Arguments for moderation policy reform

[Hydesland]

People express their opinions, and those opinions are theirs, by definition. Does it really matter if other people think differently? There's nothing stopping other views from being expressed, after all, right? And even if some of the suggestions are thought of only by a few people, what really matters is not what everyone else thinks of them, but what moderation and admin think of them. If you've looked at the earlier parts of the thread, you might have noticed that reminders were mentioned that the substantive suggestions are really only small tweaks to systems and rules that moderation already follows anyway. Only two actual basic changes to how things are done have been suggested, and both of those affect appeals only -- the establishment of a set of appeals-only mods, and either eliminating the practice of consulting the original mod who made a ruling that is under review or keeping those consultations but making them public.

And again, those are only suggestions. There's nothing at all that forces anyone to accept such proposals.

Yeah, I'm not saying it matters. To the contrary, all I was saying is that I disagree with Gen, who says that the fact that this thread exists reflects badly on the moderation team, whereas I view it as a positive reflection.

[Muravyets]

People express their opinions, and those opinions are theirs, by definition. Does it really matter if other people think differently? There's nothing stopping other views from being expressed, after all, right? And even if some of the suggestions are thought of only by a few people, what really matters is not what everyone else thinks of them, but what moderation and admin think of them. If you've looked at the earlier parts of the thread, you might have noticed that reminders were mentioned that the substantive suggestions are really only small tweaks to systems and rules that moderation already follows anyway. Only two actual basic changes to how things are done have been suggested, and both of those affect appeals only -- the establishment of a set of appeals-only mods, and either eliminating the practice of consulting the original mod who made a ruling that is under review or keeping those consultations but making them public.

And again, those are only suggestions. There's nothing at all that forces anyone to accept such proposals.

Yeah, I'm not saying it matters. To the contrary, all I was saying is that I disagree with Gen, who says that the fact that this thread exists reflects badly on the moderation team, whereas I view it as a positive reflection.

Oh, I see. Maybe Gen would have done better to say something like the existence of this thread suggests that not everyone agrees that the system is perfect as is. It would technically be true, if not very important.

[Geniasis]

My logic is no less valid than the comment to which I was responding.

[Muravyets]

My logic is no less valid than the comment to which I was responding.

Granted, and then some. It's still little more than an observation, but it is true, and I also don't think you were making any kind of an issue out of it.

[Geniasis]

Granted, and then some. It's still little more than an observation, but it is true, and I also don't think you were making any kind of an issue out of it.

To clarify, my point was that if the claim that "it works" can be justified by the mere claim itself, then my rebuttal should stand just as easily. That neither can hold up to logic at the very least challenges Melkor's attempt to dismiss the issue so readily. I could have made that more evident, it's true.

[Melkor Unchained]

Which I agree with. I do not see any reason that you should not rule on NA or Murv ever ever. I don't actually think they think that, either, based on what they've said here, but you'd have to ask them about that. I honestly am not sure why you think that ruling is "the elephant in the room," as I didn't see any major problems with it except for the one that I've stated is a problem with every appeal as things currently stand, which is that if someone is present in the discussion who feels the need to "defend" the first decision, that discussion is inherently biased. It may very well still arrive at the correct conclusion; in fact, I suspect it usually does. That does not change the fact that mods being present for discussions in which they explicitly have an agenda will very, very obviously fuel a perception of bias.

I refer to it as the proverbial room-inhabiting elephant because, frankly, it is. Three players (TCT, NA, Mura) who have had recent appeals handled by a mod they don't particularly care for just so happen to choose now to complain about the appeals process, and raise concerns about the impartiality/lack of bias therein? When they've all been on the site for what, 5+ years? I stopped believing in coincidences like this a long time ago. If you look at the ideas and who has them, the reasons for their suggestions are sometimes apparent (and not just among those three). Parth wants us to allow flaming because he lost a nation for flaming. Prae wants us to do away with what he sees as superfluous infractions because he has some friends whom he feels were unjustly deleted. In the same vein, TCT, NA and Mura want the appeals process "fixed" (to what degree I can't say--Neo seems to push for more information to be made public at first but I still don't think I've read all of his posts here yet) because they've recently been through it and may have some doubts about how it was handled.

I'm not saying that's a a bad thing, on the contrary I think it's very natural and appropriate: you have the best handle on situations that pertain to you or that you feel strongly about. I don't mean to scold anyone by pointing this out, I'm just trying to explain my thought process here and why I see this the way I do.

We've been over this and over this; we're not going to sit people out for every appeal.

Yes, I've seen you say this already. I am aware that you have apparently decided you have no interest in this suggestion. That is not actually an answer to the question I keep posing, which is WHY you can't sit out such discussions. "Because I said so" and "because I don't wanna" weren't particularly compelling arguments when I was five, and they aren't compelling now. If you were completely uninterested in addressing user suggestions, why does this thread even exist?

"Why can't you sit them out" is sort of a silly question, because obviously we can. It's just that we never developed the habit of forcibly shutting out the mod who ruled, because we want to hear her side of the story too. She might know something the rest of us don't, or might happen to make a really good point or observation that we hadn't considered. When judging appeals, we want as much information as possible from as many different (but involved) sources as possible. Going into it, we obviously already know roughly how the ruling mod feels, but we want to get a better handle on that before we rule so we have a better picture of what to do and how to do it, or whether or not said mod should be censured for the ruling. Generally, whatever scolding they might end up getting will be our business and won't be publicized.

