A Critique of NS Moderation Policy

[Blasveck]

No one will want to admit that they have any bias agains anybody's

And besides, who will replace them? I think that is one of, if not the most important, questions that need to be asked and answered, alongside "Which mods need dropping?"

If mods are dropped, you can simply run another round of nominations & subsequent investigations. Time-consuming, but theoretically worth it.

It doesn't seem like much has changed since we appointed Blaat and Farn.

I doubt much will change a second time round.

[Divair]

If mods are dropped, you can simply run another round of nominations & subsequent investigations. Time-consuming, but theoretically worth it.

It doesn't seem like much has changed since we appointed Blaat and Farn.

I doubt much will change a second time round.

Mods weren't dropped.

[Blasveck]

It doesn't seem like much has changed since we appointed Blaat and Farn.

I doubt much will change a second time round.

Mods weren't dropped.

......I didn't say that any mods were dropped.

[The World Famous Octagon]

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.

What's the difference between a tyranny by majority and a dictatorship of an elite, or a single man?

Only its number, unless you have something else.

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

And I'm telling you that what should be isn't any different. Yet you seem deadlocked on repeating the same argument.

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.

I truly do not see any difference except you would be - somewhat - in power. And if we are to guide ourselves on what you said ("if it's what the community wants, a member that broke the rules and the law should be allowed back despite advocating for acts of pedophilia"), I'm not sure I would want you to have a say.

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'm not the one being accused of not understanding democracy, as it has been demonstrated.

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.

Given the examples I mentioned, it's a good thing it's not.

[Rubiconic Crossings V2 rev 1f]

It doesn't seem like much has changed since we appointed Blaat and Farn.

I doubt much will change a second time round.

Mods weren't dropped.

Taking on the two new mods was a sop.

[Divair]

Mods weren't dropped.

......I didn't say that any mods were dropped.

Then don't compare them being added to the hypothetical I was discussing.

[Edlichbury]

Mods weren't dropped.

......I didn't say that any mods were dropped.

That's exactly the problem. The institutions that cause these problems, and the mods that support these institutions, were not replaced at any point.

[Divair]

Mods weren't dropped.

Taking on the two new mods was a sop.

How to get those meddling kids to shut up:
1. Promote two popular people


Done.

[Hurdegaryp]

Mods weren't dropped.

......I didn't say that any mods were dropped.

And rightly so. You do not drop mods, you drop the bass!

[Blasveck]

......I didn't say that any mods were dropped.

Then don't compare them being added to the hypothetical I was discussing.

You were talking about how, if we dropped mods, we would run nominations to find new mods, like last time.

I'm just saying that since we last ran nominations, not much has changed.
Sorry if that was a bit confusing.

[Divair]

Then don't compare them being added to the hypothetical I was discussing.

You were talking about how, if we dropped mods, we would run nominations to find new mods, like last time.

I'm just saying that since we last ran nominations, not much has changed.
Sorry if that was a bit confusing.

And last time we didn't drop mods. There's no reason to compare the two. They'd have dramatically different results.

[Edlichbury]

Then don't compare them being added to the hypothetical I was discussing.

You were talking about how, if we dropped mods, we would run nominations to find new mods, like last time.

I'm just saying that since we last ran nominations, not much has changed.
Sorry if that was a bit confusing.

The problem isn't that the new mods don't do enough: it's that the flaws in the system weren't addressed and the biggest abusers of those flaws were never dealt with.

[Aurora Novus]

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.

What's the difference between a tyranny by majority and a dictatorship of an elite, or a single man?

Only its number, unless you have something else.

Yes, it's number, and that's a very important fact when determining whether or not something is just within a community. Rights do not decend upon us from on high. They are not intrinsic to nature. Rights are man-made. Rights only have meaning if they are agreed upon by a majority of the population. That is why numbers make all the difference. Rights cannot be denied by the majority, because the majority determines what rights even are.

Rights can only be denied in a prison setup. When the majority has to bend it's knee to an untouchable minority.

That is the fundamental difference between "tyranny of the majority" and totalitarianism. With the totalitarian model we have now, the community has no way of achieving rights it thinks it should have. That is unjust.

And I'm telling you that what should be isn't any different. Yet you seem deadlocked on repeating the same argument.

