A Critique of NS Moderation Policy

[The World Famous Octagon]

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.

Then you shouldn't have brought it up.

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

So, tyranny by majority. You really are no different than what you accuse the mods of being.

Rules are quite meaningless to me.

Evidently so.

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

People between 13 and whatever age of consent (depending on jurisdiction applicable) being exposed to someone who actually advocates acts of pedophilia, having confessed to having done it in the past sounds like a situation the website would want to prevent.

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

Then you have no right to speak about "democracy".

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.

As I previously said, said channels are not denied. However, they are not mandatory.

[Aurora Novus]

Then you shouldn't have brought it up.

Why? There was no reason not to.

So, tyranny by majority. You really are no different than what you accuse the mods of being.

If you don't understand the fundamental difference between the community running itself, and the community living under the thumb of an untouchable minority, then this discussion can go no further.

People between 13 and whatever age of consent (depending on jurisdiction applicable) being exposed to someone who actually advocates acts of pedophilia, having confessed to having done it in the past sounds like a situation the website would want to prevent.

Then the community is more than welcome to prevent it, if it so desires. It should not be made to prevent it however when it does not wish to.

Then you have no right to speak about "democracy".

On what grounds? Because it's inconvinient for you?

As I previously said, said channels are not denied. However, they are not mandatory.

I have no clue what you're talking about here.

[The World Famous Octagon]

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

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.

It doesn't matter whether it is the "community" or a group of "sheltered individuals". A denial of upheld rights consolidated in the rules is injustified regardless of who is the one doing it.

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.

Society works very much as intended if the will of the majority isn't able to trample individual rights. Such is why most States live under rule of law.

[Forsakia]

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.

Pretty much what it says on the tin. The NSG community was periodically joined by a lot of white supremacists (they'd usually get beaten back, then leave and wait a while before trying again).

[Norstal]

Makes me feel like there should always be two Mods to review a case.

Now that I think about it...wouldn't that be somewhat of a good measurement? Or would it be too time-consuming to pull off? Maybe have a second mod review the first mod's rulings, as a check of sorts. Mods do make mistakes, or feel under the weather, etc.

I'd actually really like this. Could you bring it up in the modcave?

Um... that's why you guys are allowed to ask for a second opinion...

And can appeal rulings.

viewtopic.php?f=16&t=263883

I've seen a lot of the above example. Really hard to appeal when, you know, you don't know how to in the first place. In that, if they're objecting to a moderation's action, you shouldn't just shut down the report thread IF you're allowing appeals. Not everyone can make an appeal like a real life lawyer.

There's also a lot of moderation thread reports that goes unreplied, for whatever reason. I won't accept the "mods have lives" argument for this one since sometimes these threads are in the front page and have been unreplied for a day or so.

[Aurora Novus]

It doesn't matter whether it is the "community" or a group of "sheltered individuals". A denial of upheld rights consolidated in the rules is injustified regardless of who is the one doing it.

Well, not really, no. Rights only exist in so far as we blieve they should exist. If a community decides it does not believe in a sepcific right, that right ceases to exist.

As I said, if you cannot understand the fundamental difference between a community ruling itself, and an untouchable eliete ruling a community, then this discussion can go no further. Because nothing I will say will mean anything to you.

[Aurora Novus]

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




No, I was not.

Pretty much what it says on the tin. The NSG community was periodically joined by a lot of white supremacists (they'd usually get beaten back, then leave and wait a while before trying again).

Interesting. But where are you going with this?

[The World Famous Octagon]

If you don't understand the fundamental difference between the community running itself, and the community living under the thumb of an untouchable minority, then this discussion can go no further.

As I said, the only difference between tyranny by majority and totalitarianism, is who would then be trampling individual rights.

Then the community is more than welcome to prevent it, if it so desires. It should not be made to prevent it however when it does not wish to.

As per Max Barry owning the site, having established the terms and conditions, the rules of conduct to prevent said outcome were already there since the beginning, and enforced. What the community might think is irrelevant.

On what grounds? Because it's inconvinient for you?

Because you do not know what the word means.

I have no clue what you're talking about here.

Then you need to read upon what we've been discussing.

[Forsakia]

Pretty much what it says on the tin. The NSG community was periodically joined by a lot of white supremacists (they'd usually get beaten back, then leave and wait a while before trying again).

