What do you think of NS's mainly male population?

[Esternial]

Certainly true. Does that mean we should ban them? No.

Actually we should debate them and show exactly why those opinions should not be taken seriously.

There are many lurkers out there who otherwise might be convinced of the correctness of those opinions because they're not debunked as idiocy.

It's also worth considering. NSG may very well be a source for youngsters to learn more about the world, politics and so-on.

Not sure if it is a good source, though.

[Ovisterra]

Certainly true. Does that mean we should ban them? No.

When it's fairly fucking blatant trolling we most certainly should.

Well yeah, trolling is trolling. There's a difference between banning trolling and banning controversial opinions outright, however.

[Ovisterra]

Sorry. What I am hearing is "I don't want to hear opinions I don't like."
Not much room for debate if you're going to get rid of the opposing side, no matter how asinine the opinion is.

So, you ask for advice, someone answers, and you respond by passive aggressive insulting and belittling someone for answering the question YOU asked?

And you're an authority figure around here?

Disgusting.

Indi did call for the banning of opinions she didn't like. It's not being passive aggressive, it's being accurate.

[Czechanada]

As I've stated in the other thread, Max Barry should institute affirmative action by mandating that every second nation should declare their gender as female.

[Esternial]

That's fucking ridiculous.

isn't it just?

So, to bring this all right back around again, want to know why there are fewer and fewer active women posting on this forum? Because when they come here they get called "sexually-frustrated uptight cunts" and it takes pulling fucking teeth to get someone to actually DO something about it

Anyone can make a wrong call, though. It's why there are multiple Moderators. If one were to judge something as non-actionable but another disagrees, there has to be a discussion to determine what action should be taken.

[Neo Art]

isn't it just?

So, to bring this all right back around again, want to know why there are fewer and fewer active women posting on this forum? Because when they come here they get called "sexually-frustrated uptight cunts" and it takes pulling fucking teeth to get someone to actually DO something about it

Anyone can make a wrong call, though. It's why there are multiple Moderators. If one were to judge something as non-actionable but another disagrees, there has to be a discussion to determine what action should be taken.

A wrong call? Yes, anyone can have A wrong call (although, I seriously wonder what process one has to go through to arrive at that conclusion in this particular instance). This isn't about A wrong call. This is about an ongoing history of "wrong calls".

[The Steel Magnolia]

isn't it just?

So, to bring this all right back around again, want to know why there are fewer and fewer active women posting on this forum? Because when they come here they get called "sexually-frustrated uptight cunts" and it takes pulling fucking teeth to get someone to actually DO something about it

Anyone can make a wrong call, though. It's why there are multiple Moderators. If one were to judge something as non-actionable but another disagrees, there has to be a discussion to determine what action should be taken.

The problem is that this is a persistent and constant problem.

[Forster Keys]

That's fucking ridiculous.

isn't it just?

So, to bring this all right back around again, want to know why there are fewer and fewer active women posting on this forum? Because when they come here they get called "sexually-frustrated uptight cunts" and it takes pulling fucking teeth to get someone to actually DO something about it

It's not the first times I've had major disagreements with the actions of that particular mod. I know the "old boys club" culture is strong across the net, especially considering demographics, but I really can't understand the rationale that thinks a bile fueled rant like that unactionable.

[Neo Art]

Indi did call for the banning of opinions she didn't like.

No. She did not. Stop lying.

She was asked what she believed would promote a more female friendly enviornment. Her answer was, a forum that is not so obviously anti women. She was asked a question, she provided an answer. She didn't say it should be banned. She didn't say it should be stricken. She said that a constant culture that allows for things like "there are no women on the internet" discourages female participation. She was asked a question, she provided an answer

She was then belittled for providing that answer, by the same person who asked it. The same person who is, supposedly, someone of authority around here.

Grossly unprofessional, and profoundly disrespectful. Absolutely shameful for an adult in an authority position to act that way. Disgraceful even.

[Neo Art]

Actually we should debate them and show exactly why those opinions should not be taken seriously.

There are many lurkers out there who otherwise might be convinced of the correctness of those opinions because they're not debunked as idiocy.

It's also worth considering. NSG may very well be a source for youngsters to learn more about the world, politics and so-on.

Not sure if it is a good source, though.

OK. It may well be that. Here's the thing though. I'm an adult in my 30s. How much of my time do you think is spent in the pursuit of the company of teenagers?

Basically none.

I don't seek out or particularly care for interaction with children offline. Why would I want to do that online? Adults typically don't spend time with children, and when you have an enviornment with children, adults typically move elsewhere.