I have to be. Because until you understand the difference between the two, we can discuss nothing else. Until you stop spouting this stupid "tyranny of the majority is the same as totalitarianism" line of nonsensical thinking, our discussion can go no further.

I truly do not see any difference except you would be - somewhat - in power.

As would you, as would everyone else. That is a big fucking difference.

I'm not the one being accused of not understanding democracy, as it has been demonstrated.

If you're accusing me of not understanding democracy because of what I've said in this thread, I am left with no conclusion other than you must not uderstand democracy yourself. So, yes, you are.

[Blasveck]

You were talking about how, if we dropped mods, we would run nominations to find new mods, like last time.

I'm just saying that since we last ran nominations, not much has changed.
Sorry if that was a bit confusing.

And last time we didn't drop mods. There's no reason to compare the two. They'd have dramatically different results.

....Yeah. Fault on my part.

Anyways.....

Who, if we want to drop mods, do you think would be appropriate to drop?

[Luveria]

......I didn't say that any mods were dropped.

And rightly so. You do not drop mods, you drop the bass!

Hurde seems to like his dubstep.

[Edlichbury]

And last time we didn't drop mods. There's no reason to compare the two. They'd have dramatically different results.

....Yeah. Fault on my part.

Anyways.....

Who, if we want to drop mods, do you think would be appropriate to drop?

The mods that allowed the post "Trans people should be forcibly branded with a T" to slip past with no action taken would be a good start.

[Farnhamia]

Mods weren't dropped.

Taking on the two new mods was a sop.

I kind of resent being likened to a piece of bread or toast that is soaked in liquid food and then eaten.

[Hurdegaryp]

Taking on the two new mods was a sop.

I kind of resent being likened to a piece of bread or toast that is soaked in liquid food and then eaten.

Maybe those agitators should be shown the error of their ways.

[Bombadil]

The free forum I enjoy has aspects I don't..

Revolution!

[Divair]

I kind of resent being likened to a piece of bread or toast that is soaked in liquid food and then eaten.

Maybe those agitators should be shown the error of their ways.

I read that as "alligator" and was immediately reminded of this.

[The Blaatschapen]

I kind of resent being likened to a piece of bread or toast that is soaked in liquid food and then eaten.

Maybe those agitators should be shown the error of their ways.

I'd rather not rise to the occasion, like the bread did.

[Ethel mermania]

Taking on the two new mods was a sop.

I kind of resent being likened to a piece of bread or toast that is soaked in liquid food and then eaten.

well you did miss the easy set up for a tom lehrer song.

[Shaggai]

There are a few reason why democracy would not be a good idea here.

1. Puppetspamming and 'for the lulz' candidates.
2. This forum has particular goals. We also agree on the way to achieve those, which is having mods and rules. The job of the mods is to enforce those rules, and sometimes make new ones. They are akin to police officers for he most part. If we only need to choose people to enforce the rules, why do the need to be elected democratically? Yes, they can change the rules, but they also take input as to the rules and usually do not change them without input.
Also, the community i small enough for this sort of thing to work. In national or even local politics, there are generally too many people for selection of trustworthy peopl to work well. On NS, it's small enough that people can generally be known to be reliable. The mods also have less power than most elected officials, as any individual mod cnnot personally alter the rules or try to enforce a differen system.

[Vortukia]

In my opinion there needs to be a revamp in the rule system. Certain things should be based off the say of the players. People are more inclined to follow rules if they helped make them. Because of the current rules are not well enforced or target players they don't need to be.

[Caecuser]

There are a few reason why democracy would not be a good idea here.

1. Puppetspamming and 'for the lulz' candidates.
2. This forum has particular goals. We also agree on the way to achieve those, which is having mods and rules. The job of the mods is to enforce those rules, and sometimes make new ones. They are akin to police officers for he most part. If we only need to choose people to enforce the rules, why do the need to be elected democratically? Yes, they can change the rules, but they also take input as to the rules and usually do not change them without input.
Also, the community i small enough for this sort of thing to work. In national or even local politics, there are generally too many people for selection of trustworthy peopl to work well. On NS, it's small enough that people can generally be known to be reliable. The mods also have less power than most elected officials, as any individual mod cnnot personally alter the rules or try to enforce a differen system.

Democracy? Why on Earth would anybody want to try and implement that on the Internet?

Vortukia, players are inclined to follow to the rules regardless of how they're created - if they have any problem with them then they can make a post about it.