A Critique of NS Moderation Policy

[Luveria]

Writing style was apparently how Karrgath was detected. That was why I thought of it.

Mine is rather obvious, it's has a bit more inner significance to it for me.

I'll remember to shuffle my style up when if I'm DOSed

Nobody is safe!

I don't understand how you're a mod. You terrify everyone with your madness.

[Grenartia]

Is it me or is this NSG Culture Thread moving faster than the last one?

I'd like to think I provided more in the OP. I could be wrong.

No, you did. When I posted that, it was just rather impossible for me to keep up with this thread alone, due to the speed at which people were posting, much less the others I needed to respond to.

Is it me or is this NSG Culture Thread moving faster than the last one?

probably just the timing, it may slow down by the morning (around 6 am EDT)

Nah, from the second I clicked on the title, to the second I posted, it was busier than TET's been lately.

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.

The problem, though, is that all too often, people can slip under the radar. They can troll without it being actionable. Take Starkiller 101, for instance. I knew from their first post I saw that they were a troll. However, I couldn't call them out on their shit (and potentially stop them from trolling), because of trollnaming, and couldn't report them to Moderation because I didn't have enough proof that they were trolling. It was only when they slipped up and admitted to trolling that I could actually report them.

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.

Yes, because the anti-gore/porn spam response time (among other things) couldn't POSSIBLY be better.

[Lunatic Goofballs]

(Image)

Is that LG?

Honestly, I don't know. I've seen it online and I could have sworn it was of an incident in which I was involved, but I can't track down the person who filmed it and how it got online. It might be me, it might not. If it was me, it's an old video from many years ago.

[Forsher]

You'd be better off looking at what typified them. Which now after I finished the below I see is your point... oh well. Not a bad idea but a little impractical.

Take Moving Forwards Inc. As far as I know they've never come back but their nations were very different with the names (Acireman is nothing like MFI). The same with Choronzon (who, as far as I know, is DOS but he may not be). The Whispers was previously Yootopia/Yootwopia/Yehohohopia so that was a straight out change. The only person this would likely catch out is FST who has a tendency to go for long names like Conformal Veal Theory on returning.

My point was, if they never knew, say, Yootopia, but did know The Whispers, they could recognize that The Whispers came back.

Yes. You'll note that I realised that and didn't bother changing the bulk of the post because reasons.

[Radiatia]

Oh, for the record - moderators on NS are much, much better than moderators on Facebook. Apparently death threats (in which the police got involved) and me reporting some guy advocating the genocide of Palestinians on Facebook "did not violate site policy".

</minor threadjack>

[Shaggai]

My point was, if they never knew, say, Yootopia, but did know The Whispers, they could recognize that The Whispers came back.

Yes. You'll note that I realised that and didn't bother changing the bulk of the post because reasons.

Ah. I see. Well, can't argue with reasons.

[Lunatic Goofballs]

Nobody is safe!

I don't understand how you're a mod. You terrify everyone with your madness.

I'm as surprised as you.

[The Black Forrest]

The problem, though, is that all too often, people can slip under the radar. They can troll without it being actionable. Take Starkiller 101, for instance. I knew from their first post I saw that they were a troll. However, I couldn't call them out on their shit (and potentially stop them from trolling), because of trollnaming, and couldn't report them to Moderation because I didn't have enough proof that they were trolling. It was only when they slipped up and admitted to trolling that I could actually report them.

You can't call them on their BS? You can. You just can't simply yell "TROLL!" and think it's over.

I can see why the ruling came down. Invariable in many arguments; "troll" would be trotted out when dealing with somebody who couldn't be convinced they were wrong and continued to argue back.

As to reporting; why not do it anyway?

[Lost heros]

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.

The problem, though, is that all too often, people can slip under the radar. They can troll without it being actionable. Take Starkiller 101, for instance. I knew from their first post I saw that they were a troll. However, I couldn't call them out on their shit (and potentially stop them from trolling), because of trollnaming, and couldn't report them to Moderation because I didn't have enough proof that they were trolling. It was only when they slipped up and admitted to trolling that I could actually report them.

If you thought he was a troll, you should've reported him. There is no evidence needed. It isn't your job to gather evidence on a player to see if he's trolling or not. It's the mods job. If you told them that you think player x is a troll, the mods would take a look at player x and say yes, no, or I think he's just new and I've sent him a reminder on the rules of NS. Not reporting based on lack of evidence is stupid. This isn't a trial. You are not trying to convict anybody of anything.

