A Critique of NS Moderation Policy

[Aurora Novus]

It's his site, and therefore his rules and the authorization of people he appointed to uphold said rules. That rather changes a whole lot if we compare it to international politics.

No, it doesn't. Because regardless of what Max Barry can do, it has nothing to do with what would be best to do.

And it's not being denied. You're free to suggest people for mods. You're also free to request rule changes be taken into consideration.

Sugestions are not a truly valid means of influence. Suggestions can simply be ignored. At least in a democracy, my suggestions have a real, functional chance of influencing something.

[Forsakia]

Firstly there's the matter of compulsion, in a state they have legal power over you, including the ability to prevent you leaving etc. The legitimising element of democracy is unnecessary on a private forum that cannot compel you to not go elsewhere for example. Or to take money from you, etc.

Secondly because of the much lower stakes due to the first point it means people are much less likely to take the elections seriously/properly.

Thirdly there's the matter of defining the electorate, in a state with citizenship you can work out a clearly defined electorate. On NSG that's going to be much more difficult (especially relating to option two).

I should note, first of all, Max Barry owning the website still changes nothing with regards to this conversation.

I don't think the legitimacy element is completely without merit however. Whether or not you can leave whenever you wish, you are still a part of a community while you are here. A community wherein you form bonds with others, and engage in social activity. That it is privately owned I'm not seeing as a reason to deny these community members the ability to determine by whom and in what ways they will be regulated.

Lower stakes agains changes nothing. Democracy isn't good because of the stakes of not having it. It's good because of the system itself. Similarly, even if we lived in a totalitarian society that "ruled perfectly", I would still disavow that society, due to it's totalitarianism.

As for the issue with defining the electorate, there are a plethroa of websites out there that run their staff on the basis of democratic election. Clearly this is not an issue that is unassailable.

A key part of the need for democracy is the legitimacy of control over people. The community members have the ability to determine by whom and in what ways they will be regulated, they can go elsewhere to commune or set up their own website. There aren't the same issues in play.

Lower stakes do change things because they affect the seriousness of elections. Few 'for the lulz' candidates get elected in real life. Because of the stakes involved in lawmaking people take it seriously. Without the same consequences there isn't the same tendency towards gravity.

[Aurora Novus]

No, however, they do with regards to my public, and arguably even my private life, as it pertains to NSG.

So must you ask them for permission if you want to log out?

Logging out no. But my private conversations with other members, yeah.

Also, I need moderator permission to log in in a sense. Which in of itself might not seem like a problem, until you encounter the issue where the community might wish for a individual to be a part of it, but the mods deny it. That's incredibly immoral in my eyes.

[Aurora Novus]

A key part of the need for democracy is the legitimacy of control over people.

I don't know where you're getting that from. That is not at all why I support democracy. I don't support democracy out of some idea of legitimacy, I support democracy because democracy in of itself is better than totalitarianism.

Further more, the community members here don't have legitimate represenation as it pertains to their social lives on this forum. That they can leave and go elsewhere does not change that.

I am intertesed more so however in why it is you are so opposed to a democractically run communinty. Can you give me any arguments why it shouldn't be the case? Why totalitarianism is implicitely superior?

Lower stakes do change things because they affect the seriousness of elections. Few 'for the lulz' candidates get elected in real life. Because of the stakes involved in lawmaking people take it seriously. Without the same consequences there isn't the same tendency towards gravity.

I fail to see the problem of "for the lulz" candidates being elected, if the stakes, as you admit yourself, are not as high. Rather it would be the community fulfilling it's desires. That seems like nothing but a good thing.

[The World Famous Octagon]

No, it doesn't. Because regardless of what Max Barry can do, it has nothing to do with what would be best to do.

Sugestions are not a truly valid means of influence. Suggestions can simply be ignored. At least in a democracy, my suggestions have a real, functional chance of influencing something.