Also (and I think I may have said something similar but it bears repeating) there is absolutely nothing preventing moderators from having a discussion amongst themselves while excluding one or more of us, whether it should come about as the result of an appeal or something else entirely. Just because we might regularly discuss rulings in IRC or M/A doesn't mean that 100% of all mod-to-mod discourse will appear there and be accessible to everyone. I can think of a few occasions where I started canvassing the mods in private to gather a consensus on @@mod_action@@ because the mod in question was in IRC at the time and I didn't want them to see the conversation. We check in with each other when we're not sure of ourselves quite often: I even emailed Max Himself three or four times before publishing the Mura/NA ruling last month, just to make sure I was getting it right and not saying anything I shouldn't.

I don't see how this is true in the slightest. It is also patently obvious that it hasn't "worked fine" unless your definition of "worked fine" is "helped perpetuate a system in which players and mods view each other as adversaries."

...and that perception (among those who already prescribe to it) won't go away almost no matter what changes we make. As long as mods can warn players who might sometimes get hostile about it, this will exist. As long as one person thinks they are right and the other is wrong (which happens on a daily basis not just here but in every corner of the world) humans and humans will see each other as adversaries and the odds that NS can ever become an 'enclave' where that doesn't happen are slim to none.

Besides, it takes two to tango. The implication seems to be that "players vs mods" is a construct entirely of our own making, but in reading over some of the posts (particularly earlier) in this thread I have to say that a great deal--I would argue the vast majority--of negative comments/perceptions has come not from us, but from a few players who happen to also be chronic troublemakers on another subforum (hmmm... I'm seeing a pattern here). Anyone with a genuine interest in where the "adversarial" nature of player-mod relations comes from should have a great interest in Neo Art's "your word isn't good enough!" post that I linked to earlier. Imagine how "bad" it is now and then consider what it might be like if we talked to players like this. I know he's just one example (and hardly indicative of the player base in general) but that probably has more to do with fueling the 'players v mods' perception than our rules do. Players here actually have a tremendous amount of latitude when it comes to how they're allowed to deal with us. That post might have gotten NA banned from a stricter forum, and if I were the one paying the bills it probably would have.

I'm not trying to make this about NA, I'm really not: it just happens to be a recent and shockingly relevant anecdote. He's not the first player who has done this and won't be the last; but if others might start to wonder why our fuses can be short sometimes, it's because we've been dealing with people like this for a long time. Eventually you learn to shrug it off, but not all of us have been mods for six or eight years. It really does take some getting used to.

I am happy with the honor system. I'm not happy with your unwillingness to use it in more settings than you currently are. This is really pretty straightforward.

...then I must fail pretty hard, because I'm not getting it. You're fine with the honor system.... but we're not using it enough? It's hard to deduce anything from this other than a perception that we're (at least occasionally?) acting in bad faith. Surely you can understand how easy it is to take these kinds of remarks personally!

But yeah, I don't understand, and I don't want to run away with that line of reasoning if that's not what you're saying (which I suspect is the case). Could you explain to me more clearly what you mean by this? In what situations are we failing to deploy the honor system? Given its nature, how is it even possible to know when it's being used and when it isn't?

[Mike the Progressive]

We should be allowed to shame people who start awful topics.

End thread.

Indeed. I've made plenty of stupid comments and topics in the past, and I've learned to not do so (well learned not to drink and post or be drunk and post).

[Maurepas]

Three players (TCT, NA, Mura) who have had recent appeals handled by a mod they don't particularly care for just so happen to choose now to complain about the appeals process,

It really should be known that they weren't the only ones making suggestions in this regard, there are some of us who've watched these things from the outside and have made similar suggestions in this regard.

[Barringtonia]

Ah but..
Yeah but..
Ah but..
Yeah but..
Ah but..
Yeah but..

What is meant to be achieved here?

The same basic point is being re-hashed again and again because people are less interested in resolution than in defending their point, which has been made ad infinitum in slightly varying ways, point by point, leading round in circles.

There's no point explaining oneself when the other side isn't interested in agreeing.

Either close the thread with a list of the suggestions that can be changed or continue the fruitless 'ah but, yeah but' discussions because there is no chance one side is going to say 'oh, I see what you're saying' given anyone with basic reading comprehension can see what's being said since page 2.

[Katganistan]

Barringtonia, I agree somewhat but for two things:

There has been some consensus and reasonable progress over some of the suggestions made. I continue to hope there may be more.

Were we to close the thread, there would be a fresh set of accusations of not being interested in listening, et cetera.

[Muravyets]

Barringtonia, I agree somewhat but for two things:

There has been some consensus and reasonable progress over some of the suggestions made. I continue to hope there may be more.

Were we to close the thread, there would be a fresh set of accusations of not being interested in listening, et cetera.

Once again, if you, particularly, were to read the thread, you would likely notice that all remarks regarding moderators not being interested in listening were made in direct response to specific individual mods making specific remarks that indicated a lack of interest in specific statements by specific players. In other words, they were "specific-you are not interested in specific-our statements", and indicated a specific player suggesting it would be a waste of time to continue arguing the points with those specific individual moderators.

