A Critique of NS Moderation Policy

[Farnhamia]

And I'm sure all the players who periodically complain about the ban he would be doing it for "creative purposes." If the ban seems harsh, it's better to err on the side of caution with something like this. That's not the topic, however, I was merely offering an explanation.

And I was pointing out that Swastikas on NationStates would not fall under prohibited usage in Germany because they are not being displayed to rally Nazi sympathy. The laws are rather clear on that. Nobody is banned from having Swastikas in movies, articles, or books. I would be shocked if NationStates did not fall under that umbrella of protection.

Max would prefer not to find out. And again, that's not the topic here.

[Luveria]

That's why no one reported DrakoBlaria's use of the slur "Jap".

Aye. If nobody actually takes offence, it's not your job to play the "Protector of all Japanese forum dwellers".

But that doesn't mean it's acceptable to use slurs. Just that it's not really worth reporting. It's enough to explain to the person that they are using a slur, in case they are unaware of it, as English isn't everyone's first language.

[Esternial]

Aye. If nobody actually takes offence, it's not your job to play the "Protector of all Japanese forum dwellers".

But that doesn't mean it's acceptable to use slurs. Just that it's not really worth reporting. It's enough to explain to the person that they are using a slur, in case they are unaware of it, as English isn't everyone's first language.

I completely agree with you.

[Lost heros]

If this is a game where we can make every kind of nation we want, why we cannot use swastikas? I am going to make a WA proposal about this.

Because Max Barry says so. Also a WA proposal won't change that.

[Delmonte]

If this is a game where we can make every kind of nation we want, why we cannot use swastikas? I am going to make a WA proposal about this.

Because Max Barry says so. Also a WA proposal won't change that.

You mean... a world-governing organization is impotent and useless in actuality? No...

[Jenrak]

I might as well throw in my two cents, since having just gone through 41 pages of this. Take my words as a poster that happens to be a mod, not as someone speaking on behalf of the mods.

I'm one of the more specialized mods on these forums. I am unabashedly an advocate and proponent for RPers, and my modding tenure is pockmarked by cases of my own semi-mutinous behaviour against the team, but also as a supporter for less mod-based activities (the Mentors, most ironically, with thanks to considerable assistance by other moderators). My first few weeks of moderation were also noted by a mass deletion of veteran roleplayers. So, as a mod that's very unfamiliar with NSG's mores, I will provide as objective an evaluation as I can of potential reasons or problems that act as major obstacles to considerable changes.

1. Time. This thread is made very soon after we introduced two new moderators. As they foray more and more into unfamiliar territory, they will likely become more used to seeing things they do not see as posters. I am immensely livid at the lack of patience shown thus far by a few posters in this thread, not only because they have failed to give these new mods the time to get used to moderation, but also for failing to give these mods time to aid the current staff.

Moderation and its practices are in constant shift, influenced by knowledge of all moderators. We have specialists because of minute differences in expectations and conduct determined by normative and systematic differences (what passes for spamming in one area may not be spamming in another, for instance). In turn, they provide a clearer image of how we can improve. We didn't bring on more NSG moderators so they can carve little administrative empires, but rather to assist ongoing mods in understanding and addressing problems that we earnestly feel are large and pronounced enough to address. Information is a critical commodity to the group, but absorbing this information takes time, and we need to learn from these new mods just as much as they need to learn modding practices. So far, very little time has been given by detractors thus far.

2. The Grey-Area, Rules Lawyering, and Precedents. One oft-cited example of poor and sluggish moderation is the Chelsea Manning case. Personally, I agree that there were areas for massive improvements. However, a paralyzing part of moderation is the situation of rules-lawyering, grey areas, and lack of context for precedents. We try to make our rulings with as much information as we can, and in some cases, we run into scenarios that have similar but very small differences from other, similar cases. As such, we have to carefully weigh whether these differences are notable or noticeable enough to lead to a change in disciplinary action.

As a result, we have a Rashomon effect where various people will cite a single case as an example and then give various details by stressing different parts of importance. Making a definitive statement about a violation is something we are continually striving to perfect, but please remember that the moment we make a ruling, it becomes fair game for other posters to use it as an example of future rulings and behaviour. If we feel that we need more information and discussion on an issue because we are uncertain of its consequences for future rulings, we may take a longer period of time. We do have people who will say that "Violation X consists of A, B, and C," but sometimes it's only A and B, and others may argue that lacking C does not make it viable for violation. We do have those sorts of problems.