If they're approved by a majority, and if they don't violate rights upheld in the law. Which is to say, say you were disliked by the majority of users here. You haven't broken any rules, yet you find your nation deleted and your IP banned. Simply because a majority suggested you shouldn't be here.

Would you be okay with that?

[Herrebrugh]

I really don't see why people are so upset. This moderation team is by far the best one on all forums I frequent and have frequented, and I think the culture on these forums is, undoubtedly also because of our moderation team, very relaxed and friendly. I'm very happy with these mods.

[Aurora Novus]

No, it doesn't. Because regardless of what Max Barry can do, it has nothing to do with what would be best to do.

Sugestions are not a truly valid means of influence. Suggestions can simply be ignored. At least in a democracy, my suggestions have a real, functional chance of influencing something.

If they're approved by a majority, and if they don't violate rights upheld in the law. Which is to say, say you were disliked by the majority of users here. You haven't broken any rules, yet you find your nation deleted and your IP banned. Simply because a majority suggested you shouldn't be here.

Would you be okay with that?

It would be incredibly childish, and I would be morally opposed to it on intellectual grounds, but it would be just. If a community does not want to involve itself with a member, that community should be allowed to make those decisions.

EDIT: I think it's atrocious, but if a community wishes to disavow the idea of free speech, and simply get rid of undesireables, then so be it.

[The World Famous Octagon]

Logging out no. But my private conversations with other members, yeah.

Can moderators see your private conversations without you allowing it? That would defeat the purpose of private messaging.

Also, I need moderator permission to log in in a sense. Which in of itself might not seem like a problem, until you encounter the issue where the community might wish for a individual to be a part of it, but the mods deny it. That's incredibly immoral in my eyes.

I'm given to understand there was a notorious user deleted for illegal activity, having broken not only forum rules by advocating it, but real life laws.

What if the community wanted them back?

[The World Famous Octagon]

It would be incredibly childish, and I would be morally opposed to it on intellectual grounds, but it would be just. If a community does not want to involve itself with a member, that community should be allowed to make those decisions.

EDIT: I think it's atrocious, but if a community wishes to disavow the idea of free speech, and simply get rid of undesireables, then so be it.

You're advocating tyranny by majority. And you accuse the forum of being totalitarian?

[Aurora Novus]

Can moderators see your private conversations without you allowing it? That would defeat the purpose of private messaging.

I know on other websites they can. It would not surprise me if they could here.

I'm given to understand there was a notorious user deleted for illegal activity, having broken not only forum rules by advocating it, but real life laws.

What if the community wanted them back?

Then they should be allowed back.

[Dyakovo]

I think that's a serious possibility.

No. And if this needs explaining, ask Dyakovo.

From The NSG Culture thread...
viewtopic.php?p=15788059#p15788059
viewtopic.php?f=20&t=254256&p=15784310#p15784310

[Aurora Novus]

It would be incredibly childish, and I would be morally opposed to it on intellectual grounds, but it would be just. If a community does not want to involve itself with a member, that community should be allowed to make those decisions.

EDIT: I think it's atrocious, but if a community wishes to disavow the idea of free speech, and simply get rid of undesireables, then so be it.

You're advocating tyranny by majority. And you accuse the forum of being totalitarian?

Tyranny of the majority, and totalitarianism, are not the same thing. Further more, yes, I am. Anything less, and you're living in a prison.

[The World Famous Octagon]

I know on other websites they can. It would not surprise me if they could here.

Then I'm afraid you don't have a point until you have evidence of this.

Then they should be allowed back.

Despite the terms of service and the forum rules?

[The World Famous Octagon]

Tyranny of the majority, and totalitarianism, are not the same thing.

The only difference being a totalitarian regime may not be the majority.

Further more, yes, I am. Anything less, and you're living in a prison.

Are you not able to visit any other site? I wasn't aware.

[Aurora Novus]

Then I'm afraid you don't have a point until you have evidence of this.