No one except, I think, one drive-by poster very early on who made some remark about a "moderating class" or some such BS, has suggested in any way that moderation or admin as a whole is not interested in listening.

So if the only reason you do not close this thread is that you are afraid of being barraged with accusations, I, speaking for myself specifically, assure you I have no intention of bringing this up with you (specific or general) ever again.

[The Cat-Tribe]

Which I agree with. I do not see any reason that you should not rule on NA or Murv ever ever. I don't actually think they think that, either, based on what they've said here, but you'd have to ask them about that. I honestly am not sure why you think that ruling is "the elephant in the room," as I didn't see any major problems with it except for the one that I've stated is a problem with every appeal as things currently stand, which is that if someone is present in the discussion who feels the need to "defend" the first decision, that discussion is inherently biased. It may very well still arrive at the correct conclusion; in fact, I suspect it usually does. That does not change the fact that mods being present for discussions in which they explicitly have an agenda will very, very obviously fuel a perception of bias.

I refer to it as the proverbial room-inhabiting elephant because, frankly, it is. Three players (TCT, NA, Mura) who have had recent appeals handled by a mod they don't particularly care for just so happen to choose now to complain about the appeals process, and raise concerns about the impartiality/lack of bias therein? When they've all been on the site for what, 5+ years? I stopped believing in coincidences like this a long time ago. If you look at the ideas and who has them, the reasons for their suggestions are sometimes apparent (and not just among those three). Parth wants us to allow flaming because he lost a nation for flaming. Prae wants us to do away with what he sees as superfluous infractions because he has some friends whom he feels were unjustly deleted. In the same vein, TCT, NA and Mura want the appeals process "fixed" (to what degree I can't say--Neo seems to push for more information to be made public at first but I still don't think I've read all of his posts here yet) because they've recently been through it and may have some doubts about how it was handled.

I'm not saying that's a a bad thing, on the contrary I think it's very natural and appropriate: you have the best handle on situations that pertain to you or that you feel strongly about. I don't mean to scold anyone by pointing this out, I'm just trying to explain my thought process here and why I see this the way I do.

Yes, I've seen you say this already. I am aware that you have apparently decided you have no interest in this suggestion. That is not actually an answer to the question I keep posing, which is WHY you can't sit out such discussions. "Because I said so" and "because I don't wanna" weren't particularly compelling arguments when I was five, and they aren't compelling now. If you were completely uninterested in addressing user suggestions, why does this thread even exist?

"Why can't you sit them out" is sort of a silly question, because obviously we can. It's just that we never developed the habit of forcibly shutting out the mod who ruled, because we want to hear her side of the story too. She might know something the rest of us don't, or might happen to make a really good point or observation that we hadn't considered. When judging appeals, we want as much information as possible from as many different (but involved) sources as possible. Going into it, we obviously already know roughly how the ruling mod feels, but we want to get a better handle on that before we rule so we have a better picture of what to do and how to do it, or whether or not said mod should be censured for the ruling. Generally, whatever scolding they might end up getting will be our business and won't be publicized.

Also (and I think I may have said something similar but it bears repeating) there is absolutely nothing preventing moderators from having a discussion amongst themselves while excluding one or more of us, whether it should come about as the result of an appeal or something else entirely. Just because we might regularly discuss rulings in IRC or M/A doesn't mean that 100% of all mod-to-mod discourse will appear there and be accessible to everyone. I can think of a few occasions where I started canvassing the mods in private to gather a consensus on @@mod_action@@ because the mod in question was in IRC at the time and I didn't want them to see the conversation. We check in with each other when we're not sure of ourselves quite often: I even emailed Max Himself three or four times before publishing the Mura/NA ruling last month, just to make sure I was getting it right and not saying anything I shouldn't.

I don't see how this is true in the slightest. It is also patently obvious that it hasn't "worked fine" unless your definition of "worked fine" is "helped perpetuate a system in which players and mods view each other as adversaries."

...and that perception (among those who already prescribe to it) won't go away almost no matter what changes we make. As long as mods can warn players who might sometimes get hostile about it, this will exist. As long as one person thinks they are right and the other is wrong (which happens on a daily basis not just here but in every corner of the world) humans and humans will see each other as adversaries and the odds that NS can ever become an 'enclave' where that doesn't happen are slim to none.

Besides, it takes two to tango. The implication seems to be that "players vs mods" is a construct entirely of our own making, but in reading over some of the posts (particularly earlier) in this thread I have to say that a great deal--I would argue the vast majority--of negative comments/perceptions has come not from us, but from a few players who happen to also be chronic troublemakers on another subforum (hmmm... I'm seeing a pattern here). Anyone with a genuine interest in where the "adversarial" nature of player-mod relations comes from should have a great interest in Neo Art's "your word isn't good enough!" post that I linked to earlier. Imagine how "bad" it is now and then consider what it might be like if we talked to players like this. I know he's just one example (and hardly indicative of the player base in general) but that probably has more to do with fueling the 'players v mods' perception than our rules do. Players here actually have a tremendous amount of latitude when it comes to how they're allowed to deal with us. That post might have gotten NA banned from a stricter forum, and if I were the one paying the bills it probably would have.