3. Background dissonance. We make an evaluation based upon our informed decision based upon not only the poster's history, but also the history of any other accounts that may be associated with that poster. From there, we make a decision as to what is the appropriate disciplinary action that should be undertaken. A lot of posters don't see that. They see a smaller picture of the scenario, and then assume inconsistency.

Is there inconsistency in moderation? I would be insane to say there aren't differences in behaviour (we're not all automatons), but a lot of what passes as inconsistency between rulings is just what our informed understanding of a poster is like. We may be stricter with other people or not because of what sort of logs have been kept about their posting history, their history of violations, and the history of connected accounts. A lot of this requires more work for the average poster to see, so it creates a very inconsistent image. In turn, we're lead to point 2.

Now, overall, I'm glad that threads like this exist. It allows us to see what sort of sentiments are out there, see the positions of posters on both sides, and allows us to consider comments and criticisms that could be very helpful. They serve a good instrumental purpose, as well as allow those with major problems with moderation to safely coalesce so we can attempt to address issues to the best of our abilities (as NERVUN, Euro, Farn, LG, and Blaat have helpfully done).

But in the future, I stress that any OP to consider all three points that I have raised. I may be a lowly RPer mod, coming from the hated dredges of literary incomprehensibility that II tends to be painted as, but I felt that I should have extended my thoughts on the situation.

[Farnhamia]

Because Max Barry says so. Also a WA proposal won't change that.

You mean... a world-governing organization is impotent and useless in actuality? No...

It's ... you do realize that this isn't the real world, right?

[DrakoBlaria]

agreed its like "Paki"

I enjoy the use of Paki, because it's such a dumb word that people try to use to offend me.

I don't find Paki insulting either

Probably because Greece isn't known for a South Asian population.

I wish. We have millions of illegal immigrants here. They are illegally here so there is no official census but there are lots of them, especially in my area. I would say that Greece has about.. 500.000 Pakistanis. No one finds the term Paki insulting here (it is rarely used, but always as a sort term)

I don't find Paki insulting either

So if someone called you a Wog, you wouldn't find that insulting at all?

Don't know what that means, so propably not

[Lost heros]

Because Max Barry says so. Also a WA proposal won't change that.

You mean... a world-governing organization is impotent and useless in actuality? No...

It doesn't govern the site rules. That's all I'm saying.

[Luveria]

So if someone called you a Wog, you wouldn't find that insulting at all?

Don't know what that means, so propably not

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wog#Use_in_Australian_English

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ethnic_slurs#W

http://www.rsdb.org/race/greeks

It's slur against Greeks.

[Lost heros]

I enjoy the use of Paki, because it's such a dumb word that people try to use to offend me.

Probably because Greece isn't known for a South Asian population.

I wish. We have millions of illegal immigrants here. They are illegally here so there is no official census but there are lots of them, especially in my area. I would say that Greece has about.. 500.000 Pakistanis. No one finds the term Paki insulting here (it is rarely used, but always as a sort term)

I think someone would've notice if 5% of a country's population is made of illegal south Asian immigrants.

[Dyakovo]

agreed its like "Paki"

I don't find Paki insulting either

Whether or not you personally find a term (especially one that doesn't apply to you) is not the metric for determining if a term is a slur.
I don't find "tranny" insulting, this detail doesn't change the fact that it is a slur.

[Dyakovo]

If this is a game where we can make every kind of nation we want, why we cannot use swastikas? I am going to make a WA proposal about this.

Because Max Barry said "no swastikas".

[Delmonte]

You mean... a world-governing organization is impotent and useless in actuality? No...

It's ... you do realize that this isn't the real world, right?

LIES!

[Grenartia]

"Jap" Is a slur against all Japanese people.

Why? How is it insulting?

Because its used in a derogatory manner.

"Jap" Is a slur against all Japanese people.

Well, depends on where you are, really. Might be just me, but I've noted it used in Europe without pejorative intent, same way I hear "Negro" used without pejorative intent in some areas.

I tend to refrain from using those slang terms and others because bothering to explain the intent is too much trouble.

And in some areas, like Greece, it may just be flat out ignorance due to a lack of Japanese there.