Well for one, I used to browse asexuality.org. They have elected mods.

You really need evidence of the existence of forums with elected mods? Really?

Then they should be allowed back.

Despite the terms of service and the forum rules?

I think so, yes. If the community wants to allow someone on the boards, I don't think they should have to grovel at the feet of a superior to do so. They are the community. The website exists for them.

[Aurora Novus]

Tyranny of the majority, and totalitarianism, are not the same thing.

The only difference being a totalitarian regime may not be the majority.

Which is a big difference.

Further more, yes, I am. Anything less, and you're living in a prison.

Are you not able to visit any other site? I wasn't aware.

Come off it. "Submit or GTFO" is a ridiculous argument, and you know it.

[Aurora Novus]

I mean, if you people really want an example of why non-elected mods are a bad thing, I know there was a very nasty issue that went down recently involving a recently banned member. The fact that I have to talk about it like this is a direct result of non-democratically elected mods. They function like gangsters.

[The World Famous Octagon]

Well for one, I used to browse asexuality.org. They have elected mods.

You really need evidence of the existence of forums with elected mods? Really?

Read the quote:

I know on other websites they can. It would not surprise me if they could here.

Then I'm afraid you don't have a point until you have evidence of this.

Find me evidence that the moderators here can read your conversations without you or the other person allowing it.

I think so, yes. If the community wants to allow someone on the boards, I don't think they should have to grovel at the feet of a superior to do so. They are the community. The website exists for them.

So you would be okay with allowing back someone who was banned for advocating acts of pedophilia (yet again, not only having broken forum rules and website terms of service, but real life laws), in this particular case.

You would then be disregarding the rules and the rights of people in the forum (as far as I saw, 13 is the minimal required age for someone to use this site) by having someone that advocates acts of pedophilia.

Is that really the best to do?

[The World Famous Octagon]

Which is a big difference.

When rights are being trampled, it makes no difference whether the majority or a minority is doing it. In my above example, you broke no rules. You were deemed an "undesirable" and taken off the forum without having violated any rules. Your right to use the website was violated.

And you justify it because it was a majority decision.

Yet you do not justify the moderators deleting and banning a member that advocated not only rule breaking, but an unlawful conduct.

Because it was a decision not made by the majority.

So I really do not believe you can deem the forums "totalitarian" while advocating for a different type of "totalitarianism". The only thing that changes is who are the ones in power.

Come off it. "Submit or GTFO" is a ridiculous argument, and you know it.

As are inaccurate, sensationalist comparisons.

[Aurora Novus]

Well for one, I used to browse asexuality.org. They have elected mods.

You really need evidence of the existence of forums with elected mods? Really?

Read the quote:

Then I'm afraid you don't have a point until you have evidence of this.

Find me evidence that the moderators here can read your conversations without you or the other person allowing it.

I misread what you were quoting.

I don't see why I need to. I never claimed they could, I simply said since it's technologically possible, and it's done on other websites, I would not be surprised if it were possible, indeed, I would not be surprised if it were done, on this website. Whether or not it can be has nothing to do with the point I was making however.

So you would be okay with allowing back someone who was banned for advocating acts of pedophilia (yet again, not only having broken forum rules and website terms of service, but real life laws), in this particular case.

Yes. If that's what the communiy wants, that's what they should get.

You would then be disregarding the rules

Rules are quite meaningless to me.

and the rights of people in the forum (as far as I saw, 13 is the minimal required age for someone to use this site) by having someone that advocates acts of pedophilia.

No one has a right to not be exposed to certain points of view. No rights are being violated.

Is that really the best to do?

I think it is the most just, yes. For the reccord, if the community wants totalitarianism, I think they should get it too.

Saying that the community should determine what it wants, is not the same thing as saying I'm okay with everything and anything the community wants. I just think it would be best for these things to be decided on an intellectual basic, by having public discussions, instead of appealing to untouchable powers on high.