I'm not trying to make this about NA, I'm really not: it just happens to be a recent and shockingly relevant anecdote. He's not the first player who has done this and won't be the last; but if others might start to wonder why our fuses can be short sometimes, it's because we've been dealing with people like this for a long time. Eventually you learn to shrug it off, but not all of us have been mods for six or eight years. It really does take some getting used to.

I am happy with the honor system. I'm not happy with your unwillingness to use it in more settings than you currently are. This is really pretty straightforward.

...then I must fail pretty hard, because I'm not getting it. You're fine with the honor system.... but we're not using it enough? It's hard to deduce anything from this other than a perception that we're (at least occasionally?) acting in bad faith. Surely you can understand how easy it is to take these kinds of remarks personally!

But yeah, I don't understand, and I don't want to run away with that line of reasoning if that's not what you're saying (which I suspect is the case). Could you explain to me more clearly what you mean by this? In what situations are we failing to deploy the honor system? Given its nature, how is it even possible to know when it's being used and when it isn't?

(emphasis added)

I am obviously not good at being silent or staying away from these forums, but I was informed about these defamatory comments.

I have a high regard for these forums which I dearly love and I have a high regard for the entire Moderation/Administration team, but that later is hard to maintain when Moderators openly lie about me. The last time I took a vacation from NSG stories were made up (some perpetuated by Mods) that lied about why I had left. History now repeats itself.

To correct Melkor's first false statements, I was involved in a successful request for a second opinion of a ruling by NERVUN. The second opinion was issued by Katganistan. It is my understanding that practically the whole Moderation team weighed in on the second ruling. I hold NERVUN and Katganistan in the highest regard (and I specifically said so to NERVUN when I asked for a second opinion). Nothing about that experience has anything whatsoever with some "sour grapes"/"elephant in the room basis" for my posts in this thread. To say otherwise is simply untrue and defamatory.

Similarly, THIS IS NOT THE FIRST TIME I HAVE MADE SUGGESTIONS ABOUT CHANGES IN MODERATION OR CRITICIZED MODERATION IN CASES THAT HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH ME. Yes, I've been here 5 years. And Melkor well knows that I've posted suggestions about Moderation before this and they had nothing to do with unhappiness about a specific ruling involving me. In fact, about a year ago, Melkor erroneously accused me of trying to get him fired, because I questioned a couple of his rulings. Again, to say that this is some vendetta or sudden "coincidence" that I am suggesting changes to Moderation is simply untrue and defamatory.

Furthermore, let's look at what actual suggestions I made at the start of this thread:

I know this breaks my vacation (again). I was e-mailed about this this kerfluffel. I have a couple of comments to add to Neo Art's well articulated suggestions.

1) The Moderation team itself has acknowledged in other threads the rules regarding second opinions and appeals aren't actually followed by Moderators/Administrators -- despite the fact that (when convenient) players are chastised for not following them. See, e.g., link.

2) If "Mods are subject to the same rules as eveyone else", it makes little sense that RL events can completely excuse (or explain away) Moderator mistakes or misjudgments. No player would be allowed to retract a flame, trolling, or otherwise illegal post based on it being made in haste or anger influenced by RL. To the contrary, I can think of many examples of players (myself included) who have posted under RL time constraints and emotional distress (that was actually explained in the post) and got warned. (In my case, the warning was reversed on appeal for unrelated reasons.)

The tiff between Mura and NERVUN isn't a great example and I don't wish to dwell on it. I deeply respect both of them and would actually like to consider them friends. It has already been discussed ad nauseum why each could reasonably (if not ideally) reacted to each others's posts the way the did. What is exception and disappointing is to have [violet] step in and use Mura as an example of how one should not be rude to Mods. It is doubly bizarre as the particular post [violet] considered rude was not particularly rude and made a valid point:

if a Moderator does not have time to fully consider before posting a ruling or a "Moderator-mode" statement, they shouldn't post it!

In NERVUN's case this was pretty minor, but we've had much more significant instances of this in the past. (I don't want to re-hash the "tranny = trash" incident, but it comes immediately to mind.)

I'm sure I could ramble on, but NA has covered much of what I might say (as have posts in the prior thread).

Neither NA or I expect that Nationstates Moderation operate like a judicial system and I recognize some of our expectations of consistency, transparency, explained decisions, ect, come from our background in the law. But they are also principles of fairness and justice. Nationstates doesn't have to live up to these principles. In fact, I'm getting the increasing the increasing feeling that the idea they should is resented and rejected. That is fine. You are right. It's your sandbox. And we don't have to play in it.

But if you truly are seeking to improve it and you truly would rather not drive posters like myself (who despite my testiness and semi-annual conflicts with Moderation try to make NS a better place) away, why not try listening? Otherwise we will leave. I know the answer is that you will survive without us and won't miss us, but is that really the best policy towards those who've been here awhile -- to simply say "love it as is or leave it"?

(I will now once again try to extricate myself from this tar baby.)

