A Critique of NS Moderation Policy

[Grenartia]

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 I recognize the possibility that I could be wrong about my suspicions, and a mod could very well misread a frivolous report as "using mods as a weapon" (i.e., I report poster X because they hold borderline opinion Y, and mod Z interprets my report as just using mods as a weapon to "win" the argument), or something like that.

[Lost heros]

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.

If it's pretty clear that person x is trolling, then moderation will see that person x is trolling.

Also if it's pretty clear that person x is trolling, what good is calling them a troll going to do?

[Edlichbury]

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.

If it's pretty clear that person x is trolling, then moderation will see that person x is trolling.

Also if it's pretty clear that person x is trolling, what good is calling them a troll going to do?

The goal is to tell other posters, "This person does not want to engage in rational discourse. Just put them on ignore and let's move on with our lives." But that is not an option we readily have anymore.

[Lost heros]

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 I recognize the possibility that I could be wrong about my suspicions, and a mod could very well misread a frivolous report as "using mods as a weapon" (i.e., I report poster X because they hold borderline opinion Y, and mod Z interprets my report as just using mods as a weapon to "win" the argument), or something like that.

To my knowledge, that isn't what mods as a weapon is. Mods as a weapon is when a person make threats to report someone unless they do what the person wants.

[Arumdaum]

In regards to the troll naming thing, whoever the mods deem a troll is a troll.

[Luveria]

Because I recognize the possibility that I could be wrong about my suspicions, and a mod could very well misread a frivolous report as "using mods as a weapon" (i.e., I report poster X because they hold borderline opinion Y, and mod Z interprets my report as just using mods as a weapon to "win" the argument), or something like that.

To my knowledge, that isn't what mods as a weapon is. Mods as a weapon is when a person make threats to report someone unless they do what the person wants.

That is true. Reading the rules will clarify frivolous reports is only that. Using mods as a weapon is defined as "Do X or I'll report you for Y".

[Forsher]

Ha, found it!
viewtopic.php?p=15784095#p15784095

The report function was decided in thread to not be worth it. The mods wanted nations that were ideally more than two years old to be nominated. I don't think any of those other points are really resolved.

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.

In NSG, yeah. Then there are threads like this. Compare and contrast with this. Or this.

And I will post five hundred pages, and I will post five hundred more..

Wow. A proclaimers reference.

We used to sing that at school. Along with, for example, "The Witch Doctor" and one about fish and chips. Plus, I think it was on Shrek.

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.

Nah, troll-naming's all good. That's not to say I don't have issues with it, but they've got little to do with the rule.

Oh yes, trollnaming. It all comes out now, how your problems all come down to mummy taking away your teddy bear.

No, wait, that's not how I post. That's how you post and that posting style is one of the primary problems with NSG.

It's difficult to have a rational conversation when most posters contribute nothing more than snarky little asides that tend to lead conversation into that murky world of "the poster", as opposed to "the post". It was also difficult to have a rational conversation when most of the posts were "troll" and nothing more at all. I mean, how are you meant to raise actual points with the OP's argument when the OP is busy saying they're not a troll? It's difficult.

The reason why "trollnaming" was introduced was because most posters were too lazy, too cocky even, to actually engage in debate. So, now we're at the point where we've got Joe Biden and one of those North Korean Kims running around the forum. I mean, trollnaming hasn't been a solution because many posters have gone from "trollnaming" to circle-jerking.

Seriously, there are threads out there the thread turns out like this:

A: OP
B: No, just no.
C: Yeah, you showed A, right on dude!
A: Er, what? You didn't actually engage with my argument at all?
B: Thanks C, I know I'm awesome. *bro fist*

That's not debating. That's not being clever. That's not refuting an argument. That's hardening A's opinions the easy way. Then a week later you get the same posters talking about the same stuff and they're surprised (despite A's reaction being the logical outcome of their experience) to find that A believes the same stuff as much as ever.

They've got everything to with the response to the rule.

[Grenartia]

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.

If it's pretty clear that person x is trolling, then moderation will see that person x is trolling.

Also if it's pretty clear that person x is trolling, what good is calling them a troll going to do?

There are occasions where telling somebody that they're trolling, and that trolling is a shitty thing to do, can be a good enough whack with a newspaper to get them to stop.

[Lost heros]

If it's pretty clear that person x is trolling, then moderation will see that person x is trolling.

Also if it's pretty clear that person x is trolling, what good is calling them a troll going to do?

The goal is to tell other posters, "This person does not want to engage in rational discourse. Just put them on ignore and let's move on with our lives." But that is not an option we readily have anymore.

Why do you need to that if it's pretty clear though? Wouldn't everybody already know that person x does not want engage is rational discourse? And if someone doesn't notice this, is it really that hard to shoot him a telegram saying, "Hey I think person x is trolling. I don't think you should respond to him."

[Lost heros]

If it's pretty clear that person x is trolling, then moderation will see that person x is trolling.

Also if it's pretty clear that person x is trolling, what good is calling them a troll going to do?

There are occasions where telling somebody that they're trolling, and that trolling is a shitty thing to do, can be a good enough whack with a newspaper to get them to stop.

Too bad it isn't your job to be dealing that newspaper.

[The Serbian Empire]

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.

At this rate, I will not be DOS until my 75th birthday and by then NSG and/or myself might not be around.

[Luveria]

In regards to the troll naming thing, whoever the mods deem a troll is a troll.

That's why the policy is report suspected trolls to Moderation, while providing evidence that the poster is a troll. It does get dealt with if sufficient evidence is provided.

