A Critique of NS Moderation Policy

[Lost heros]

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.

You're right, but what you claimed to be mods as weapons isn't.
http://forum.nationstates.net/viewtopic.php?p=16394949#p16394949

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.

And so it all boils down to this. Basically your entire argument is, "Mods don't know how to treat trolls, but I do!"
More often than not, when I see a new nation that has broken site rules. The mods generally give them a newspaper whack, directions to the one stop rules shop, and a telegram.

[Aurora Novus]

I haven't read the topic yet, as a note.

I know recently I tried reporting someone for making sweeping, inaccurate generalizations about Socialism, and engaging in close-minded behavior designed to shut down, not engage in, argument, as trolling. And I was essentially threatened out of doing so, due to the "we'll review all posts in the thread" method. Because according to the staff, such behavior does not, by some logic, fall under the "All X are Y" trolling rule, but me, in a completely non-inflamatory manner, quoting someone's post, striking a word, and replacing with the objectively correct word, is somehow trolling. So making sweeping generalizations that are entirely inaccurate, and attemping to shut down argument by refusing to listen to what anyone says (indeed, accusing people of lying about their own beliefs), is not actionable, but fixing someone's error in terminology is?

As I said then, it's the reasoning of the madhouse.

[Dakini]

I haven't read the topic yet, as a note.

I know recently I tried reporting someone for making sweeping, inaccurate generalizations about Socialism, and engaging in close-minded behavior designed to shut down, not engage in, argument, as trolling. And I was essentially threatened out of doing so, due to the "we'll review all posts in the thread" method. Because according to the staff, such behavior does not, by some logic, fall under the "All X are Y" trolling rule, but me, in a completely non-inflamatory manner, quoting someone's post, striking a word, and replacing with the objectively correct word, is somehow trolling. So making sweeping generalizations that are entirely inaccurate, and attemping to shut down argument by refusing to listen to what anyone says (indeed, accusing people of lying about their own beliefs), is not actionable, but fixing someone's error in terminology is?

As I said then, it's the reasoning of the madhouse.

The problem with the "All X are Y" rule of thumb is that it means that people can instead say "X are Y" to avoid the ruling of the mods. Somehow, the "all" makes all the difference in the world.

[Luveria]

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..."

Ask more transgender people. I've spoken to quite a few who compared it to branding Jews with a Star of David tattoo. That would be an instant ban. Why is it always acceptable to be intentionally malicious to transgender people who are already by far the most vulnerable minority on NSG'?

[Vazdania]

Yes again, dear NS. A discussion on moderation policy. A long overdue one, this time examining the underlying causes of moderation's woes.

I'll begin with this gem:
"We still probably won't be able to keep the proverbial eye on all threads, since the forum is so large, so we will probably have to continue relying at least in part on player complaints. However, whereas in the past, complaints have tended to be dealt with on a singular basis, we're now adopting a more thorough procedure. When you report someone for flaming/trolling/baiting or what-have-you, we're going to review the entire thread, and hand out warnings accordingly. For longer threads, this may mean they'll be locked for a brief time, affording its participants a 'cooling off' period, and give us a better insight into context. So reporting someone for rulebreaking might result in their being warned, it will (since it's not uncommon to find that someone else broke the rules as well at some earlier point) also possibly have Unintended Consequences, either for yourself or someone else."
This change in policy came four years ago, yet still moderation routinely fails to review the entire thread. We know this, as one mod's failure to thoroughly read through a thread kicked off the most recent forum outrage.

Next, from the OSRS:
"Trolling is defined as posts that are made with the aim of angering people. (like 'ALL JEWS ARE [insert vile comment here]' for example)."
It is a fairly simple policy, as such when moderation receives a report that a player has made such a comment, in that case claiming that male-feminists are "pussy-whipped beta males," or for example, "All transpeople are vile and mentally unstable," there would be action taken, right?