Having broken the seal (so to speak) by posting here, I thought I'd re-emphasize the above and add:

1. I agree with Vonners that Mods and Admins deserve kudos for listening (hopefully) to this thread. I would add I think the Moderation/Administration of NS is generally very, very good. That is why it is so frustrating and disappointing when it is "bad," "unfair," illogical, secretive, or pretends to be flawless. You all (and I mean "all") do a selfless job and do it well. But no one is perfect. Mistakes get made. Often they are fixed. Sometimes they are covered up or defended as if they were righteous and without question. That causes some of us to want to throw up.

2. I am not sure we need wholesale new rules. What we need is consistency and transparency in how whatever rules there are are applied. This could be achieved by new rules that (like sentencing guidelines) made everything more clear up front, but it could also be achieved by Mods being more open and willing to explain their actions.

3. I don't think elaborate new procedures are needed to handle second opinions or appeals. I primarily think the OSRS needs to match the actual practice of how things are handled. Especially if players are expected (despite the fact the appeals process isn't followed as described), individuals can be chastised even warned for not following the OSRS. Ideally, the actual practice should change to better match the rules as well as the rules being re-written: in other words, meet in the middle.

4. More specifically, I definitely think any kind of Mod appellate panel is taking formality too far. The issue of Mods involved in a complaint or a decision being involved in the appeal is a problem, but that should be easily avoidable if the Mods simply stop letting that happen. This requires self-policing and trust on the part of players, but I think it can work.

5. Similarly, it should be a rule -- either in the OSRS or internal in the Mod Cave -- that a Mod not rule on a case in which he or she is involved. That should be a no-brainer. We have, in fact, had Mods recuse themselves because an allegedly trolling post angered them too much to be objective (which some of us thought was evidence it was trolling), so recusing onself for personal bias out to be a matter of course.

6. Unfortunately, at least one Mod (perhaps more) has been clear he/she feels personal animosity towards certain other posters. Although a rule about "a Mod that doesn't like a player shouldn't rule on issues about that player" could create a nightmare of posters trying to escape just punishment by claiming bias, simple professionalism and common sense should lead the Mod Squad (hee hee) to internally keep an eye out for this problem and try to prevent its occurrence. {b]Obviously it would be best if Mods didn't have clear agenda's against certain posters, but I recognize you are all human and these things happen.[/b]

7. I re-iterate my somewhat buried point above. If a Mod doesn't have time to give a thorough and thoughtful response to an issue, they should not post in an official capacity -- or at least say they are posting without having had time to think about what they are posting and their post should be considered a temporary placeholder! It is little comfort to have a Mod make a "bad" ruling or say something "bad" and then later say they were under RL time constraints or other pressures. As I said, that excuse would not be excepted by a Mod for a "bad" post by a player.

8. I am starting to agree the "unofficial" warning is a bad idea. If it goes in your record and counts against you in future decisions, it should be open, clear, and challengeable/appealable. The "unofficial" warning has always given the impression of being similar to a "knock it off" or a Mod suggestion. Now it appears to exist in a limbo where it sounds like you didn't really break a rule and aren't being punished, but secretly a black mark appears on your "permanent record." This is unacceptable for copious reasons I would think are self-evident.

9. There should be a way of notifying by TG posters that get warned. It is (despite posts I've seen to the contrary by Mods) not realistic to expect every poster to keep track of every thread they have posted in idefinitely because they may at some point receive a warning. Nor is it realistic to expect posters to constantly scour Moderation for complaints against them (especially when a warning might come from a GHR.) I know Mods are overworked, but this seems like it wouldn't take much. At some point long ago, it was standard procedure AND it seems like basic courtesy and due process.

10. Finally (whew ), I have an issue with appeals being shunted into the GHR process -- where it disappears into a black box of secret deliberations. There are, I recognize, many advantages to this -- especially to the Mods. But it means that posters often have no idea what gets decided -- let alone how it got decided. If X is warned for flaming Y and appeals, Y will never know if X gets that warning reversed. If Y appeals a decision not to warn X, X may not learn directly that appeal has resulted in X being warned. (see my point above.) Add to this that the GHR process is itself entirely opaque with no hint to anyone of how decisions are reached, and it seems like it needs some reform. I'll freely admit I have no good solution to this problem.

I don't see a post full of spite and bitterness, but perhaps I'm too biased to see it.

Melkor, you yourself responded somewhat positively and seemed to agree with some of these suggestions and I responded back to you even more positively:

I'm mostly just spectating here but several of the other mods and I are developing a powerful curiosity about some of the things people are saying re: appeals. We/I have seen it mentioned a few times that there's a worry that the ruling mod has a voice for appeals regarding their rulings. I'm not sure I understand where this comes from and would appreciate it if someone could explain to me what fuels this perception.

Also (and I haven't read everything just yet but), some of these ideas have come up before. There was some mention earlier of bluecoats handling appeals, which is a suggestion I had briefly considered posting to M/A shortly after the group was created. The idea was that Kat, Rep and I would handle appeals and let the other mods sort of "do their thing" and what-have-you. But as I saw it there were some basic problems with the idea so I never actually suggested it: we'd have to add more bluecoats probably, since with three of us, even one being missing would screw the pooch. It would also basically require that bluecoats cease handing out warnings in all but the most clear-cut cases, and I don't want to restrict our function to that degree. In short, it would require that we add more bluecoats whose function would be (at least marginally) limited in terms of forum moderation. That seemed counterproductive to me so I shelved the proposal.

