A Critique of NS Moderation Policy

[Beta Test]

That's an assumption really. It's not official.

Which is a good thing.

By stating a mod is 'x mod' or 'y mod' you open them up to people telling them to get back to 'x forum' or 'y forum'.

That is a good point I hadn't thought about.

[Todlichebujoku]

It also doesn't help that if you have a conversation about something not OMG DIRECTLY RELATED to the OOC topic you are a apart of its considered spamming.
Wop wop wooop....

^^This guy's seen some serious shit.

So have I, and I support the rule.

[Vortukia]

ttagged

[Divair]

It also doesn't help that if you have a conversation about something not OMG DIRECTLY RELATED to the OOC topic you are a apart of its considered spamming.
Wop wop wooop....

Oh please, you can threadjack for 10 pages and get away with a slap on the wrist unless you've got a serious history of threadjacking. If anything, it's too lenient.

[Dakini]

I can think of at least one mod who has made it clear that they do not care for the community.

Who? If your going to say things like that you should be completely honest.

Pft. It's completely honest to say that there's at least one mod here who has made it clear that they do not care for the community. If you're going to accuse me of being dishonest, I'm not sure why you expect extra information from me.

[Delmonte]

As it stands, mod rulings are public knowledge. Ignorance of the rules does not count towards innocence as far as I know. So none of that would change. It's really just about codification and consistency. So if someone had violated a certain rule once and a certain ruling was given, that ruling would guide future rulings. I would like to see some other things codified. For instance, you have a right to defend yourself if you are reported, but you may not have the opportunity to. People who report are not required to inform the person they report that they are being accused of an offense and time isn't necessarily given for them to speak on their own behalf. It just doesn't sit right with me. We could stand to have outlined procedure as to how you can defend yourself and that procedure ought to allow for a period for you to do so and, hopefully, make it so that someone would inform them they were being reported ffs. As it stands, I just do a search for my name in Moderation every once in a while. Only way I can think of to keep up on it.

Codified in a different sense than it already is?

And I agree, every wo/man should have their day in court. But I am simply wondered about the organizational strategy of it.

Yeah. The rules are codified. But there's absolutely nothing in black and white that I've found that explains exactly how you may, if you may at all, defend yourself. Let alone allowing for notification and time.

[Verdum]

It also doesn't help that if you have a conversation about something not OMG DIRECTLY RELATED to the OOC topic you are a apart of its considered spamming.
Wop wop wooop....

Oh please, you can threadjack for 10 pages and get away with a slap on the wrist unless you've got a serious history of threadjacking. If anything, it's too lenient.

Oh man, it's Divair! RUN!

[Milograd]

This thread brings me nostalgia.

I don't think month-old memories count as nostalgia

I mean the days when the Havenites were still around, and when many of my colleagues were also critical of the staff.

[Lost heros]

I'm pretty sure it's only trolling when the stance is made to incite anger. So truly held beliefs are not considered actionable unless they exist because it makes another poster angry. But I could be completely wrong.

I am ninety percent sure that I read in the rules that something can still be trolling if the poster holds that as an actual belief. I think they used something about the Holocaust as an example. I can find it if you don't believe me.

According to the OSRS

Trolling/Baiting/Gloating: Trolling is defined as posts that are made with the aim of angering people. (like 'ALL JEWS ARE [insert vile comment here]' for example). Someone disagreeing with you does not equate to trolling. Intent is incredibly important and will be judged by the moderators to the best of their abilities. Disagreements are expected and conducting yourself in a civil manner is ideal. Trollbaiting is the action of making posts that attract trolls. A prime example of trollbaiting would be gloating over the results of an election.

I'm not sure where you got your information, but this doesn't say anything about actually held beliefs.

[Beta Test]

Who? If your going to say things like that you should be completely honest.

Pft. It's completely honest to say that there's at least one mod here who has made it clear that they do not care for the community. If you're going to accuse me of being dishonest, I'm not sure why you expect extra information from me.

Who is it? Tell us.