Interesting. But where are you going with this?

Essentially the problem with your use of the word community and it expressing it's will. Where membership of the community is very easy to enter and leave.

[Aurora Novus]

If you don't understand the fundamental difference between the community running itself, and the community living under the thumb of an untouchable minority, then this discussion can go no further.

As I said, the only difference between tyranny by majority and totalitarianism, is who would then be trampling individual rights.

A statement which shows a lack of understanding of the fundamental difference I'm talking about.

As per Max Barry owning the site, having established the terms and conditions, the rules of conduct to prevent said outcome were already there since the beginning, and enforced. What the community might think is irrelevant.

I'm not disputing what is. I'm saying what should be.

Because you do not know what the word means.

In otherwords, because what I'm saying is inconvinient to your worldview. Gotcha.

Then you need to read upon what we've been discussing.

Or perhaps you could just explain yourself instead.

[Aurora Novus]

Interesting. But where are you going with this?

Essentially the problem with your use of the word community and it expressing it's will. Where membership of the community is very easy to enter and leave.

I suppose that is a problem that I don't have an answer to at the moment.

[Esternial]

Um... that's why you guys are allowed to ask for a second opinion...

And can appeal rulings.

viewtopic.php?f=16&t=263883

I've seen a lot of the above example. Really hard to appeal when, you know, you don't know how to in the first place. In that, if they're objecting to a moderation's action, you shouldn't just shut down the report thread IF you're allowing appeals. Not everyone can make an appeal like a real life lawyer.

There's also a lot of moderation thread reports that goes unreplied, for whatever reason. I won't accept the "mods have lives" argument for this one since sometimes these threads are in the front page and have been unreplied for a day or so.

Well, if you're really certain of your case and have the motivation to back it up, I don't see why you shouldn't be able to make a new thread for an appeal.

Admittedly, whether we like it or not, if you know the art of rhetoric you probably have a better chance at convincing people. This counts out there in the real world as much as it does on some online forum.

[The World Famous Octagon]

Well, not really, no. Rights only exist in so far as we blieve they should exist. If a community decides it does not believe in a sepcific right, that right ceases to exist.

So why are you saying that Max Barry owning the site changes nothing? Max Barry lets you know in the FAQs, quite clearly.

It's free speech, so I can post whatever I like here, right?

Ahahahaha! Hahaha! Free speech! No, it's not. I run this web site, see, so you have to play by my rules. It's like my own Father Knows Best state.

What can I post?

You can discuss and argue about almost anything, so long as it's vaguely relevant to politics or NationStates and doesn't fall into any of the categories below. You don't have to be politically correct, but you must maintain a minimum standard of behavior.

What can't I post?

Any content that is:

obscene
illegal
threatening
malicious
defamatory
spam

This applies to your nation's name, motto, and other customizable fields, any messages you write, images you post, or any other content you upload or link to NationStates. If you do, your nation will be deleted. See the site's Terms & Conditions and One Stop Rules Shop for details.

Max Barry is telling you that in his website, there is no right to free speech. Why would you object to this if you advocate for "the community" to do the same?

As I said, if you cannot understand the fundamental difference between a community ruling itself, and an untouchable eliete ruling a community, then this discussion can go no further. Because nothing I will say will mean anything to you.

It only tells me that as part of the community, you would like to have a say.

The only solution I see for that, is you making your own website.

[Grenartia]

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'?

Indeed. If you can call for branding trans* people with the infamous "T", why can't you call for branding, say, Christians with a cross? Or gay people with a "G"? Or an interracial couple and their kids with "RACE MIXERS"?

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

2. 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 3. then end with something like, "I think you're trolling" because, hey, what was banned was "troll" spamming.

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"?

4) That is, however, what trollnaming outlawed.

5) 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.

6) 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. 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.

7) 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.

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.

1. If you read any of my other posts ITT, you'd realize why I didn't.

2. Maybe.

3. Can't do that with the trollnaming rule in place. That's why I oppose it.

4. In addition to the above.

5. OR, it could be that the only reason FST made those threads was to troll.

6. Its pretty fucking easy to not realize you've been reported for anything. In fact, you practically have to look through every thread in Moderation to know whether or not you've been reported for something.

