A Critique of NS Moderation Policy

[Delmonte]

But your first two sentences ARE a board-wipe! So, under your paradigm, if I genuinely and truly believed that all human beings who were not eskimo's ought to be exterminated in a fiery blaze of nuclear hellfire, and I proselytized these views on the NS forums, I would receive no punishment.

My first two sentences are a board wipe for trolling. I'm saying that when there is held beliefs and trolling there shouldn't be a board wipe.
It would probably depend on how you stated it.

I mean... it shouldn't. Trolling is banned because it offends people and that is not constructive. So incredibly offensive beliefs, even if sincerely held, ought to still be considered trolling. If you DON'T do so, then not only does it defeat the point of trolling being a thing, but anyone can get off just by flaunting everything they say as a truly held belief that they're oh-so passionate about. It makes no sense on paper or in practice.

[Lost heros]

Reconsideration of the "troll naming" rule.

I don't know why so many people object to the troll naming rule. It is made to decrease the amount of spam in some threads. If you think someone is a troll, calling them a troll isn't going to do shit except give them attention they probably want. If you think someone is a troll report them in moderation.

[Delmonte]

Reconsideration of the "troll naming" rule.

I don't know why so many people object to the troll naming rule. It is made to decrease the amount of spam in some threads. If you think someone is a troll, calling them a troll isn't going to do shit except give them attention they probably want. If you think someone is a troll report them in moderation.

I am with you on the troll naming rule. It's similar, I think, to using the mods as a weapon. People do it to shut down discourse coming from posters they disagree with. Which I think is despicable and ought to be punished. Harshly.

[Trollgaard]

I've never understood why people crave so much moderation on an internet forum. It seems restrictive.

[Delmonte]

I've never understood why people crave so much moderation on an internet forum. It seems restrictive.

Because it's conducive to reasonable discourse, which is what a forum is supposed to facilitate.

[Beta Test]

I've never understood why people crave so much moderation on an internet forum. It seems restrictive.

Coming from someone named "Trollgaard"

[Trollgaard]

I've never understood why people crave so much moderation on an internet forum. It seems restrictive.

Because it's conducive to reasonable discourse, which is what a forum is supposed to facilitate.

I suppose. Doesn't really seem that way, though. Seems like people cry to the mods over every little thing in order to shut down discourse.

Its the internet...grow a thicker skin. You will be offended, and you will offend people from time to time. No need to turn the forum into some Gestapo patrolled parody of a forum.

[The Serbian Empire]

I've never understood why people crave so much moderation on an internet forum. It seems restrictive.

There's a lot of abrasive people on the internet.

[Lost heros]

My first two sentences are a board wipe for trolling. I'm saying that when there is held beliefs and trolling there shouldn't be a board wipe.
It would probably depend on how you stated it.

I mean... it shouldn't. Trolling is banned because it offends people and that is not constructive. So incredibly offensive beliefs, even if sincerely held, ought to still be considered trolling. If you DON'T do so, then not only does it defeat the point of trolling being a thing, but anyone can get off just by flaunting everything they say as a truly held belief that they're oh-so passionate about. It makes no sense on paper or in practice.

It all depends on the post. If a mod can deduce that the player is making a statement to incite anger then the player will be warned for trolling. However, if a mod can't deduce that the player is making a statement to incite anger or if the target just has a thin skin then the mod will try to see if the player actually believes what he advocates or not because more often than not the believed statement was not intended to incite anger.

[Trollgaard]

I've never understood why people crave so much moderation on an internet forum. It seems restrictive.

Coming from someone named "Trollgaard"

And what is that supposed to mean, exactly, young buck?

[Katganistan]

Coming from someone named "Trollgaard"

And what is that supposed to mean, exactly, young buck?

Obviously, I must be a Kat, Trollgaard.

[Bezombia]

Coming from someone named "Trollgaard"

And what is that supposed to mean, exactly, young buck?