[The Black Forrest]

Well? You stumble on Nation States. Create "The Whisper" and later get a notice DoS. Would you want to stay?

I never suggested autoban. You might get reported, the mods would check if you were a puppet, and everyone would move on when they found you were not.

I read it as autoban. So ignore my comment as I withdraw it.

[Shaggai]

Oh, for the record - moderators on NS are much, much better than moderators on Facebook. Apparently death threats (in which the police got involved) and me reporting some guy advocating the genocide of Palestinians on Facebook "did not violate site policy".

</minor threadjack>

On the other hand Facebook is vastly larger. But I agree that if that didn't violate site policy something is wrong.

[Dakini]

Oh, for the record - moderators on NS are much, much better than moderators on Facebook. Apparently death threats (in which the police got involved) and me reporting some guy advocating the genocide of Palestinians on Facebook "did not violate site policy".

</minor threadjack>

For a long time there were a lot of groups about how beating women was hilarious on facebook. Somehow those didn't violate policy until someone organized a large petition about them.

[Shaggai]

The problem, though, is that all too often, people can slip under the radar. They can troll without it being actionable. Take Starkiller 101, for instance. I knew from their first post I saw that they were a troll. However, I couldn't call them out on their shit (and potentially stop them from trolling), because of trollnaming, and couldn't report them to Moderation because I didn't have enough proof that they were trolling. It was only when they slipped up and admitted to trolling that I could actually report them.

You can't call them on their BS? You can. You just can't simply yell "TROLL!" and think it's over.

I can see why the ruling came down. Invariable in many arguments; "troll" would be trotted out when dealing with somebody who couldn't be convinced they were wrong and continued to argue back.

As to reporting; why not do it anyway?

The other thing is that the enforcement of it varies. I saw Choronzon get away with calling Alaje a troll because Choronzon had actually contibuted to the thread. On the other hand people doing the same thing have been warned.

[Delmonte]

The problem, though, is that all too often, people can slip under the radar. They can troll without it being actionable. Take Starkiller 101, for instance. I knew from their first post I saw that they were a troll. However, I couldn't call them out on their shit (and potentially stop them from trolling), because of trollnaming, and couldn't report them to Moderation because I didn't have enough proof that they were trolling. It was only when they slipped up and admitted to trolling that I could actually report them.

If you thought he was a troll, you should've reported him. There is no evidence needed. It isn't your job to gather evidence on a player to see if he's trolling or not. It's the mods job. If you told them that you think player x is a troll, the mods would take a look at player x and say yes, no, or I think he's just new and I've sent him a reminder on the rules of NS. Not reporting based on lack of evidence is stupid. This isn't a trial. You are not trying to convict anybody of anything.

Thank you!

[Luveria]

The problem, though, is that all too often, people can slip under the radar. They can troll without it being actionable. Take Starkiller 101, for instance. I knew from their first post I saw that they were a troll. However, I couldn't call them out on their shit (and potentially stop them from trolling), because of trollnaming, and couldn't report them to Moderation because I didn't have enough proof that they were trolling. It was only when they slipped up and admitted to trolling that I could actually report them.

If you thought he was a troll, you should've reported him. There is no evidence needed. It isn't your job to gather evidence on a player to see if he's trolling or not. It's the mods job. If you told them that you think player x is a troll, the mods would take a look at player x and say yes, no, or I think he's just new and I've sent him a reminder on the rules of NS. Not reporting based on lack of evidence is stupid. This isn't a trial. You are not trying to convict anybody of anything.

I have to second this. I've reported someone who everyone believed was a troll but no one reported it due to how they never admitted they were a troll. I went through entire post history and compiled a list of examples that could be considered trolling given the context of their post history. If you suspect someone is a troll, go through their post history and show the list of all trollish posts in moderation, and it will be taken into consideration.

[Grenartia]

The problem, though, is that all too often, people can slip under the radar. They can troll without it being actionable. Take Starkiller 101, for instance. I knew from their first post I saw that they were a troll. However, I couldn't call them out on their shit (and potentially stop them from trolling), because of trollnaming, and couldn't report them to Moderation because I didn't have enough proof that they were trolling. It was only when they slipped up and admitted to trolling that I could actually report them.

