Right-Wing Discussion Thread VIII: McCarthy Was Right

[Herskerstad]

Getting a bit painful here mods, I'll ask for a review on the appropriate forums.

[The Blaatschapen]

Getting a bit painful here mods, I'll ask for a review on the appropriate forums.

That would be a third party appeal. Let HMS Queen Elizabeth and Grinstead do their own appeals. Yours is likely to be tossed out.

[HMS Queen Elizabeth]

Getting a bit painful here mods, I'll ask for a review on the appropriate forums.

That would be a third party appeal. Let HMS Queen Elizabeth and Grinstead do their own appeals. Yours is likely to be tossed out.

You would probably just find some ridiculous reason to warn me for submitting the appeal.

[Herskerstad]

Getting a bit painful here mods, I'll ask for a review on the appropriate forums.

That would be a third party appeal. Let HMS Queen Elizabeth and Grinstead do their own appeals. Yours is likely to be tossed out.

Nevertheless I have posted it because more than the rulings themselves it makes a point about certain moderation practices that is relevant in the main. And short of being followed through, will lead to further threads requesting clarifications on numerous issues addressed within it.

viewtopic.php?f=16&t=402468&p=31085879#p31085879

[Herskerstad]

That would be a third party appeal. Let HMS Queen Elizabeth and Grinstead do their own appeals. Yours is likely to be tossed out.

You would probably just find some ridiculous reason to warn me for submitting the appeal.

That's not how they operate so don't make such assumptions. Lets see how the mods deal with the set of appeals and reviews made before we make a judgement on the present approach and from that find best way to move forwards.

[HMS Queen Elizabeth]

You would probably just find some ridiculous reason to warn me for submitting the appeal.

That's not how they operate so don't make such assumptions. Lets see how the mods deal with the set of appeals and reviews made before we make a judgement on the present approach and from that find best way to move forwards.

I've been here a while. They've always been ridiculous and appeals always fail even if correct. Engaging with them only risks further warnings. They did something crazy; it's just a random event like stubbing your toe and you can't really do anything about it. I certainly don't intend to expend my time and sanity fighting it.

[Herskerstad]

That's not how they operate so don't make such assumptions. Lets see how the mods deal with the set of appeals and reviews made before we make a judgement on the present approach and from that find best way to move forwards.

I've been here a while. They've always been ridiculous and appeals always fail even if correct. Engaging with them only risks further warnings. They did something crazy; it's just a random event like stubbing your toe and you can't really do anything about it. I certainly don't intend to expend my time and sanity fighting it.

Even if the moderation on NS was the most biased, Mary-Sue review level hive of doublethink, by principle I think each individual decision should be judged based in the fullness of a review. If such at that point betray our confidence upon confrontation in full fairness, then we have a much better ground to voice our faith or lack of faith in the process. They have it in their interest to be fair in their decisions, I believe we have it in our interests to see a fair review. I don't think bad faith is the intended goal of the rulings and I'd be surprised if something as little as a provable oversight in the language discourse would merit such punitive measures. My sarcasm radar is beyond recovery at times so it's the sort of mistake I can and have done in the past when making replies, so hopefully things will be up and running soon, but I hope there will be some mod effort in looking into it as I am confident in the merits of the case and understand these things may take some time.

[Luminesa]

This explains why you and I don't get along. You go to one of the objectively worst and most pleby boards on all of 4chan. GG no re, enjoy hanging with Conserative Morality. Real right wing boards like /his/, /int/ or /k/ are the only worthwhile places for good discussion. For instance, /int/ has the best place for studying international relations.

I've followed this conversation back a few posts, and I still have no clue why you brought Conserative Morality into it. Since you're using his name in an insulting way, and you have a lengthy moderation history *** 1 month ban for flamebait ***. This might get changed to a deletion once I discuss it with other mods.

Listen to this pleb he probably likes Joyce

LOSER

When someone is baiting you, please report it instead of taking the bait. *** 3 day ban for flaming ***

What on earth is this? He is LITERALLY just teasing (I think). This is not bullying. I've seen people do far worse and get absolutely nothing for it.

[Dumb Ideologies]

That's not how they operate so don't make such assumptions. Lets see how the mods deal with the set of appeals and reviews made before we make a judgement on the present approach and from that find best way to move forwards.

I've been here a while. They've always been ridiculous and appeals always fail even if correct. Engaging with them only risks further warnings. They did something crazy; it's just a random event like stubbing your toe and you can't really do anything about it. I certainly don't intend to expend my time and sanity fighting it.

When submitting Getting Help Requests (i.e. not in public domain) there's usually some bonus passive-aggressive strawman-ing thrown in as well.