7. Not when I do what you suggest in point 3 (which I had done in the past before trollnaming was enacted).

8. No. Reporting a single instance (post) of trolling is only reporting a single instance of trolling, which, believe it or not, is still an offense, regardless if it happens only one time or a thousand.

[Aurora Novus]

Well, not really, no. Rights only exist in so far as we blieve they should exist. If a community decides it does not believe in a sepcific right, that right ceases to exist.

So why are you saying that Max Barry owning the site changes nothing? Max Barry lets you know in the FAQs, quite clearly.

Max Barry is telling you that in his website, there is no right to free speech. Why would you object to this if you advocate for "the community" to do the same?

Because Max Barry is one man. Again, you don't understand the fundamental difference between the community ruling itself, and the community being ruled by an eliete. The fact that Max Barry owns the site changes nothing, yes. Because I'm talking about what should be, not what is.

[The World Famous Octagon]

A statement which shows a lack of understanding of the fundamental difference I'm talking about.

Something I note that, for the moment, you have not explained.

I'm not disputing what is. I'm saying what should be.

I'm telling you that what you think should be is no different than what is. Only you would have a say.

In otherwords, because what I'm saying is inconvinient to your worldview. Gotcha.

Inconvenient? Why would it? You're the one inconvenienced, that much you're making clear.

Or perhaps you could just explain yourself instead.

I was referring to the examples of suggesting people to be moderators, and suggesting for changes to be made in the rules. These are channels you have to voice your opinion on how the website should be run.

It doesn't mean you, or the community's opinion, should be mandatory.

[Divair]

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

Thank you.

[Blasveck]

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'?

Indeed. If you can call for branding trans* people with the infamous "T", why can't you call for branding, say, Christians with a cross? Or gay people with a "G"? Or an interracial couple and their kids with "RACE MIXERS"?

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

2. 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 3. then end with something like, "I think you're trolling" because, hey, what was banned was "troll" spamming.



4) That is, however, what trollnaming outlawed.

5) 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.

6) 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.



7) 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.

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.

1. If you read any of my other posts ITT, you'd realize why I didn't.

2. Maybe.

3. Can't do that with the trollnaming rule in place. That's why I oppose it.

4. In addition to the above.

5. OR, it could be that the only reason FST made those threads was to troll.

6. Its pretty fucking easy to not realize you've been reported for anything. In fact, you practically have to look through every thread in Moderation to know whether or not you've been reported for something.

7. Not when I do what you suggest in point 3 (which I had done in the past before trollnaming was enacted).

8. No. Reporting a single instance (post) of trolling is only reporting a single instance of trolling, which, believe it or not, is still an offense, regardless if it happens only one time or a thousand.

For that bit about the "T" issue, I think is has something to do with the still-present confusion and general hostility and misunderstanding about the trans* community.

And general assholery as well.

[The World Famous Octagon]

Because Max Barry is one man.

Yet he is the one who holds the power over this website existing. This is not in any way comparable with international politics.

Again, you don't understand the fundamental difference between the community ruling itself, and the community being ruled by an eliete.

I do. That's why I'm telling you it's not possible in a private website, owned by one man.

The fact that Max Barry owns the site changes nothing, yes. Because I'm talking about what should be, not what is.

If you wish for the community to rule itself, you'll have to do it somewhere where you, as part of the community, have the power over its existence.

You'd need to take over the NationStates website, or else, make your own.

[Luveria]

Indeed. If you can call for branding trans* people with the infamous "T", why can't you call for branding, say, Christians with a cross? Or gay people with a "G"? Or an interracial couple and their kids with "RACE MIXERS"?



1. If you read any of my other posts ITT, you'd realize why I didn't.

2. Maybe.

3. Can't do that with the trollnaming rule in place. That's why I oppose it.

4. In addition to the above.

5. OR, it could be that the only reason FST made those threads was to troll.

6. Its pretty fucking easy to not realize you've been reported for anything. In fact, you practically have to look through every thread in Moderation to know whether or not you've been reported for something.

7. Not when I do what you suggest in point 3 (which I had done in the past before trollnaming was enacted).

8. No. Reporting a single instance (post) of trolling is only reporting a single instance of trolling, which, believe it or not, is still an offense, regardless if it happens only one time or a thousand.

For that bit about the "T" issue, I think is has something to do with the still-present confusion and general hostility and misunderstanding about the trans* community.