[The World Famous Octagon]

I mean, if you people really want an example of why non-elected mods are a bad thing, I know there was a very nasty issue that went down recently involving a recently banned member. The fact that I have to talk about it like this is a direct result of non-democratically elected mods. They function like gangsters.

And it would be a rather example of elected mods being a bad thing if the member I refer to was allowed back (and from what I'm reading, I should add "one more time"), in reverse.

[Forsakia]

A key part of the need for democracy is the legitimacy of control over people.

I don't know where you're getting that from. That is not at all why I support democracy. I don't support democracy out of some idea of legitimacy, I support democracy because democracy in of itself is better than totalitarianism.

It's a reason with a fairly long history in terms of justifying democracy. You don't care about legitimacy in government?

Further more, the community members here don't have legitimate represenation as it pertains to their social lives on this forum. That they can leave and go elsewhere does not change that.

I am intertesed more so however in why it is you are so opposed to a democractically run communinty. Can you give me any arguments why it shouldn't be the case? Why totalitarianism is implicitely superior?

Lower stakes do change things because they affect the seriousness of elections. Few 'for the lulz' candidates get elected in real life. Because of the stakes involved in lawmaking people take it seriously. Without the same consequences there isn't the same tendency towards gravity.

I fail to see the problem of "for the lulz" candidates being elected, if the stakes, as you admit yourself, are not as high. Rather it would be the community fulfilling it's desires. That seems like nothing but a good thing.

[/quote]

In philosophical terms the right of private property etc. Max Berry does own this little bit of the internet and hence can set what rules he likes for those who wish to visit.

In practical what would run best terms, well. Nationstates regions are run in the manner you propose with democratic delegates. See raiding etc.

Were you around when stormfront used to try and invade NSG periodically?

[Aurora Novus]

Which is a big difference.

When rights are being trampled, it makes no difference whether the majority or a minority is doing it.

Well, actually, it make a really big difference. Namely, whether or not the trampling of those rights are what the community at large desires.

In my above example, you broke no rules. You were deemed an "undesirable" and taken off the forum without having violated any rules. Your right to use the website was violated.

And you justify it because it was a majority decision.

Yet you do not justify the moderators deleting and banning a member that advocated not only rule breaking, but an unlawful conduct.

Because it was a decision not made by the majority.

So I really do not believe you can deem the forums "totalitarian" while advocating for a different type of "totalitarianism". The only thing that changes is who are the ones in power.

Yes. I understand that. I'm saying I think the people should be in power, instead of a small, informed minority. Is that really such a controversial claim to make? The fact that it's the community, and not a sheltered group of small individuals, that has power is a huge difference.

As are inaccurate, sensationalist comparisons.

Of which I've made none. A society that functions where the will of the majority is not fulfilled, is a society that functions much like a prison. That you can leave at will doesn't, in any way, change how the society itself is functioning. That one can be free to leave a society does not make the society itself "free". It simply means you can dissasociate yourself from an oppressive regieme.

[Aurora Novus]

I mean, if you people really want an example of why non-elected mods are a bad thing, I know there was a very nasty issue that went down recently involving a recently banned member. The fact that I have to talk about it like this is a direct result of non-democratically elected mods. They function like gangsters.

And it would be a rather example of elected mods being a bad thing if the member I refer to was allowed back (and from what I'm reading, I should add "one more time"), in reverse.

The only reason the situation was bad was because the mods went against what the people desired (harboring someone they evidently wanted gone). That is what made it unjust.

If the people wanted them back, bringing them back would be just.

[Aurora Novus]

In philosophical terms the right of private property etc. Max Berry does own this little bit of the internet and hence can set what rules he likes for those who wish to visit.

I've never duspited that. That he can do that, again, is entirely irrleevant to the discussion.

In practical what would run best terms, well. Nationstates regions are run in the manner you propose with democratic delegates. See raiding etc.

Were you around when stormfront used to try and invade NSG periodically?

No, I was not.