True, but the Japanese people almost universally object to it. Like calling black people "apes" or "tar babies".

You tell me

So, if the post said Japanese instead of Jap would Japanese be a slur for... Japanese?

No. Because Japanese is the proper term to describe somebody or something from Japan.

agreed its like "Paki"

I don't find Paki insulting either

Because you're not Pakistani.

If I called you [insert slur against Greeks here], I'll bet you'd be offended and insulted then.

[Divair]

I might as well throw in my two cents, since having just gone through 41 pages of this. Take my words as a poster that happens to be a mod, not as someone speaking on behalf of the mods.

I'm one of the more specialized mods on these forums. I am unabashedly an advocate and proponent for RPers, and my modding tenure is pockmarked by cases of my own semi-mutinous behaviour against the team, but also as a supporter for less mod-based activities (the Mentors, most ironically, with thanks to considerable assistance by other moderators). My first few weeks of moderation were also noted by a mass deletion of veteran roleplayers. So, as a mod that's very unfamiliar with NSG's mores, I will provide as objective an evaluation as I can of potential reasons or problems that act as major obstacles to considerable changes.

1. Time. This thread is made very soon after we introduced two new moderators. As they foray more and more into unfamiliar territory, they will likely become more used to seeing things they do not see as posters. I am immensely livid at the lack of patience shown thus far by a few posters in this thread, not only because they have failed to give these new mods the time to get used to moderation, but also for failing to give these mods time to aid the current staff.

Moderation and its practices are in constant shift, influenced by knowledge of all moderators. We have specialists because of minute differences in expectations and conduct determined by normative and systematic differences (what passes for spamming in one area may not be spamming in another, for instance). In turn, they provide a clearer image of how we can improve. We didn't bring on more NSG moderators so they can carve little administrative empires, but rather to assist ongoing mods in understanding and addressing problems that we earnestly feel are large and pronounced enough to address. Information is a critical commodity to the group, but absorbing this information takes time, and we need to learn from these new mods just as much as they need to learn modding practices. So far, very little time has been given by detractors thus far.

2. The Grey-Area, Rules Lawyering, and Precedents. One oft-cited example of poor and sluggish moderation is the Chelsea Manning case. Personally, I agree that there were areas for massive improvements. However, a paralyzing part of moderation is the situation of rules-lawyering, grey areas, and lack of context for precedents. We try to make our rulings with as much information as we can, and in some cases, we run into scenarios that have similar but very small differences from other, similar cases. As such, we have to carefully weigh whether these differences are notable or noticeable enough to lead to a change in disciplinary action.

As a result, we have a Rashomon effect where various people will cite a single case as an example and then give various details by stressing different parts of importance. Making a definitive statement about a violation is something we are continually striving to perfect, but please remember that the moment we make a ruling, it becomes fair game for other posters to use it as an example of future rulings and behaviour. If we feel that we need more information and discussion on an issue because we are uncertain of its consequences for future rulings, we may take a longer period of time. We do have people who will say that "Violation X consists of A, B, and C," but sometimes it's only A and B, and others may argue that lacking C does not make it viable for violation. We do have those sorts of problems.

3. Background dissonance. We make an evaluation based upon our informed decision based upon not only the poster's history, but also the history of any other accounts that may be associated with that poster. From there, we make a decision as to what is the appropriate disciplinary action that should be undertaken. A lot of posters don't see that. They see a smaller picture of the scenario, and then assume inconsistency.

Is there inconsistency in moderation? I would be insane to say there aren't differences in behaviour (we're not all automatons), but a lot of what passes as inconsistency between rulings is just what our informed understanding of a poster is like. We may be stricter with other people or not because of what sort of logs have been kept about their posting history, their history of violations, and the history of connected accounts. A lot of this requires more work for the average poster to see, so it creates a very inconsistent image. In turn, we're lead to point 2.

Now, overall, I'm glad that threads like this exist. It allows us to see what sort of sentiments are out there, see the positions of posters on both sides, and allows us to consider comments and criticisms that could be very helpful. They serve a good instrumental purpose, as well as allow those with major problems with moderation to safely coalesce so we can attempt to address issues to the best of our abilities (as NERVUN, Euro, Farn, LG, and Blaat have helpfully done).