Oh no. The former was deemed non-actionable, the latter ignored in the first review of the thread, deemed non-actionable in the second, and deemed actionable (though no action was actually taken) on the third review while the post (and the entire thread it was in) was deleted while their still was an ambiguous ruling. When asked about this, the moderation thread was locked and claimed to be resolved even though three separate players had outstanidng, unanswered reports.

In the pasts weeks, moderation has deemed that calling for violence against other players was not actionable. Calling other posters "scum" or similar attacks was not actionable. The only thing that has been found consistently actionable is calling other posters "idiotic" or "trolls," though the mod staff itself does both with alarming frequency.

Now this raises two simple questions:
Is there any reason why the mods have made their vitriolic dislike of actual rules so well known whilst also attempting to set down further rules for all players to follow?
Has moderation ever publicly admitted fault for a decision or post made by a moderator?
As it stands, we have a moderation team that, by and large, has decided that they can unilaterally make up rules and break them, but are also never at fault for the consequences of these decisions. It is a system that holds no consistency, no integrity, and no accountability.
And we, as a community, have been aware of these faults for four years.

Why the hell has nothing changed, and why are we okay with that?

Well personally I think the Moderation does an excellent job.

[Aurora Novus]

I haven't read the topic yet, as a note.

I know recently I tried reporting someone for making sweeping, inaccurate generalizations about Socialism, and engaging in close-minded behavior designed to shut down, not engage in, argument, as trolling. And I was essentially threatened out of doing so, due to the "we'll review all posts in the thread" method. Because according to the staff, such behavior does not, by some logic, fall under the "All X are Y" trolling rule, but me, in a completely non-inflamatory manner, quoting someone's post, striking a word, and replacing with the objectively correct word, is somehow trolling. So making sweeping generalizations that are entirely inaccurate, and attemping to shut down argument by refusing to listen to what anyone says (indeed, accusing people of lying about their own beliefs), is not actionable, but fixing someone's error in terminology is?

As I said then, it's the reasoning of the madhouse.

The problem with the "All X are Y" rule of thumb is that it means that people can instead say "X are Y" to avoid the ruling of the mods. Somehow, the "all" makes all the difference in the world.

Oh I don't deny there are problems with the "All X are Y" rule as it is. My problem is that engaging in intellectualy dishonest behavior is less actionable to the mods, that correcting someone's terminology, and that I was more or less threatened out of reporting something, because, as they put it, if they reviewed the thread, "the results may not be to [my] tastes".

[The Black Forrest]

I haven't read the topic yet, as a note.

I know recently I tried reporting someone for making sweeping, inaccurate generalizations about Socialism,

Being wrong about something is not actionable.

and engaging in close-minded behavior designed to shut down, not engage in, argument, as trolling.

Being close-minded is not exactly trolling.

And I was essentially threatened out of doing so, due to the "we'll review all posts in the thread" method. Because according to the staff,

Well? Not having seen the threats; I would ask could it have been how you present yourself? For example, getting pissy because you didn't get an instant response?

such behavior does not, by some logic, fall under the "All X are Y" trolling rule, but me, in a completely non-inflamatory manner, quoting someone's post, striking a word, and replacing with the objectively correct word, is somehow trolling.

Hmmmm? Personally, I don't like the "let me fix that for you" posts. Changing somebodies post can push the boundary of trolling. A simple reply pointing out why a comment is wrong avoids it.

So making sweeping generalizations that are entirely inaccurate, and attemping to shut down argument by refusing to listen to what anyone says (indeed, accusing people of lying about their own beliefs), is not actionable, but fixing someone's error in terminology is?

Actually no not really.

If a person is going to parrot the same wrong? Why do you feel the need to make sure they say the right thing?

Don't respond to them.

If they are a troll, you shouldn't respond to them anyway. They get bored and move on when they don't get a response.

As I said then, it's the reasoning of the madhouse.

Not really. It's not the mods job to correct people espousing things you think are wrong or don't like. If the accused troll wasn't posting in a fashion that is designed to elicit emotion.......