The other thing I've been harping on just about since we got this forum was the use of TG'd warnings. I've asked/suggested this a few times, but we either lack the (code) monkeypower to get it done, or said codemonkeys don't see the benefit and/or it'd be too much hassle. This has frustrated me a few times, but we have to remember that moderating voluntarily and codemonkeying voluntarily are beasts of two completely different stripes. Even [violet] slacks off sometimes.

Thanks for the cordial response and clear indication the Senior Moderators are listening to our ideas (even if some of them may be bad ones).

1. I'm not sure where exactly I got the impression a ruling Mod has a voice in the appeals process. Threads like this suggest they do. I' don't have time to search for something more specific at this time. If you are saying this never happens, great.

2. I'm sure over the many years of NS most of these ideas are not new. Some may still have merit. Some you may be able to tell us why they've been rejected. It would be helpful.

3. Keep lobbying on that TG notification! (I do think even without an automatic solution from the codemonkeys a Mod could just send a TG to the warned poster, but I realize this would take time.)

Take care.

In fact, even when you thought this thread had gotten hostile and unproductive, you specifically said to me that you "appreciate[d] the relatively cordial tone our exchange has hitherto enjoyed.." link

Also, for the record, I don't share a hive mind with Neo Art and Muravyets. They are my friends, but I don't agree with everything they say or how they say it. I have, I believe, at least indirectly disagreed with them about some things in this thread.

Apparently, once I declared I was leaving the thread and the forums I just became a disgruntled poster who was complaining about recent (ficitional) failed appeals, making no constructive suggestions, and seeking only my own selfish ends. I also became one of the only 3 posters in all the Forums with any complaints about Moderation -- even including the fact the appeals process you actually follow doesn't comply with the OSRS!

I am truly disappointed and disgusted this post seemed necessary. Although I have returned to defend my name, I am increasingly disclined to have anything to do with this place!

P.S. To any posters, including me, or Moderators bent out of shape by posts in this thread, take Ardchoille's advice: "GROW. A. SKIN."

[Freisharf]

P.S. To any posters, including me, or Moderators bent out of shape by posts in this thread, take Ardchoille's advice: "GROW. A. SKIN."

"Grow a skin" only applies to those posters who have taken offence to a moderator's decision, rather than those who happily report instantly to the moderation forum when another poster justly calls them an idiot.

[Katganistan]

P.S. To any posters, including me, or Moderators bent out of shape by posts in this thread, take Ardchoille's advice: "GROW. A. SKIN."

"Grow a skin" only applies to those posters who have taken offence to a moderator's decision, rather than those who happily report instantly to the moderation forum when another poster justly calls them an idiot.

You mean, when someone breaks the rules against flaming. Or spamming.

[Muravyets]

For the record, and as a point of fact, prompted by TCT's correction above, I should point out that I also received a favorable outcome in the recent ruling in which I was involved. True, it did not come in the form I had requested, but I made no complaint about it at the time, and I have made no complaint about it here, either, which should be apparent to anyone who reads the thread. In fact, I described it specifically as a decision "in my favor" in the post in which I cited it as a case that creates the appearance of mods being directly involved in reviews of their own rulings in specific response to a direct question as to where that idea comes from. But I most certainly never complained about the outcome of a ruling that broke down in my favor.

Further, this is also not the first time I have ever raised issues with how moderation is done. I do not make a habit of doing so because Max Barry can run his site however he likes, and normally, no one is asking players for their opinions. But I did raise issues concerning moderator accountability a couple/few years ago in support of a complaint that alleged moderator misconduct (I did not lodge the complaint; I was not directly involved in the dispute; this was before the restrictions re principals-only posting in moderation threads). So I am on record of having at least one prior instance of expressing opinions on NS moderation policy in the NS forums. I'm sure no one will be surprised to learn that, outside the forums, I express opinions even more in conversations where it comes up, but in NS I have officially expressed my existing opinions twice: once unsolicited and once by invitation (in this thread).

This post is intended solely to correct the record of fact in the thread.

EDIT to add: This link will bring you to the list of posts in which the actual suggestions I have made in this thread regarding moderation are listed. I challenge anyone to find anything in them which is a complaint based on me being dissatisfied with the favorable outcome I received as a result of the one and only time I have ever asked for a review of a ruling.

viewtopic.php?p=4135946#p4135946

[Katganistan]

Thanks, everyone, for your contributions to the thread; you've given Max, the admins, and the mod team a good deal to think about. Since at this point nothing new's being brought up, we're going to conclude here and discuss what's doable and what isn't.

[Neo Art]

For the record, and as a point of fact, prompted by TCT's correction above, I should point out that I also received a favorable outcome in the recent ruling in which I was involved.

And I'd like to add one final point, myself, for the record.

I never asked for an appeal. TCT did, on my behalf, based on his understanding of Melk's ruling. I never asked for a second opinion from another moderator. I never filed a GHR for an appeal.

In fact, just to make it public, here's the thread in question:

viewtopic.php?f=16&t=78563&p=3717649#p3715250

Please, point out the place I asked for a second review. In fact, I'll go one up and declare, right here and now, that you have my absolute permission to quote, in its entirety, my GHR request for appeal, if you can find one.