He's saying you're not credible.

[Beta Test]

Coming from someone named "Trollgaard"

And what is that supposed to mean, exactly, young buck?

A guy named Trollgaard is questioning why people like mods. I find it...interesting.

[Bezombia]

And what is that supposed to mean, exactly, young buck?

Obviously, I must be a Kat, Trollgaard.

Beta Test confirmed to be a test/beta nation of katganistan

[Trollgaard]

And what is that supposed to mean, exactly, young buck?

Obviously, I must be a Kat, Trollgaard.

My thoughts as well.

[The Blaatschapen]

I'd like to echo that and ask for the same. No Guards will be involved. *Guards clamor* Hush! You get plenty.

I have not seen Blaat, probably just different circles, but you are fair and balanced Farn based on what I have seen.

No worries the guards did not force me to write that

Farn is fair and balanced?

Foxhamia?

[Regnum Dominae]

A few suggestions I have:

A much larger Moderation team.
Retirement for a few current mods.
Better mod coverage of all timezones. (10pm to 5am west coast time especially - the forums are largely unmoderated during that time frame)
Reconsideration of the "troll naming" rule.

Oh, and another thing: More consistency between rulings.

[Trollgaard]

I don't want anyone to take it my posts to mean there should be no moderation, but I don't see why we need more, as it seems some people want. The current level seems pretty decent.

[Delmonte]

I don't want anyone to take it my posts to mean there should be no moderation, but I don't see why we need more, as it seems some people want. The current level seems pretty decent.

I don't have any problem with the current "level", I don't really even have a "problem" at all. I just think some clarification would be beneficial.

[Franklin Delano Bluth]

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

What?

Bluth, you're full of it.

You outright acknowledged that you view requests for your decisions to be reviewed as personal affronts. Apparently, you place your own ego above getting it right for the good of the community.

[Dakini]

A few suggestions I have:

A much larger Moderation team.
Retirement for a few current mods.
Better mod coverage of all timezones. (10pm to 5am west coast time especially - the forums are largely unmoderated during that time frame)
Reconsideration of the "troll naming" rule.

Oh, and another thing: More consistency between rulings.

Yeah, consistency would be awesome.

[Delmonte]

What?

Bluth, you're full of it.

You outright acknowledged that you view requests for your decisions to be reviewed as personal affronts. Apparently, you place your own ego above getting it right for the good of the community.

I hardly think that's what he said. But trying to compare a moderator in an appeal to a defendant is rather silly. You don't see judges defending their rulings to appeals courts. Whatever appeals process there may be, it ought to make its decision based on the facts that exist upon the issuance of the previous decision.

[Geilinor]

Reconsideration of the "troll naming" rule.

I don't know why so many people object to the troll naming rule. It is made to decrease the amount of spam in some threads. If you think someone is a troll, calling them a troll isn't going to do shit except give them attention they probably want. If you think someone is a troll report them in moderation.

This^. 10 posters quoting the same thing and writing "troll" is annoying.

[The Serbian Empire]

I don't know why so many people object to the troll naming rule. It is made to decrease the amount of spam in some threads. If you think someone is a troll, calling them a troll isn't going to do shit except give them attention they probably want. If you think someone is a troll report them in moderation.

This^. 10 posters quoting the same thing and writing "troll" is annoying.

Whatever one does, don't feed the trolls!

[Edlichbury]

I don't know why so many people object to the troll naming rule. It is made to decrease the amount of spam in some threads. If you think someone is a troll, calling them a troll isn't going to do shit except give them attention they probably want. If you think someone is a troll report them in moderation.

This^. 10 posters quoting the same thing and writing "troll" is annoying.

Here's the issue: the trollnaming rule has not decreased spam. In fact, it has worsened it. Responding to a troll is worthless, ergo spam. I'd much rather take a forum outright dismissing someone and that person being ignored in perpetuity than several people all questioning if someone is a troll or not a responding to them as if they are not.