[Forsher]

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 they were a troll, you should have reported them. You could also ignore them in thread.

Alternatively, you could write a post that would show the stupidity of what they were doing and refer back to that when other people ran into them. Plus, there's the fact you could make a proper post and then end with something like, "I think you're trolling" because, hey, what was banned was "troll" spamming.

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"?

1) That is, however, what trollnaming outlawed.

2) That sounds a lot like you disagree with their actions/ideas. Take Xero, I appear to be the only person who thinks he is a troll. Would trollnaming do anything at all? No. Not a single thing. FST's main problem was that he'd make a thread, it's be quite innocuous but because of his reputation it instead basically became an interview (and given CVT Temp was fond of asking about FST this is unsurprising) FST was perfectly willing to carry on like that for pages.

3) They'll possibly become aware of that they've been reported. Whatever mod looks at it may agree. It will actually achieve something unlike trollnaming, which tends to just ruin the thread's ability for rational discussion.

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.

1) And yet, somehow, you think what amounts to slander/libel/defamation/whichever actually applies is appropriate based on hunches? Especially given the likelihood that this will clutter the thread up and shut down reasonable discussion.

2) To be honest, no-one should be basing reports off a single post. It's like taking two minutes ago and using that as evidence that it rained all day today. You seem to think this way as well. The difference is that you think that such limited points of reference are still appropriate to make a judgement, as long as it is not one to report. This is a disconnect.

[Genivaria]

However, whereas in the past, complaints have tended to be dealt with on a singular basis, we're now adopting a more thorough procedure. When you report someone for flaming/trolling/baiting or what-have-you, we're going to review the entire thread, and hand out warnings accordingly.

In all honesty I very much approve of this new policy. Thoroughness is always good.

[Aurora Novus]

I haven't read the topic yet, as a note.

I know recently I tried reporting someone for making sweeping, inaccurate generalizations about Socialism,

Being wrong about something is not actionable.

and engaging in close-minded behavior designed to shut down, not engage in, argument, as trolling.

Being close-minded is not exactly trolling.

And I was essentially threatened out of doing so, due to the "we'll review all posts in the thread" method. Because according to the staff,

I must disagree. Indeed, being wrong itself is not actionable, and being close-minded itslf is not actionable. But I think there is a very obvious point where one is simply ignorant, and one is trolling. If the "All X are Y" rule cannot be used to give a quick slap to those who do nothing but attack strawmen, and engage in behavior designed to shut down, not advance, argument, what good is it?

Well? Not having seen the threats; I would ask could it have been how you present yourself? For example, getting pissy because you didn't get an instant response?

If you must, you can review the thread here.

Hmmmm? Personally, I don't like the "let me fix that for you" posts. Changing somebodies post can push the boundary of trolling. A simple reply pointing out why a comment is wrong avoids it.

So let me get this straight. This:

Again, that was Stalinism, not Marxist Socialism. Why do you keep refusing to acknowledge this fact? Do you not understand the difference between dictatorship, and democracy?




Which is not, in any way, a rebuttle to what I've claimed.




Agai, a curious fact that I never denied. I only brought up the US as an example of a nation that would most likely have to experience violent revolution, due to the corruption of it's political system. I was not saying all nations would have to under go violent revolution because of the US, I was talking specifically about a single country. Please, drop the strawmen. It's getting tiresome.



What an arrogant claim to make. I am insulted.




Why do you insist on pushing this strawmen? Are you incapable of understanding the clear differenes in ideology I've been pointing out to you?

Denial is not just a river in Egypt. The fact that we here in Europe know what communism is: hell.. half of Europe lived under it for generations (and look at how they came out of it. Poor Eastern Europeans. They had a very rough time. Particularly Romania) while the other half armed themselves to the teeth knowing that they might have to fight it to the death in order to keep it out of their country while Reds in general were, and to an extent still are, seen as traitors. In order to understand that harsh attitude look at Hitler Germany and the occupation we faced by the Nazi's. Generations of Europeans knew what was awaiting them: slavery and death.