But in the future, I stress that any OP to consider all three points that I have raised. I may be a lowly RPer mod, coming from the hated dredges of literary incomprehensibility that II tends to be painted as, but I felt that I should have extended my thoughts on the situation.

I appreciate this, Jenrak.

[Esternial]

I might as well throw in my two cents, since having just gone through 41 pages of this. Take my words as a poster that happens to be a mod, not as someone speaking on behalf of the mods.

I'm one of the more specialized mods on these forums. I am unabashedly an advocate and proponent for RPers, and my modding tenure is pockmarked by cases of my own semi-mutinous behaviour against the team, but also as a supporter for less mod-based activities (the Mentors, most ironically, with thanks to considerable assistance by other moderators). My first few weeks of moderation were also noted by a mass deletion of veteran roleplayers. So, as a mod that's very unfamiliar with NSG's mores, I will provide as objective an evaluation as I can of potential reasons or problems that act as major obstacles to considerable changes.

1. Time. This thread is made very soon after we introduced two new moderators. As they foray more and more into unfamiliar territory, they will likely become more used to seeing things they do not see as posters. I am immensely livid at the lack of patience shown thus far by a few posters in this thread, not only because they have failed to give these new mods the time to get used to moderation, but also for failing to give these mods time to aid the current staff.

Moderation and its practices are in constant shift, influenced by knowledge of all moderators. We have specialists because of minute differences in expectations and conduct determined by normative and systematic differences (what passes for spamming in one area may not be spamming in another, for instance). In turn, they provide a clearer image of how we can improve. We didn't bring on more NSG moderators so they can carve little administrative empires, but rather to assist ongoing mods in understanding and addressing problems that we earnestly feel are large and pronounced enough to address. Information is a critical commodity to the group, but absorbing this information takes time, and we need to learn from these new mods just as much as they need to learn modding practices. So far, very little time has been given by detractors thus far.

2. The Grey-Area, Rules Lawyering, and Precedents. One oft-cited example of poor and sluggish moderation is the Chelsea Manning case. Personally, I agree that there were areas for massive improvements. However, a paralyzing part of moderation is the situation of rules-lawyering, grey areas, and lack of context for precedents. We try to make our rulings with as much information as we can, and in some cases, we run into scenarios that have similar but very small differences from other, similar cases. As such, we have to carefully weigh whether these differences are notable or noticeable enough to lead to a change in disciplinary action.

As a result, we have a Rashomon effect where various people will cite a single case as an example and then give various details by stressing different parts of importance. Making a definitive statement about a violation is something we are continually striving to perfect, but please remember that the moment we make a ruling, it becomes fair game for other posters to use it as an example of future rulings and behaviour. If we feel that we need more information and discussion on an issue because we are uncertain of its consequences for future rulings, we may take a longer period of time. We do have people who will say that "Violation X consists of A, B, and C," but sometimes it's only A and B, and others may argue that lacking C does not make it viable for violation. We do have those sorts of problems.

3. Background dissonance. We make an evaluation based upon our informed decision based upon not only the poster's history, but also the history of any other accounts that may be associated with that poster. From there, we make a decision as to what is the appropriate disciplinary action that should be undertaken. A lot of posters don't see that. They see a smaller picture of the scenario, and then assume inconsistency.

Is there inconsistency in moderation? I would be insane to say there aren't differences in behaviour (we're not all automatons), but a lot of what passes as inconsistency between rulings is just what our informed understanding of a poster is like. We may be stricter with other people or not because of what sort of logs have been kept about their posting history, their history of violations, and the history of connected accounts. A lot of this requires more work for the average poster to see, so it creates a very inconsistent image. In turn, we're lead to point 2.

Now, overall, I'm glad that threads like this exist. It allows us to see what sort of sentiments are out there, see the positions of posters on both sides, and allows us to consider comments and criticisms that could be very helpful. They serve a good instrumental purpose, as well as allow those with major problems with moderation to safely coalesce so we can attempt to address issues to the best of our abilities (as NERVUN, Euro, Farn, LG, and Blaat have helpfully done).

But in the future, I stress that any OP to consider all three points that I have raised. I may be a lowly RPer mod, coming from the hated dredges of literary incomprehensibility that II tends to be painted as, but I felt that I should have extended my thoughts on the situation.