[Souseiseki]

I am ninety percent sure that I read in the rules that something can still be trolling if the poster holds that as an actual belief. I think they used something about the Holocaust as an example. I can find it if you don't believe me.

According to the OSRS

Trolling/Baiting/Gloating: Trolling is defined as posts that are made with the aim of angering people. (like 'ALL JEWS ARE [insert vile comment here]' for example). Someone disagreeing with you does not equate to trolling. Intent is incredibly important and will be judged by the moderators to the best of their abilities. Disagreements are expected and conducting yourself in a civil manner is ideal. Trollbaiting is the action of making posts that attract trolls. A prime example of trollbaiting would be gloating over the results of an election.

I'm not sure where you got your information, but this doesn't say anything about actually held beliefs.

based on moderation rulings i imagine

[Lost heros]

ttagged

Tagging a thread is considered spam. Or was that rule overturned?

[Divair]

ttagged

Tagging a thread is considered spam. Or was that rule overturned?

It should be. You can subscribe to topics if you want to follow them..

[Lost heros]

Tagging a thread is considered spam. Or was that rule overturned?

It should be. You can subscribe to topics if you want to follow them..

I'm confused by your post.
Are you saying that the tagging rule should be overturned? Or that it should stay in place because there is a subscribe button for threads?

[Beta Test]

Tagging a thread is considered spam. Or was that rule overturned?

It should be. You can subscribe to topics if you want to follow them..

I disagree. One post that doesn't derail or distract from the thread shouldn't be considered spam. Besides it's so much easier for it to appear in "View Your Posts".

[Bezombia]

It should be. You can subscribe to topics if you want to follow them..

I disagree. One post that doesn't derail or distract from the thread shouldn't be considered spam. Besides it's so much easier for it to appear in "View Your Posts".

Bookmarks is better than both of them.

[Divair]

It should be. You can subscribe to topics if you want to follow them..

I'm confused by your post.
Are you saying that the tagging rule should be overturned? Or that it should stay in place because there is a subscribe button for threads?

It should stay.

[Seperates]

Codified in a different sense than it already is?

And I agree, every wo/man should have their day in court. But I am simply wondered about the organizational strategy of it.

Yeah. The rules are codified. But there's absolutely nothing in black and white that I've found that explains exactly how you may, if you may at all, defend yourself. Let alone allowing for notification and time.

Indeed, it is an issue.

[NorthEast Alliance]

Moderators are just trying to do their job, their people not robots. If you think this site is so bad just leave complaining about "unfair" mods just because you were banned or a friend was banned will not do anything. Its not even that big of a deal anyway this is supposed to be a fun site not some soap opera drama because your "feeling hurt" about supposed mod unfairness. Mistakes are always going to be made.

[Lost heros]

I'm confused by your post.
Are you saying that the tagging rule should be overturned? Or that it should stay in place because there is a subscribe button for threads?

It should stay.

Thanks for the clarification.

[Franklin Delano Bluth]

Pft. It's completely honest to say that there's at least one mod here who has made it clear that they do not care for the community. If you're going to accuse me of being dishonest, I'm not sure why you expect extra information from me.

Who is it? Tell us.

I don't know who Dakini has in mind, but Katganistan certainly has said as much.

[Delmonte]

I don't think month-old memories count as nostalgia

I mean the days when the Havenites were still around, and when many of my colleagues were also critical of the staff.

Ah, yes, I've been told of these people...

[Souseiseki]

Moderators are just trying to do their job, their people not robots. If you think this site is so bad just leave complaining about "unfair" mods just because you were banned or a friend was banned will not do anything. Its not even that big of a deal anyway this is supposed to be a fun site not some soap opera drama because your "feeling hurt" about supposed mod unfairness. Mistakes are always going to be made.

what if we think mods are bad becau-

no! resist! for the sake of divairs sanity!

[Beta Test]

Who is it? Tell us.

I don't know who Dakini has in mind, but Katganistan certainly has said as much.

I haven't had anything to do with him, so that doesn't bother me.

[Souseiseki]

Who is it? Tell us.

I don't know who Dakini has in mind, but Katganistan certainly has said as much.

oh?