Slavery and death and that's all that communism is and will ever be. I don't care what name you give it: it's all the bloody same in the end. It's communism. It's Red Tyranny.

I've never supported North Korea, nor ever claimed it was democratic. So, yes, this is by definition a strawman.

Not really. Because I am quite sure that you and your fellow commies would back in the day have cheered them on as "the great alternative" and denounced any reports of their crimes (which can, in the age of the internet, no longer be denied) as "capitalism propaganda".

Free Tristania, do you recognize there are different branches of Socialist thought? Yes or no.

No. It''s all the same. The only variants that do exist are there because of the ego's of a certain "Great Leader " in a particular country that wanted to model Communism around his own personality cult.

Because it's not. I've already explained to you my beliefs, so unless you're accusing me of lying about my beliefs, I am living proof that you are wrong.

Are you accusing me of lying?

Do you want me to be honest with you ? Yes.

Name one communist country where the situation didn't deteriorate in mass murder, deportation or oppression. Just one.

Is not trolling. But this:

Of course not. Communism Stalinism was worse than the Nazi's. Even worse than Crapitalism. Which is bad enough as it is.

Fix'd.

Is trolling?


Well if that's what you think then I have failed to make my case ladies and gentlemen, and nothing I could say further would convince you otherwise. I hold this is insane reasoning. That behavior designed to shut down argument isn't considering trolling, but non-inflamatory behavior designed to engage in argument is is, I think, a failure of the system. If you don't understand how saying the former is non-actionable, but the latter is actionable, and if you don't understand how threatening a member out of reporting someone by virtue of this dichotomy existing, is completely and utterly bonkers, then nothing more I can say will convince you otherwise.

[Individuality-ness]

However, whereas in the past, complaints have tended to be dealt with on a singular basis, we're now adopting a more thorough procedure. When you report someone for flaming/trolling/baiting or what-have-you, we're going to review the entire thread, and hand out warnings accordingly.

In all honesty I very much approve of this new policy. Thoroughness is always good.

That's not a new policy. That was the policy they adopted four years ago, I thought.

[Genivaria]

In all honesty I very much approve of this new policy. Thoroughness is always good.

That's not a new policy. That was the policy they adopted four years ago, I thought.

The context of the OP made me think it was new.
Apologies.

[Individuality-ness]

That's not a new policy. That was the policy they adopted four years ago, I thought.

The context of the OP made me think it was new.
Apologies.

You might want to read the OP's commentary of that too next time.

[Luveria]

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..."

That's what pisses me off about this site, along with many other transgender posters I know who wonder why it's okay for them to be treated as lesser than shit.

[Edlichbury]

The context of the OP made me think it was new.
Apologies.

You might want to read the OP's commentary of that too next time.

I wasn't even here for that rule change. Thanks to Neo for that piece of history.

[Individuality-ness]

You might want to read the OP's commentary of that too next time.

I wasn't even here for that rule change. Thanks to Neo for that piece of history.

I thought it was the Cat Tribes. Hm.

Edit: You were right, I was wrong. Sorry about that, I retract.

[Edlichbury]

I wasn't even here for that rule change. Thanks to Neo for that piece of history.

I thought it was the Cat Tribes. Hm.

Cat Tribes provided part of the second critique. Neo provided the history behind the first.

[Individuality-ness]

I thought it was the Cat Tribes. Hm.

Cat Tribes provided part of the second critique. Neo provided the history behind the first.

Yeah, I just checked, I was wrong. I retract and apologize.

[The Corparation]

Cat Tribes provided part of the second critique. Neo provided the history behind the first.

Yeah, I just checked, I was wrong. I retract and apologize.

Bad Indi! Bad. This NS. You can't retract a statement or ever admit error. That goes double for apologizing. Stuff like this makes people think this is a civil place and gives the forum a bad name.

[Individuality-ness]

Yeah, I just checked, I was wrong. I retract and apologize.