You can't, because it's not there. Because I never asked for one. I never filed an appeal. TCT did as a 3rd party to the issue because HE felt it was merited. I never did. He did that here: viewtopic.php?p=3722015#p3722015 after my final post in the thread.

Which make's Melkor's implication that TCT, Murv and I are only pressing this issue as some sort of...I don't know what, sour grapes over not getting our appeals, triply nonsensical given that they won their appeals on their own issues, and I never asked for one. And in fact, after Melkor decided to "audit himself" in that thread, claiming that "the appeals process was never carried out properly" it's difficult to see where anything I did could be construed as "appealing" a ruling, other than perhaps pointing out logical flaws in a ruling. I didn't ask for a second opinion, I didn't ask for an appeal. Whether he decided to "audit himself" or not wasn't a concern of mine.

And to imply that this is a particularly RECENT bone to pick with Murv, TCT and I is also absurd, and I could easily point out DOZENS of posts, going back YEARS from the three of us on this issue.

It's disengenuous, and it's a lie.

[The Cat-Tribe]

Thanks, everyone, for your contributions to the thread; you've given Max, the admins, and the mod team a good deal to think about. Since at this point nothing new's being brought up, we're going to conclude here and discuss what's doable and what isn't.

Although this thread may have taken turns we all wish it had not taken, thank you for the opportunity and for listening. Kudos to all of you and good luck contemplating what (if anything) to do.

EDIT: I'd love an apology for remarks that should not have been said, but I know that won't happen. FWIW, I agree locking this thread now is a good idea.

[Praetonia]

Prae wants us to do away with what he sees as superfluous infractions because he has some friends whom he feels were unjustly deleted.

No actually - I've always admined like that on every site I've been an admin on, before and after the various unjust deletions, and it's the way most other large forums I know of work. To date none of them have ever generated a 10+ page thread on problems with the moderation, which indicates to me that it's rather better. As far as I can see the NS moderation style really is a mini-game: levelling up doesn't actually achieve anything productive, it's just fun for the player. Like a sort of multiplayer pac-man, with the user base as the dots.

[Melkor Unchained]

I think a few people here are missing a major detail; namely that I'm not trying to give you a hard time for complaining about appeals simply because you had one recently. If you read my post from start to finish, you might notice a passage in there where I point out that one's opinions/ideas are shaped by their own experiences and that there is nothing wrong with that. TCT, I never said I posted or decided your appeal, but I did handle it to an extent. Many of us did. Strictly speaking, I should have posted a ruling at least a week before it ended up actually happening.

NA, I didn't say you had "sour grapes," I said you appealed recently and may have had your doubts about how it was handled. There's absolutely nothing wrong with that, so there's no need to get defensive about it. Like I said, it's only natural to have the best understanding as regards issues close to you, or that you feel strongly about. All I'm saying is that these ideas/suggestions are not occurring in a vacuum: there are reasons why they are being suggested by the people who are suggesting them.

[Neo Art]

Like I said, it's only natural to have the best understanding as regards issues close to you, or that you feel strongly about. All I'm saying is that these ideas/suggestions are not occurring in a vacuum: there are reasons why they are being suggested by the people who are suggesting them.

So your entire point was basically "it's no surprise that people who have a strong interest in a particular topic would respond to a thread asking what people thought about that topic?"

Yes, I suppose you're right about that. I'm not sure the value of pointing out truisms, but OK then. Yes, I'll be the first to admit that reforming what I view as bad moderator policy is a particular issue for me, has been for a long while. This is hardly new. I've been quite public about that.

So you're right, it should come as absolutely no surprise that when a thread is posted (by moderator request, I might add) asking what people's thoughts on ways to reform moderation were, that I'd respond to that. Yes, my thoughts don't exist in a vaccuum, they've been formed by a combination of years of professional experience and training dealing with (and on more than one occassion, actually creating) policies and procedures of reasoned fact finding and deliberation, on a practical, professional level and viewing conduct that comes in to conflict with my sense of what such proper procedures should be.

Either your implication was to suggest that I was somehow "upset" with the outcome of an appeal (which I never asked for, asking you to explain your justification isn't asking for an appeal, ESPECIALLY given my very prublic perception that the ruling authority should NOT be involved in explaining his decision, if I wanted an appeal, I would have asked for one, not asked you) or that the idea is somehow "new" in my mind.

Both are quite easily demonstrably false. This is nothing new to me. It was raised here because THIS THREAD was raised here (not by me) by moderator REQUEST, which itself was spun off from another discussion created BY A MODERATOR herself. I didn't make this thread. I didn't ask for this thread. This conversation started in one thread, created by a moderator, and spun off into another thread, at request of a moderator.

The fact that I'm discussing a topic that I've been discussing, very literally, for years is not surprising. And to somehow suggest that's in ANY way tied into recent appeal requests (which never happened, once again. If I wanted an appeal, I wouldn't have asked YOU for it) is disengenuous.

edit: to clarify, when I said that if I wanted an appeal I wouldn't have asked you for one isn't to mean that I wouldn't have accepted a ruling by you on appeal. I wouldn't have asked YOU for an appeal on THAT issue as you were the original moderator in the request, and my feelings that original moderators shouldn't be involved in an appeal is well discussed by now. It's also not a "second opinion" because I never addressed it anyone else. I asked you for clarity on your ruling. That's neither appealing it or requesting a second opinion.