And general assholery as well.

Or what it really is. Institutionalized transphobia because the mods tend to be oblivious to when something is transphobic. I provided a parallel example of how branding Jews with a Star of David would be a ban. But say it about transgender people? The mods will say the poster is only expressing their opinion, while ignoring it's blatantly trolling, only because transgender people are the target of it.

[Aurora Novus]

A statement which shows a lack of understanding of the fundamental difference I'm talking about.

Something I note that, for the moment, you have not explained.

I've explained several times in this thread. You've just failed to comprehend it. I don't know what more you want me to tell you. Everyt time I explain the difference to you, you just come back and say "Yeah but it's not different so nyeh!" If you can't comprehend the difference, the argument can go no further.

I'm not disputing what is. I'm saying what should be.

I'm telling you that what you think should be is no different than what is. Only you would have a say.

The very fact that I would say is what makes it different. Again you show a display of ignorance of the fundamental difference between a community ruling itself, and a community being ruled by those on high.

Inconvenient? Why would it? You're the one inconvenienced, that much you're making clear.

I'm not inconvinienced by you accusing me of not being democratic. you doing so serves as evidence for me and others that you don't know what democracy is, and that you're merely accusig me of such because what I'm saying is inconvinient for you. *shrugs*. It doesn't surprise me, cosidering you continue to deny the difference between rule by the majority and rule by the eliete.

I was referring to the examples of suggesting people to be moderators, and suggesting for changes to be made in the rules. These are channels you have to voice your opinion on how the website should be run.

It doesn't mean you, or the community's opinion, should be mandatory.

Well I never said my individual voice should be mandatory. But if my voice is matched by the majority, yes, it should be mandatory. The fact that it can't be in the current setup is a problem.

[Blasveck]

For that bit about the "T" issue, I think is has something to do with the still-present confusion and general hostility and misunderstanding about the trans* community.

And general assholery as well.

Or what it really is. Institutionalized transphobia because the mods tend to be oblivious to when something is transphobic. I provided a parallel example of how branding Jews with a Star of David would be a ban. But say it about transgender people? The mods will say the poster is only expressing their opinion, while ignoring it's blatantly trolling, only because transgender people are the target of it.

I doubt that they are oblivious.

They just don't understand it, and therefore can't make a proper judgement about whether or not something is blatantly transphobia or trolling.

[Aurora Novus]

Yet he is the one who holds the power over this website existing. This is not in any way comparable with international politics.

It is entirely comparable, as I have outlined previously.

I do. That's why I'm telling you it's not possible in a private website, owned by one man.

It is if that one man changes his policies, or allows changes in his policies by others. Which is essentially what I'm advocating for. So you can bring up all day the fact that Max Barry owns the website, but it is not a rebuttle.

[Edlichbury]

Indeed. If you can call for branding trans* people with the infamous "T", why can't you call for branding, say, Christians with a cross? Or gay people with a "G"? Or an interracial couple and their kids with "RACE MIXERS"?



1. If you read any of my other posts ITT, you'd realize why I didn't.

2. Maybe.

3. Can't do that with the trollnaming rule in place. That's why I oppose it.

4. In addition to the above.

5. OR, it could be that the only reason FST made those threads was to troll.

6. Its pretty fucking easy to not realize you've been reported for anything. In fact, you practically have to look through every thread in Moderation to know whether or not you've been reported for something.

7. Not when I do what you suggest in point 3 (which I had done in the past before trollnaming was enacted).

8. No. Reporting a single instance (post) of trolling is only reporting a single instance of trolling, which, believe it or not, is still an offense, regardless if it happens only one time or a thousand.

For that bit about the "T" issue, I think is has something to do with the still-present confusion and general hostility and misunderstanding about the trans* community.

And general assholery as well.

That's an issue. We can't have moderation that is frankly ignorant of these issues still decide to make rulings, especially when we've had moderators quite publicly state their opinion in moderation threads.

[The Black Forrest]

Because it never was democracy in the first place.

Well..at least in a democracy we can vote out those that don't use their powers well....and if we elect idiots we only have ourselves to blame.

How do you define a "good" moderator. It often means annoying people as NSG gets quite a few visitors who think "you can't tell me what to do....."

Mod elections are a bad idea.

The process in place is good.