Bad Indi! Bad. This NS. You can't retract a statement or ever admit error. That goes double for apologizing. Stuff like this makes people think this is a civil place and gives the forum a bad name.

But what if I want it to be that place?

[The Black Forrest]

*snip*

The quoting was hurting my eyes

But to give my comments....

The denial comment? Not really

The North Korea comment. Not Really. The "Back in the day, you...." comment simply suggests that back then you would probably have been saying those things.

The Do you see the differences comment? You asked a question and he answered. Not seeing how he trolled.

The lying comment? You asked if he thought you were lying and he answered. Not seeing how he trolled.

As to your edit being called trolling? There was a mod judgement on that? Where was that?

[The Corparation]

Bad Indi! Bad. This NS. You can't retract a statement or ever admit error. That goes double for apologizing. Stuff like this makes people think this is a civil place and gives the forum a bad name.

But what if I want it to be that place?

Then shame on you for thinking an internet forum could be civil.

[Aurora Novus]

*snip*

The quoting was hurting my eyes

But to give my comments....

The denial comment? Not really

The North Korea comment. Not Really. The "Back in the day, you...." comment simply suggests that back then you would probably have been saying those things.

The Do you see the differences comment? You asked a question and he answered. Not seeing how he trolled.

The lying comment? You asked if he thought you were lying and he answered. Not seeing how he trolled.

Because in all those situations, the behavior is designed to shut down argument, and not listen to anything anyone else has to say. That is, in my opinion, the definition of trolling. Whether or not I asked him questions doesn't mean he cannot be trolling.

Denying the existence of different schools of thought within an ideology, and claiming that all Communists/Socialists are for bloodshed and oppression, is by my account, the textbook example of "All X are Y" trolling. Accusing someone of lying about their beliefs, and insinuating you know better than them with regards to what they are thinking, is trolling. You have to jump through logical hoops to think otherwise.

As to your edit being called trolling? There was a mod judgement on that? Where was that?

In the link I posted. It was not directly labeled trolling, but it insinuated that it would be ruled as such if I pressed the issue of this person's comments.

[The Black Forrest]

The quoting was hurting my eyes

But to give my comments....

The denial comment? Not really

The North Korea comment. Not Really. The "Back in the day, you...." comment simply suggests that back then you would probably have been saying those things.

The Do you see the differences comment? You asked a question and he answered. Not seeing how he trolled.

The lying comment? You asked if he thought you were lying and he answered. Not seeing how he trolled.

Because in all those situations, the behavior is designed to shut down argument, and not listen to anything anyone else has to say. That is, in my opinion, the definition of trolling. Whether or not I asked him questions doesn't mean he cannot be trolling.

I am not seeing the attempt to end the argument. That person argued with anybody who would argue with him. One of those people even suggested you be careful as you could be called for flaming.

I am not seeing the label of "troll" being warranted. You might argue his mind is closed. Then the next it why get upset by it and continue?

As to your edit being called trolling? There was a mod judgement on that? Where was that?

In the link I posted. I was not directly labeled trolling, but it insinuated that it would be ruled as such if I pressed the issue of this person's comments.

It could be. Again a simply reply to the comment of "Again Stalinism is not communism" would avoid it.

[Aurora Novus]

I am not seeing the attempt to end the argument.

You don't see saying "All Communism is Y, and if you don't agree, you're lying" as attempting to shut down argument?

Well then I'm sorry, but we have a fundamental disagreement of what constitutes "attempting to shut down argument".

That person argued with anybody who would argue with him. One of those people even suggested you be careful as you could be called for flaming.

The mere act of arguing does not mean one is not attempting to shut down argument. Indeed, it is the unique trait of trolls to try and rile people up, and get them to argue, by shutting down argument.

It could be. Again a simply reply to the comment of "Again Stalinism is not communism" would avoid it.

There is no functional difference between the two. My post was not infalamtory, so to call it trolling is simply ludicrous. To call it trolling while not calling the former trolling is absolute insanity.