TCT asked for a second opinion on your ruling directed towards me, but I'm not him. If I wanted an appeal of your decision, I wouldn't have asked you for one, for reasons that are pretty obvious by now, which, again, have nothing to do with you.

And as for Murv and TCT, while not wishing to speak for them, the fact that they won their appeals, and thus have no PERSONAL reason to be upset with how they're carried out, are still criticizing the PROCESS suggests that they're both quite capable of looking beyond the personal, and critiquing a process they view as improper even when that process has benefited them.

So if anything, pointing that out suggests that this is an issue many players take very seriously, and are beyond simply "they ruled against me so it sucks", considering players here are willing to advocate reforming what they see as a broken system, even when the application of that broken system has benefited them. That should say something.

[Melkor Unchained]

Barringtonia, I agree somewhat but for two things:

There has been some consensus and reasonable progress over some of the suggestions made. I continue to hope there may be more.

Were we to close the thread, there would be a fresh set of accusations of not being interested in listening, et cetera.

Once again, if you, particularly, were to read the thread, you would likely notice that all remarks regarding moderators not being interested in listening were made in direct response to specific individual mods making specific remarks that indicated a lack of interest in specific statements by specific players. In other words, they were "specific-you are not interested in specific-our statements", and indicated a specific player suggesting it would be a waste of time to continue arguing the points with those specific individual moderators.

Mura, I'm sorry but whenever you have a discourse like this (and it has happened in the past), that is going to happen. It should be a foregone conclusion that we're not going to implement every suggestion because some are at cross purposes, some are against our preference, and some are just outright unworkable. When one of those three things happens, we either ignore the suggestion or shoot it down specifically. For example, the "mods modding mods" idea from earlier is something we have been over (and rejected) several times in the past for reasons I briefly explained to Galloism earlier. So you're right, we do indicate specific remarks and signal a lack of interest on some ideas: you'll have that happen in just about any (policy) discussion that endures long enough. To have any real discussion at all beyond people simply listing points and us posting "duly noted," we have to start separating the wheat from the chaff. You say this as if we're wrong or mistaken for doing it, which confuses us at best and irritates us at worst. If you think we're ignoring/dismissing the wrong ideas that's fine, but giving us a hard time for saying 'nay' to specific ideas at all is silly and irresponsible. It doesn't mean we're not interested in listening: quite the contrary, it means we're trying to have a discussion and are attempting to separate the workable possibilities from the unworkable ones.

[Melkor Unchained]

Like I said, it's only natural to have the best understanding as regards issues close to you, or that you feel strongly about. All I'm saying is that these ideas/suggestions are not occurring in a vacuum: there are reasons why they are being suggested by the people who are suggesting them.

So your entire point was basically "it's no surprise that people who have a strong interest in a particular topic would respond to a thread asking what people thought about that topic?"

Yes, I suppose you're right about that. I'm not sure the value of pointing out truisms, but OK then. Yes, I'll be the first to admit that reforming what I view as bad moderator policy is a particular issue for me, has been for a long while. This is hardly new. I've been quite public about that.

Please read the exchange (and my post) more carefully. TNB asked why I saw your situation as being "the elephant in the room" and I tried to explain why I see it that way. It wasn't my "entire point," it was simply my answer to her question. I never said you were "upset" with the appeal, only that you may have had your doubts about how it was handled, which only naturally leads to criticisms thereof.

I'm really trying to be nice here, NA, I truly am. Please don't make that any harder on either of us than it has to be.

[Neo Art]

Please read the exchange (and my post) more carefully. TNB asked why I saw your situation as being "the elephant in the room" and I tried to explain why I see it that way. It wasn't my "entire point," it was simply my answer to her question.

Your post was "the entire point" in answering the question. Which was, if I understand, the "elephant in the room" of recent moderation action against myself, TCT and Murv, because of, I can only assume, the perception that this impacts our particular stance.

Or, to put it another way, the suggestion is that it's somehow relevant to the discussion. My entire point is, it isn't. And shouldn't seem to be. I understand you were answering her question. I'm truly confused as to why you answered it that way. Your only point that it's "the elephant in the room" is if it somehow is related to, or prompted this discussion. That's easily shown to be wrong.

I'm really trying to be nice here, NA, I truly am. Please don't make that any harder on either of us than it has to be.

You seem to imply that I have some greater feeling I have on this issue than I do. On an intellectual level, I feel the system is badly flawed and in need of changing. On a personal level, my inclination to take part in a flawed system is minimal. I'd prefer those changes were made because I'd prefer that NSG remain a place that I personally feel comfortable in.

If they're not, then it's not, and I have no more need to continue. But at the end of the day, that's all it is. It's not my job, it's not my family, it's not my relationship. It's, perhaps, at best a hobby. If it's a hobby that is no longer fun, then it's a hobby no longer continued. I don't get particularly emotionally invested in the outcome of a hobby I no longer find interesting. I just stop doing it.

Maybe you're having a hard time keeping yourself in check, I don't know, I don't speak for you. If you are, I'm really not sure what more I can tell you.

[Katganistan]

Thanks everyone again for the comments.