You've displayed your verbosity yet again, Jenrak. Oh what envy :p

1. I agree with the point you raise about the overall impatience. What I have noticed is that there has been a swelling amount of dissatisfaction with Moderation as of late, in many cases also focused on specific members of staff. Indeed there are high expectations, and I wouldn't be so presumptuous to insist that these expectations are realistic, but the fact of the matter is that many people have finally reached a boiling point, and when one kettle boils over, its very likely that it will cause others to follow suit. It's easy to nurture that quiet discontent into active protest or even contempt with the right words. In my eyes, many people have lost their patience with (a segment of) the staff and want to see immediate change.

It's unrealistic. Yes. Perhaps a little foolish. Yes. One might say it's their own fault for not speaking up sooner and I wouldn't disagree with them.

2. What strikes me is your steadfast belief that all of you try to make your rulings with as much information as you can. Do you really? There have been diverse cases where players themselves had to supply informations, or where even one mod made a ruling that was overturned after another actually sought for information. Forgive me, but I have my doubts. I do not think you can quite as easily speak for all your colleagues, I'm afraid, as good as you intentions may be.

I do agree that many cases are unique, and thus shouldn't be concluded without a modicum of investigative digging. The playerbase, too, has the responsibility to provide this information if they actually seek the right judgement to be passed, and it is then your task to strip away the reporter's intention and personal opinion regarding the offender to find a suitable course of actions. That is one of the hardships of being a Mod, and I truly do appreciate those of you that go through this arduous process to judge someone fairly.

3. Again these general statements. I'll refer to my previous point. You may argue against it, which is your full right, but I don't think all Mods adhere to the processes you have described to us. With time constraints and other factors considered, I find it not unlikely that some would have no qualms with cutting corners. However, I do realise you must all take in account a lot of details in each case, so I can understand it if this happens. I may not approve, but I can understand it.


There aren't just two sides in this entire debate, and I can't say how many there actually are with any degree of certainty.
Threads like these do give some sort of way to vent frustrations, which may possibly help some posters' dissatisfaction from festering into something far worse, so these debates' usefulness cannot be denied.

Thank you for giving your take on the matter. It is greatly appreciated, even if I only speak for myself. You play a vital role in International Incidents, so I wouldn't claim that you're anywhere near a "lowly RP mod".

[Rubiconic Crossings V2 rev 1f]

I enjoy the use of Paki, because it's such a dumb word that people try to use to offend me.

Probably because Greece isn't known for a South Asian population.

I wish. We have millions of illegal immigrants here. They are illegally here so there is no official census but there are lots of them, especially in my area. I would say that Greece has about.. 500.000 Pakistanis. No one finds the term Paki insulting here (it is rarely used, but always as a sort term)

So if someone called you a Wog, you wouldn't find that insulting at all?

Don't know what that means, so propably not

500,000 Pakistanis in Greece? I'd love a source for that...

[Lost heros]

I wish. We have millions of illegal immigrants here. They are illegally here so there is no official census but there are lots of them, especially in my area. I would say that Greece has about.. 500.000 Pakistanis. No one finds the term Paki insulting here (it is rarely used, but always as a sort term)



Don't know what that means, so propably not

500,000 Pakistanis in Greece? I'd love a source for that...

I think the "They are illegally here so there is no official census" part is there to say he has no support for his claim.

[Rubiconic Crossings V2 rev 1f]

I might as well throw in my two cents, since having just gone through 41 pages of this. Take my words as a poster that happens to be a mod, not as someone speaking on behalf of the mods.

I'm one of the more specialized mods on these forums. I am unabashedly an advocate and proponent for RPers, and my modding tenure is pockmarked by cases of my own semi-mutinous behaviour against the team, but also as a supporter for less mod-based activities (the Mentors, most ironically, with thanks to considerable assistance by other moderators). My first few weeks of moderation were also noted by a mass deletion of veteran roleplayers. So, as a mod that's very unfamiliar with NSG's mores, I will provide as objective an evaluation as I can of potential reasons or problems that act as major obstacles to considerable changes.

1. Time. This thread is made very soon after we introduced two new moderators. As they foray more and more into unfamiliar territory, they will likely become more used to seeing things they do not see as posters. I am immensely livid at the lack of patience shown thus far by a few posters in this thread, not only because they have failed to give these new mods the time to get used to moderation, but also for failing to give these mods time to aid the current staff.