[Luveria]

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

At this rate, I will not be DOS until my 75th birthday and by then NSG and/or myself might not be around.

As I've said before, the only thing I've learned from my warnings is to be more careful in the same way a convicted criminal learns how to avoid being caught again. I've learned nothing expect how to avoid and evade punishment, but I am honest about that.

[Arumdaum]

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.

Forced retirement?..

[Blasveck]

In regards to the troll naming thing, whoever the mods deem a troll is a troll.

That's why the policy is report suspected trolls to Moderation, while providing evidence that the poster is a troll. It does get dealt with if sufficient evidence is provided.

It's seems like we've provided plenty of evidence on many occasions on account of someone being a troll, and nothing had happened.

But that's just me.

[Grenartia]

Because I recognize the possibility that I could be wrong about my suspicions, and a mod could very well misread a frivolous report as "using mods as a weapon" (i.e., I report poster X because they hold borderline opinion Y, and mod Z interprets my report as just using mods as a weapon to "win" the argument), or something like that.

To my knowledge, that isn't what mods as a weapon is. Mods as a weapon is when a person make threats to report someone unless they do what the person wants.

What I said and what you said don't necessarily have to be considered mutually exclusive.

There are occasions where telling somebody that they're trolling, and that trolling is a shitty thing to do, can be a good enough whack with a newspaper to get them to stop.

Too bad it isn't your job to be dealing that newspaper.

Oftentimes, the mods don't apply the newspaper in the right way. Mainly because you can't be impartial (as mods usually are when acting in their official capacity) and apply it right. They don't get into the meat of why trolling is bad and trolls should feel bad.

[Luveria]

That's why the policy is report suspected trolls to Moderation, while providing evidence that the poster is a troll. It does get dealt with if sufficient evidence is provided.

It's seems like we've provided plenty of evidence on many occasions on account of someone being a troll.

But that's just me.

Yes, and I'm guessing those trolls were "newbies"? It's well known it's standard policy for Moderation to give newbies a free pass because they are a newbie, even though anyone experienced here would tend to argue that such a policy removes any incentive to not be a troll.

[The Serbian Empire]

Ha, found it!
viewtopic.php?p=15784095#p15784095

The report function was decided in thread to not be worth it. The mods wanted nations that were ideally more than two years old to be nominated. I don't think any of those other points are really resolved.

My foresight about respect must have been received as I said I wouldn't be fit to be a mod until my third year.

[Luveria]

Too bad it isn't your job to be dealing that newspaper.

Oftentimes, the mods don't apply the newspaper in the right way. Mainly because you can't be impartial (as mods usually are when acting in their official capacity) and apply it right. They don't get into the meat of why trolling is bad and trolls should feel bad.

Too often they give "the benefit of the doubt", especially when it's something as vile as transphobes trolling transgender people.

[Blasveck]

It's seems like we've provided plenty of evidence on many occasions on account of someone being a troll.

But that's just me.

Yes, and I'm guessing those trolls were "newbies"? It's well known it's standard policy for Moderation to give newbies a free pass because they are a newbie, even though anyone experienced here would tend to argue that such a policy removes any incentive to not be a troll.

I know that.

That doesn't make it okay.

[Blasveck]

Oftentimes, the mods don't apply the newspaper in the right way. Mainly because you can't be impartial (as mods usually are when acting in their official capacity) and apply it right. They don't get into the meat of why trolling is bad and trolls should feel bad.

Too often they give "the benefit of the doubt", especially when it's something as vile as transphobes trolling transgender people.

Or any minority, really.

I mean, let's be honest here.
I, personally, have seen nearly every single minority bashed on here one way or another.

[The Serbian Empire]

At this rate, I will not be DOS until my 75th birthday and by then NSG and/or myself might not be around.

As I've said before, the only thing I've learned from my warnings is to be more careful in the same way a convicted criminal learns how to avoid being caught again. I've learned nothing expect how to avoid and evade punishment, but I am honest about that.

I was cautious from the get go given my region and past that I live under a microscope. It might explain why I rarely find myself in such a position.

[Grenartia]

Oftentimes, the mods don't apply the newspaper in the right way. Mainly because you can't be impartial (as mods usually are when acting in their official capacity) and apply it right. They don't get into the meat of why trolling is bad and trolls should feel bad.

Too often they give "the benefit of the doubt", especially when it's something as vile as transphobes trolling transgender people.

Indeed.

"I don't see how advocating branding trans* people with a T is trolling..."

[Individuality-ness]

Too often they give "the benefit of the doubt", especially when it's something as vile as transphobes trolling transgender people.

Indeed.

"I don't see how advocating branding trans* people with a T is trolling..."

Okay, I'm going to hate myself for this, but it's hunting season my dears. And we're it.

[Forsher]

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.

Broadly speaking, I agree with this.

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

Coming from someone named "Trollgaard"

That's unfair.

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.

I'll tell you what, post-trollnaming the crap that led to this doesn't happen at all.

Enough of the trolling talk about trolls trolling for trolls ... or whatever that was. Get back on topic.

Or, maybe, I'm posting in the wrong threads these days...

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.

Got any proof of that?

Who remembers Teh BBQ aka the "terrosist" speller? The sentiments behind the bolded, I feel, are the same that led to this post. To which I responded with this. Naturally, an opportunity presented itself to use that post.

Responding to a troll is worthless, ergo spam.

I am forced to conclude that this is rubbish.