And if the powers that be are interested only in website hits and ad revenue, then sure, have as many people as you can.

If you're interested in being a place where reasonably intelligent adults congregate, then don't have so many children around. Because, and this should be obvious, reasonably intelligent adults generally do not seek out the company of children.

[Esternial]

It's also worth considering. NSG may very well be a source for youngsters to learn more about the world, politics and so-on.

Not sure if it is a good source, though.

OK. It may well be that. Here's the thing though. I'm an adult in my 30s. How much of my time do you think is spent in the pursuit of the company of teenagers?

Basically none.

I don't seek out or particularly care for interaction with children offline. Why would I want to do that online? Adults typically don't spend time with children, and when you have an enviornment with children, adults typically move elsewhere.

And if the powers that be are interested only in website hits and ad revenue, then sure, have as many people as you can.

If you're interested in being a place where reasonably intelligent adults congregate, then don't have so many children around. Because, and this should be obvious, reasonably intelligent adults generally do not seek out the company of children.

Then we eventually end up at the question: "Who is this site for?"

Most obvious answer would be: whomever reads Max Barry's novels, but that isn't really true anymore. Note that NSG is only a facet of NS, and can't be hermetically sealed off from the rest. Parts of these forums are for the purpose of RP, which is something both adults and teenagers partake in. In order to keep the path open for those than want to RP, we have to allow them to spread out into NSG as well.

So if we want to make General more General by getting rid of the 13-14 year olds, that would also apply to the rest of Nationstates.

General is a part of nationstates, not vice-versa. If it were, then it would be incredibly simple to limit the amount of children on this site, but that's what you get when you build a library next to a gaming hall, so to speak.

[Neo Art]

OK. It may well be that. Here's the thing though. I'm an adult in my 30s. How much of my time do you think is spent in the pursuit of the company of teenagers?

Basically none.

I don't seek out or particularly care for interaction with children offline. Why would I want to do that online? Adults typically don't spend time with children, and when you have an enviornment with children, adults typically move elsewhere.

And if the powers that be are interested only in website hits and ad revenue, then sure, have as many people as you can.

If you're interested in being a place where reasonably intelligent adults congregate, then don't have so many children around. Because, and this should be obvious, reasonably intelligent adults generally do not seek out the company of children.

Then we eventually end up at the question: "Who is this site for?"

Most obvious answer would be: whomever reads Max Barry's novels, but that isn't really true anymore. Note that NSG is only a facet of NS, and can't be hermetically sealed off from the rest. Parts of these forums are for the purpose of RP, which is something both adults and teenagers partake in. In order to keep the path open for those than want to RP, we have to allow them to spread out into NSG as well.

So if we want to make General more General by getting rid of the 13-14 year olds, that would also apply to the rest of Nationstates.

General is a part of nationstates, not vice-versa. If it were, then it would be incredibly simple to limit the amount of children on this site, but that's what you get when you build a library next to a gaming hall, so to speak.

It's not at all impossible to create different rules. We don't age verify here, so pretty much all age related moderation is done by admission. There's nothing preventing a "13+ rule for the site but 18+ for NSG" rule.

Whether they WANT to do that is another issue entirely. I doubt it, because in recent years, it's been pretty obvious that nationstates as a whole is more about ad revenue generation than it is about building a server community, so increasing numbers is the priority, not quality.

[The Blaatschapen]

It's also worth considering. NSG may very well be a source for youngsters to learn more about the world, politics and so-on.

Not sure if it is a good source, though.

OK. It may well be that. Here's the thing though. I'm an adult in my 30s. How much of my time do you think is spent in the pursuit of the company of teenagers?

Basically none.

I don't seek out or particularly care for interaction with children offline. Why would I want to do that online? Adults typically don't spend time with children, and when you have an enviornment with children, adults typically move elsewhere.

And if the powers that be are interested only in website hits and ad revenue, then sure, have as many people as you can.

If you're interested in being a place where reasonably intelligent adults congregate, then don't have so many children around. Because, and this should be obvious, reasonably intelligent adults generally do not seek out the company of children.

If you don't seek interaction with children, then why are you here?

Basically, why haven't we moved on to internet forums that cater more to adults?

[Ovisterra]

Indi did call for the banning of opinions she didn't like.

No. She did not. Stop lying.

If, on examination of the rest of your post (which I've yet to read, as of writing this), it turns out I'm wrong, I still haven't been lying. Assuming that someone is lying because they said something is untrue is assumption of bad faith which is a little silly. I didn't intend to mislead. It's not lying if there was no intention to mislead. It's important to distinguish between lying and being mistaken.