1. You can't call them on their BS? You can. You just can't simply yell "TROLL!" and think it's over.

2. I can see why the ruling came down. Invariable in many arguments; "troll" would be trotted out when dealing with somebody who couldn't be convinced they were wrong and continued to argue back.

3. As to reporting; why not do it anyway?

1. Not what I was saying.

2. As can I. In fact, I supported the rule at first. However, as time went on, I discovered that certain people were, in fact, trolls, but straddled the line so well that they could be considered not to be trolling, even though they were. FST being the first one to come to my mind.

3. What's the point in reporting somebody as a troll with no concrete evidence, especially when certain mods (Fris) have been proven to brush off even BLATANT trolling as "non-actionable"?

[Luveria]

You can't call them on their BS? You can. You just can't simply yell "TROLL!" and think it's over.

I can see why the ruling came down. Invariable in many arguments; "troll" would be trotted out when dealing with somebody who couldn't be convinced they were wrong and continued to argue back.

As to reporting; why not do it anyway?

The other thing is that the enforcement of it varies. I saw Choronzon get away with calling Alaje a troll because Choronzon had actually contibuted to the thread. On the other hand people doing the same thing have been warned.

Selective enforcement is a serious issue. I would prefer the rules applied equally to everyone, but at least moderation admit it's based on the poster and their history. That's better than denying it while pretending all are equal before the law.

[Luveria]

1. You can't call them on their BS? You can. You just can't simply yell "TROLL!" and think it's over.

2. I can see why the ruling came down. Invariable in many arguments; "troll" would be trotted out when dealing with somebody who couldn't be convinced they were wrong and continued to argue back.

3. As to reporting; why not do it anyway?

1. Not what I was saying.

2. As can I. In fact, I supported the rule at first. However, as time went on, I discovered that certain people were, in fact, trolls, but straddled the line so well that they could be considered not to be trolling, even though they were. FST being the first one to come to my mind.

3. What's the point in reporting somebody as a troll with no concrete evidence, especially when certain mods (Fris) have been proven to brush off even BLATANT trolling as "non-actionable"?

3. Because there's a chance another mod will see it instead. If not, you can request a second mod reviews your report.

[Grenartia]

The problem, though, is that all too often, people can slip under the radar. They can troll without it being actionable. Take Starkiller 101, for instance. I knew from their first post I saw that they were a troll. However, I couldn't call them out on their shit (and potentially stop them from trolling), because of trollnaming, and couldn't report them to Moderation because I didn't have enough proof that they were trolling. It was only when they slipped up and admitted to trolling that I could actually report them.

1. If you thought he was a troll, you should've reported him. There is no evidence needed. 2. It isn't your job to gather evidence on a player to see if he's trolling or not. It's the mods job. If you told them that you think player x is a troll, the mods would take a look at player x and say yes, no, or I think he's just new and I've sent him a reminder on the rules of NS. Not reporting based on lack of evidence is stupid. This isn't a trial. You are not trying to convict anybody of anything.

1. I, for one, don't like to pointlessly waste the mods' time and resources on what could very well be unproven, unsubstantiated, and untrue hunches.

2. No, however, too many frivolous reports (which is what reporting people without evidence could be considered) could arguably fall under spamming Moderation.

[Lost heros]

1. You can't call them on their BS? You can. You just can't simply yell "TROLL!" and think it's over.

2. I can see why the ruling came down. Invariable in many arguments; "troll" would be trotted out when dealing with somebody who couldn't be convinced they were wrong and continued to argue back.

3. As to reporting; why not do it anyway?

1. Not what I was saying.

2. As can I. In fact, I supported the rule at first. However, as time went on, I discovered that certain people were, in fact, trolls, but straddled the line so well that they could be considered not to be trolling, even though they were. FST being the first one to come to my mind.

3. What's the point in reporting somebody as a troll with no concrete evidence, especially when certain mods (Fris) have been proven to brush off even BLATANT trolling as "non-actionable"?

3. So you ask for a second opinion. So you say why you think someone is trolling. So you give other examples of a person you think is blatantly trolling.

[Grenartia]

1. Not what I was saying.

2. As can I. In fact, I supported the rule at first. However, as time went on, I discovered that certain people were, in fact, trolls, but straddled the line so well that they could be considered not to be trolling, even though they were. FST being the first one to come to my mind.

