyer an explicit "I can do X but not Y" you instead not engage in conduct that you likely think would violate the rather clearly phrased rules in the OSRS.

E: You could also probably do with a reminder that the phrase "If you have to ask..." always is a good rule of thumb.

United Calanworie wrote:

Hahoalki wrote:
Again, I'm unclear on how these rules could be applied objectively in any specific case. For example, there are rules against gloating that include "gloating over election results" as a punishable offense.

But the title of the American Politics thread was, for a considerable period of time after the American midterms, "Red Wave meet Blue Wall" - which seems to me to be obvious gloating. So, clearly, the mods have extensive discretionary powers regarding what offenses they will actually prosecute. And just like you can't be sure if a prima facie rulebreaking post will draw the wrath of Moderation, you also can't be sure if a prima facie law-abiding post will avoid it.

So, I'm not asking for a link to existing resources. I am asking you to make the rules, as they apply to this specific situation, explicit and transparent. I want to know where exactly the line between acceptable roleplay and unacceptable roleplay lies. Not a link to the vague principles the mods can use to justify taking action if they feel like it that day.

There is no exact, precise line. The rules are the rules, and they are subject to interpretation to cover whatever situation we find ourselves in. I would suggest that instead of trying to rules lawyer an explicit "I can do X but not Y" you instead not engage in conduct that you likely think would violate the rather clearly phrased rules in the OSRS.

That sounds suspiciously like "the rules mean what we say they mean, so stay the fuck in line, peasant."

The purpose of a rule is to demarcated between acceptable and unacceptable behavior in a manner that isn't dependent on the judgement of any individual.

Hahoalki wrote:

United Calanworie wrote:There is no exact, precise line. The rules are the rules, and they are subject to interpretation to cover whatever situation we find ourselves in. I would suggest that instead of trying to rules lawyer an explicit "I can do X but not Y" you instead not engage in conduct that you likely think would violate the rather clearly phrased rules in the OSRS.

That sounds suspiciously like "the rules mean what we say they mean, so stay the fuck in line, peasant."

The purpose of a rule is to demarcated between acceptable and unacceptable behavior in a manner that isn't dependent on the judgement of any individual.

That's pretty much what it is.

A more specific answer would involve looking back into previous history regarding slavery threads. Some have been taken down, some have not. A ruling from 2015 says that NS mods tend to deal with it on a case-by-case manner. So once again, this is nothing new, but it also means that mods don't really have a hard rule on it. Which the new mod from 2018 I suppose figured could just be solved by reading the rulebook that older posters like myself have read at least a dozen times, and has nothing about slavery in RPs. It's one of those things that, eh, the mods never wrote into the rulebook because that's for general gameplay, not RP gameplay.