She was asked what she believed would promote a more female friendly enviornment. Her answer was, a forum that is not so obviously anti women. She was asked a question, she provided an answer. She didn't say it should be banned. She didn't say it should be stricken. She said that a constant culture that allows for things like "there are no women on the internet" discourages female participation. She was asked a question, she provided an answer

She provided an answer that asked, as you say, for a "space" that had no one being critical of/hostile to/generally asshole-ish about women. How exactly do you create a space with no sexism without banning sexism?

She was then belittled for providing that answer, by the same person who asked it. The same person who is, supposedly, someone of authority around here.

Grossly unprofessional, and profoundly disrespectful. Absolutely shameful for an adult in an authority position to act that way. Disgraceful even.

You're doing that thing again. That thing where you pick out a relatively small incident (if it can even be given that name) and blow into ridiculously out of proportion so you have an excuse to take pot shots at the mods. I don't know why you do this. Do you have a vendetta against them? Are you on a quest for a better forum but getting slightly overzealous in pursuit of what is otherwise a noble cause? I don't know.

I'll admit, some of the criticisms you make are valid. You're an intelligent, articulate poster and I have deep respect for you. However, your policy of "take anything and everything the mods do even slightly wrong and seize the opportunity to go on about how disgraceful, unacceptable and professional it is" is something that I have trouble understanding, I'm afraid.

[Forster Keys]

So, you ask for advice, someone answers, and you respond by passive aggressive insulting and belittling someone for answering the question YOU asked?

And you're an authority figure around here?

Disgusting.

Indi did call for the banning of opinions she didn't like. It's not being passive aggressive, it's being accurate.

She didn't. She just said what she didn't like.

[Ovisterra]

Indi did call for the banning of opinions she didn't like. It's not being passive aggressive, it's being accurate.

She didn't. She just said what she didn't like.

She asked for a space on the forum where no one was allowed to be sexist. How exactly do you create such a space without banning sexism in it? Do you suggest we simply ask people to be nice but don't enforce it? Because I don't think that's going to work.

[Esternial]

Then we eventually end up at the question: "Who is this site for?"

Most obvious answer would be: whomever reads Max Barry's novels, but that isn't really true anymore. Note that NSG is only a facet of NS, and can't be hermetically sealed off from the rest. Parts of these forums are for the purpose of RP, which is something both adults and teenagers partake in. In order to keep the path open for those than want to RP, we have to allow them to spread out into NSG as well.

So if we want to make General more General by getting rid of the 13-14 year olds, that would also apply to the rest of Nationstates.

General is a part of nationstates, not vice-versa. If it were, then it would be incredibly simple to limit the amount of children on this site, but that's what you get when you build a library next to a gaming hall, so to speak.

It's not at all impossible to create different rules. We don't age verify here, so pretty much all age related moderation is done by admission. There's nothing preventing a "13+ rule for the site but 18+ for NSG" rule.

Whether they WANT to do that is another issue entirely. I doubt it, because in recent years, it's been pretty obvious that nationstates as a whole is more about ad revenue generation than it is about building a server community, so increasing numbers is the priority, not quality.

That's just the problem. If you're 14, a bad debater and enter this 18+ zone and start spewing bullshit but don't admit you're 14, nobody can ban you on the ground of being under-aged. The evidence that one is a dumbass doesn't necessarily mean he or she is a teenager.

So rather than age, there should be something else to filter out the debaters that don't add anything to the table.

[Forster Keys]

She didn't. She just said what she didn't like.

She asked for a space on the forum where no one was allowed to be sexist. How exactly do you create such a space without banning sexism in it? Do you suggest we simply ask people to be nice but don't enforce it? Because I don't think that's going to work.

She was asked how to attract more women. She replied:

I want a space that's more friendly to women in general, where we don't have people with the mentality of thirteen year olds saying that women don't deserve to be on the Internet, to get out, and to shut up when someone says something sexist.

She said what she wanted, what would attract her to this forum. Of course, you can go to say that you think she implied that. But she didn't actually say that, and that was not how I read it. That and Katganistan's reply was a bit snarky.

[Ovisterra]

It's not at all impossible to create different rules. We don't age verify here, so pretty much all age related moderation is done by admission. There's nothing preventing a "13+ rule for the site but 18+ for NSG" rule.