3. What's the point in reporting somebody as a troll with no concrete evidence, especially when certain mods (Fris) have been proven to brush off even BLATANT trolling as "non-actionable"?

3. Because there's a chance another mod will see it instead. If not, you can request a second mod reviews your report.

True... however, this still applies:

1. If you thought he was a troll, you should've reported him. There is no evidence needed. 2. It isn't your job to gather evidence on a player to see if he's trolling or not. It's the mods job. If you told them that you think player x is a troll, the mods would take a look at player x and say yes, no, or I think he's just new and I've sent him a reminder on the rules of NS. Not reporting based on lack of evidence is stupid. This isn't a trial. You are not trying to convict anybody of anything.

1. I, for one, don't like to pointlessly waste the mods' time and resources on what could very well be unproven, unsubstantiated, and untrue hunches.

2. No, however, too many frivolous reports (which is what reporting people without evidence could be considered) could arguably fall under spamming Moderation.

[Lost heros]

1. If you thought he was a troll, you should've reported him. There is no evidence needed. 2. It isn't your job to gather evidence on a player to see if he's trolling or not. It's the mods job. If you told them that you think player x is a troll, the mods would take a look at player x and say yes, no, or I think he's just new and I've sent him a reminder on the rules of NS. Not reporting based on lack of evidence is stupid. This isn't a trial. You are not trying to convict anybody of anything.

1. I, for one, don't like to pointlessly waste the mods' time and resources on what could very well be unproven, unsubstantiated, and untrue hunches.

2. No, however, too many frivolous reports (which is what reporting people without evidence could be considered) could arguably fall under spamming Moderation.

If you think someone is trolling, how is reporting him/her pointless? And besides accusing them of being a troll in a place other than moderation is definite spam, while what you consider to be a frivolous report is not necessarily spam.

[The Corparation]

Oh, for the record - moderators on NS are much, much better than moderators on Facebook. Apparently death threats (in which the police got involved) and me reporting some guy advocating the genocide of Palestinians on Facebook "did not violate site policy".

</minor threadjack>

IIRC Facebook's moderation is largely automated. And even when it does filter up to a human there's so much that the staff are overloaded. There was a good post one of their lead moderator type people made but I can't seem to find it right now.

[Katganistan]

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.

Nice.... very nice. A personal attack which is patently false, linking to a three year old discussion, and cherry-picking a single post.

Of course you fail to mention the context entirely, which is clear to anyone willing to wade through that thread. And it's just possible that one might count on the tendency of people to say, "tl;dr" and accept that assertion at face value.

Well, I think that the general response to claiming that something is not true is "Source?"
Here are mine.

My defending a player's right to report himself as being flamed or trolled, when it was suggested that the target of abuse NOT be allowed to report it.

Pointing out that if one gets reported for flaming, one shouldn't blame the victim if it's found to be true.

Thanking people for contributing to the thread.

Flat out stating that the thread should remain open as there were reasonable suggestions made and consensus being reached, and that closing the thread at that time would only make people feel they weren't being listened to.

Stating that opposing opinions on moderation are allowed, and the existence of the thread should prove it. (As should this one. And the one from July. And all the others.)

Asking for clarification politely, after being pretty much called insincere.

And more of the same.

So, please enlighten me about which posts in that thread contain anything about me stating that I don't care about the NS community? Do us all a favor and telegram me -- or post it in moderation. Or start a new thread. No need to further clutter up this thread with it.

I don't know whether to be annoyed or amused about this. I'll go with amused, given how foolish and fallacious an assertion that clearly was.

Apologies for the sidetrack, folks. Given the accusation was made publicly, I felt I needed to address it. I'd prefer us to get back to our regularly scheduled programming, if you please?

[Blasveck]

1. I, for one, don't like to pointlessly waste the mods' time and resources on what could very well be unproven, unsubstantiated, and untrue hunches.

2. No, however, too many frivolous reports (which is what reporting people without evidence could be considered) could arguably fall under spamming Moderation.

If you think someone is trolling, how is reporting him/her pointless? And besides accusing them of being a troll in a place other than moderation is definite spam, while what you consider to be a frivolous report is not necessarily spam.

Because their trolling has to be blatantly obvious, and not "implied" per-se.

In the case of Starkiller, s/he hasn't been outright obvious, but it's pretty clear when you read enough of their posts that they are.

I mean, just look at their grammar and spelling for Christ's sake. That's usually a good indicator, among other things.