Moderation and its practices are in constant shift, influenced by knowledge of all moderators. We have specialists because of minute differences in expectations and conduct determined by normative and systematic differences (what passes for spamming in one area may not be spamming in another, for instance). In turn, they provide a clearer image of how we can improve. We didn't bring on more NSG moderators so they can carve little administrative empires, but rather to assist ongoing mods in understanding and addressing problems that we earnestly feel are large and pronounced enough to address. Information is a critical commodity to the group, but absorbing this information takes time, and we need to learn from these new mods just as much as they need to learn modding practices. So far, very little time has been given by detractors thus far.

2. The Grey-Area, Rules Lawyering, and Precedents. One oft-cited example of poor and sluggish moderation is the Chelsea Manning case. Personally, I agree that there were areas for massive improvements. However, a paralyzing part of moderation is the situation of rules-lawyering, grey areas, and lack of context for precedents. We try to make our rulings with as much information as we can, and in some cases, we run into scenarios that have similar but very small differences from other, similar cases. As such, we have to carefully weigh whether these differences are notable or noticeable enough to lead to a change in disciplinary action.

As a result, we have a Rashomon effect where various people will cite a single case as an example and then give various details by stressing different parts of importance. Making a definitive statement about a violation is something we are continually striving to perfect, but please remember that the moment we make a ruling, it becomes fair game for other posters to use it as an example of future rulings and behaviour. If we feel that we need more information and discussion on an issue because we are uncertain of its consequences for future rulings, we may take a longer period of time. We do have people who will say that "Violation X consists of A, B, and C," but sometimes it's only A and B, and others may argue that lacking C does not make it viable for violation. We do have those sorts of problems.

3. Background dissonance. We make an evaluation based upon our informed decision based upon not only the poster's history, but also the history of any other accounts that may be associated with that poster. From there, we make a decision as to what is the appropriate disciplinary action that should be undertaken. A lot of posters don't see that. They see a smaller picture of the scenario, and then assume inconsistency.

Is there inconsistency in moderation? I would be insane to say there aren't differences in behaviour (we're not all automatons), but a lot of what passes as inconsistency between rulings is just what our informed understanding of a poster is like. We may be stricter with other people or not because of what sort of logs have been kept about their posting history, their history of violations, and the history of connected accounts. A lot of this requires more work for the average poster to see, so it creates a very inconsistent image. In turn, we're lead to point 2.

Now, overall, I'm glad that threads like this exist. It allows us to see what sort of sentiments are out there, see the positions of posters on both sides, and allows us to consider comments and criticisms that could be very helpful. They serve a good instrumental purpose, as well as allow those with major problems with moderation to safely coalesce so we can attempt to address issues to the best of our abilities (as NERVUN, Euro, Farn, LG, and Blaat have helpfully done).

But in the future, I stress that any OP to consider all three points that I have raised. I may be a lowly RPer mod, coming from the hated dredges of literary incomprehensibility that II tends to be painted as, but I felt that I should have extended my thoughts on the situation.

Yeah...only we're once again rehashing shit from the Jolt days. Nice post though.

[Mad hatters in jeans]

I might as well throw in my two cents, since having just gone through 41 pages of this. Take my words as a poster that happens to be a mod, not as someone speaking on behalf of the mods.

I'm one of the more specialized mods on these forums. I am unabashedly an advocate and proponent for RPers, and my modding tenure is pockmarked by cases of my own semi-mutinous behaviour against the team, but also as a supporter for less mod-based activities (the Mentors, most ironically, with thanks to considerable assistance by other moderators). My first few weeks of moderation were also noted by a mass deletion of veteran roleplayers. So, as a mod that's very unfamiliar with NSG's mores, I will provide as objective an evaluation as I can of potential reasons or problems that act as major obstacles to considerable changes.

1. Time. This thread is made very soon after we introduced two new moderators. As they foray more and more into unfamiliar territory, they will likely become more used to seeing things they do not see as posters. I am immensely livid at the lack of patience shown thus far by a few posters in this thread, not only because they have failed to give these new mods the time to get used to moderation, but also for failing to give these mods time to aid the current staff.