Whether they WANT to do that is another issue entirely. I doubt it, because in recent years, it's been pretty obvious that nationstates as a whole is more about ad revenue generation than it is about building a server community, so increasing numbers is the priority, not quality.

That's just the problem. If you're 14, a bad debater and enter this 18+ zone and start spewing bullshit but don't admit you're 14, nobody can ban you on the ground of being under-aged. The evidence that one is a dumbass doesn't necessarily mean he or she is a teenager.

So rather than age, there should be something else to filter out the debaters that don't add anything to the table.

There's that problem, and there's also the fact that filtering by age won't get rid of all trolls, spammers and other annoyances and will get rid of a lot of good debaters.

[Forster Keys]

That's just the problem. If you're 14, a bad debater and enter this 18+ zone and start spewing bullshit but don't admit you're 14, nobody can ban you on the ground of being under-aged. The evidence that one is a dumbass doesn't necessarily mean he or she is a teenager.

So rather than age, there should be something else to filter out the debaters that don't add anything to the table.

There's that problem, and there's also the fact that filtering by age won't get rid of all trolls, spammers and other annoyances and will get rid of a lot of good debaters.

Indeed.

[The Blaatschapen]

It's not at all impossible to create different rules. We don't age verify here, so pretty much all age related moderation is done by admission. There's nothing preventing a "13+ rule for the site but 18+ for NSG" rule.

Whether they WANT to do that is another issue entirely. I doubt it, because in recent years, it's been pretty obvious that nationstates as a whole is more about ad revenue generation than it is about building a server community, so increasing numbers is the priority, not quality.

That's just the problem. If you're 14, a bad debater and enter this 18+ zone and start spewing bullshit but don't admit you're 14, nobody can ban you on the ground of being under-aged. The evidence that one is a dumbass doesn't necessarily mean he or she is a teenager.

So rather than age, there should be something else to filter out the debaters that don't add anything to the table.

I wonder what the ratio of trolls from the USA compared to the actual user base is.

[Ovisterra]

She asked for a space on the forum where no one was allowed to be sexist. How exactly do you create such a space without banning sexism in it? Do you suggest we simply ask people to be nice but don't enforce it? Because I don't think that's going to work.

She was asked how to attract more women. She replied:

I want a space that's more friendly to women in general, where we don't have people with the mentality of thirteen year olds saying that women don't deserve to be on the Internet, to get out, and to shut up when someone says something sexist.

She said what she wanted, what would attract her to this forum. Of course, you can go to say that you think she implied that. But she didn't actually say that, and that was not how I read it.

Saying you want something and calling for something are pretty fucking similar. I'm sorry if that's not how it works and I was unaware.

That and Katganistan's reply was a bit snarky.

A tad, yes. The wording could perhaps have been gentler, but I agree with the message behind it.

[Ovisterra]

There's that problem, and there's also the fact that filtering by age won't get rid of all trolls, spammers and other annoyances and will get rid of a lot of good debaters.

Indeed.

Not that I'm biased.

[Vitaphone Racing]

There's that problem, and there's also the fact that filtering by age won't get rid of all trolls, spammers and other annoyances and will get rid of a lot of good debaters.

Indeed.

I fully agree with the position of which Neo Art is speaking from, but I too will concede an age limit isn't the way to go about fixing the problem.

Back on the Jolt forums, particularly in the RP section, we had a way to ensure quality. New players who didn't meet community standards were flamed and trolled until they left. It was the highest quality RPing group to date on NS, but it was also the most ridiculously hostile, unpleasant and arguably the most disgusting part of NS's forum history. And I hope to Christ we never end up back at that stage although with the ever increasing prevalence (and tolerance) of snarky, borderline insulting posts, we're heading that way.

[Ovisterra]

Indeed.

I fully agree with the position of which Neo Art is speaking from, but I too will concede an age limit isn't the way to go about fixing the problem.

Back on the Jolt forums, particularly in the RP section, we had a way to ensure quality. New players who didn't meet community standards were flamed and trolled until they left. It was the highest quality RPing group to date on NS, but it was also the most ridiculously hostile, unpleasant and arguably the most disgusting part of NS's forum history. And I hope to Christ we never end up back at that stage although with the ever increasing prevalence (and tolerance) of snarky, borderline insulting posts, we're heading that way.

Perhaps a specific forum could be made that would be locked to the general public. To get on you'd have to have been on the forums for a certain time and be judged worthy (based on your post history) by a panel of members of that forum or mods or some OOC equivalent of the RP mentors.

Just an idea I came up with now, I don't know how it'd actually fare in reality.