Moderation and its practices are in constant shift, influenced by knowledge of all moderators. We have specialists because of minute differences in expectations and conduct determined by normative and systematic differences (what passes for spamming in one area may not be spamming in another, for instance). In turn, they provide a clearer image of how we can improve. We didn't bring on more NSG moderators so they can carve little administrative empires, but rather to assist ongoing mods in understanding and addressing problems that we earnestly feel are large and pronounced enough to address. Information is a critical commodity to the group, but absorbing this information takes time, and we need to learn from these new mods just as much as they need to learn modding practices. So far, very little time has been given by detractors thus far.

2. The Grey-Area, Rules Lawyering, and Precedents. One oft-cited example of poor and sluggish moderation is the Chelsea Manning case. Personally, I agree that there were areas for massive improvements. However, a paralyzing part of moderation is the situation of rules-lawyering, grey areas, and lack of context for precedents. We try to make our rulings with as much information as we can, and in some cases, we run into scenarios that have similar but very small differences from other, similar cases. As such, we have to carefully weigh whether these differences are notable or noticeable enough to lead to a change in disciplinary action.

As a result, we have a Rashomon effect where various people will cite a single case as an example and then give various details by stressing different parts of importance. Making a definitive statement about a violation is something we are continually striving to perfect, but please remember that the moment we make a ruling, it becomes fair game for other posters to use it as an example of future rulings and behaviour. If we feel that we need more information and discussion on an issue because we are uncertain of its consequences for future rulings, we may take a longer period of time. We do have people who will say that "Violation X consists of A, B, and C," but sometimes it's only A and B, and others may argue that lacking C does not make it viable for violation. We do have those sorts of problems.

3. Background dissonance. We make an evaluation based upon our informed decision based upon not only the poster's history, but also the history of any other accounts that may be associated with that poster. From there, we make a decision as to what is the appropriate disciplinary action that should be undertaken. A lot of posters don't see that. They see a smaller picture of the scenario, and then assume inconsistency.

Is there inconsistency in moderation? I would be insane to say there aren't differences in behaviour (we're not all automatons), but a lot of what passes as inconsistency between rulings is just what our informed understanding of a poster is like. We may be stricter with other people or not because of what sort of logs have been kept about their posting history, their history of violations, and the history of connected accounts. A lot of this requires more work for the average poster to see, so it creates a very inconsistent image. In turn, we're lead to point 2.

Now, overall, I'm glad that threads like this exist. It allows us to see what sort of sentiments are out there, see the positions of posters on both sides, and allows us to consider comments and criticisms that could be very helpful. They serve a good instrumental purpose, as well as allow those with major problems with moderation to safely coalesce so we can attempt to address issues to the best of our abilities (as NERVUN, Euro, Farn, LG, and Blaat have helpfully done).

But in the future, I stress that any OP to consider all three points that I have raised. I may be a lowly RPer mod, coming from the hated dredges of literary incomprehensibility that II tends to be painted as, but I felt that I should have extended my thoughts on the situation.

Well said.

[Rubiconic Crossings V2 rev 1f]

500,000 Pakistanis in Greece? I'd love a source for that...

I think the "They are illegally here so there is no official census" part is there to say he has no support for his claim.

Yeah I just wanted complete verification that he's pulling bollocks out of his arse. Admittedly a biological impossibility without surgery yet quite apt.

[The Alexanderians]

Hey, I'm a "Ruskie" and a "Yank" I find neither to be inherently insulting. It's all about how you use a word that makes it an insult. He did say he was unaware of it being a slur so...

It doesn't change that Jap and Paki are slurs. Being ignorant about it being a slur doesn't make it stop being a slur.

By that I mean he didn't use it specifically as an insult, he learned, he got over it, so should everyone else. But this is starting to get off topic eh? Back to Mod Critique.

[Esternial]

It doesn't change that Jap and Paki are slurs. Being ignorant about it being a slur doesn't make it stop being a slur.

By that I mean he didn't use it specifically as an insult, he learned, he got over it, so should everyone else. But this is starting to get off topic eh? Back to Mod Critique.

Well, critique towards the regular playerbase should also be mentioned. They can improve, but so can we.

[Lost heros]

By that I mean he didn't use it specifically as an insult, he learned, he got over it, so should everyone else. But this is starting to get off topic eh? Back to Mod Critique.

Well, critique towards the regular playerbase should also be mentioned. They can improve, but so can we.

We could probably improve more than they could.