Last time I got a stupid ban and appealed the response started with "a high postcount and long history does not equal permission to bait or troll".

Didn't suggest it did, m80, I suggested that it wasn't baiting or trolling.

There's a chance it might succeed today though as the only time they ever might reverse something is when a lot of people complain (which makes a mockery of the whole "no third party appeals and no posting unless you're directly involved in the report" rule - it's literally what you *need* to do to actually overturn something)

[Herskerstad]

I've been here a while. They've always been ridiculous and appeals always fail even if correct. Engaging with them only risks further warnings. They did something crazy; it's just a random event like stubbing your toe and you can't really do anything about it. I certainly don't intend to expend my time and sanity fighting it.

When submitting Getting Help Requests (i.e. not in public domain) there's usually some bonus passive-aggressive strawman-ing thrown in as well.

Last time I got a stupid ban and appealed the response started with "a high postcount and long history does not equal permission to bait or troll".

Didn't suggest it did, m80, I suggested that it wasn't baiting or trolling.

I found it a major peeve that on the GHR none of the arguments were addressed in my case, nor really through the moderation thread. And it was a case of one interpretation not even intended being uplifted. I got no issues drinking the poisoned chalice if it comes down to it as it is a free service ultimately and not all rulings are reviewed with the same passion for fairness, but with the mood of things in general post-election is far less open to humor than it was four or eight years ago.

[Dytarma]

What, theres no Holy Elective Monarchy?

[Herskerstad]

What, theres no Holy Elective Monarchy?

Define Holy Elective Monarchy.

[Aelex]

When submitting Getting Help Requests (i.e. not in public domain) there's usually some bonus passive-aggressive strawman-ing thrown in as well.

Last time I got a stupid ban and appealed the response started with "a high postcount and long history does not equal permission to bait or troll".

Didn't suggest it did, m80, I suggested that it wasn't baiting or trolling.

Yep. I got the same shit too. When I went to appeal a ban I received for "Malicious Misquoting" when I was only quoting the original non-edited post of someone, I got a single line about how it was overturned "only because [they] cannot determine the actual content of the post you quoted due to the edits" (which is funny because mods are supposed to have access to all the posting logs) and three more lines trying to imply that it was still my fault and threatening me of deletion "if I doesn't change my posting style" despite the fact that said warning had absolutely nothing to do with my" posting style" but only with mods handing warnings without actually looking at the situation.

[Dytarma]

What, theres no Holy Elective Monarchy?

Define Holy Elective Monarchy.

A monarch who was elected to be both leader of the nation and to represent the religion of said nation.

[Aelex]

Define Holy Elective Monarchy.

A monarch who was elected to be both leader of the nation and to represent the religion of said nation.

Sooo, basically pre-modern age Papacy then?

[Dytarma]

A monarch who was elected to be both leader of the nation and to represent the religion of said nation.

Sooo, basically pre-modern age Papacy then?

Basically.

[Herskerstad]

Apparently discourse falls short of the intended desires of the moderation team and the thread review was rejected.

I know not which words to employ that do not accost some level of malice to the current process, but lets just say it leaves me deeply unimpressed.

[Socio Polor]

I've been here a while. They've always been ridiculous and appeals always fail even if correct. Engaging with them only risks further warnings. They did something crazy; it's just a random event like stubbing your toe and you can't really do anything about it. I certainly don't intend to expend my time and sanity fighting it.

When submitting Getting Help Requests (i.e. not in public domain) there's usually some bonus passive-aggressive strawman-ing thrown in as well.

Last time I got a stupid ban and appealed the response started with "a high postcount and long history does not equal permission to bait or troll".

Didn't suggest it did, m80, I suggested that it wasn't baiting or trolling.

There's a chance it might succeed today though as the only time they ever might reverse something is when a lot of people complain (which makes a mockery of the whole "no third party appeals and no posting unless you're directly involved in the report" rule - it's literally what you *need* to do to actually overturn something)

I noticed that too. In GHR's the mods seem... intimidating and angry in their responses at least from my perspective

[Gondolaulus]

Apparently discourse falls short of the intended desires of the moderation team and the thread review was rejected.

I know not which words to employ that do not accost some level of malice to the current process, but lets just say it leaves me deeply unimpressed.

Humor is a tough nut for some to crack, apparently.

[Grinstead]

lol

LOL

Grinstead and HMS Queen Elizabeth:
*** Warned for gloating ***

The Blaatschapen - NationStates Moderator

the fuck is this I was laughing at Monitor's judgement

[Herskerstad]

Grinstead and HMS Queen Elizabeth:
*** Warned for gloating ***

The Blaatschapen - NationStates Moderator

the fuck is this I was laughing at Monitor's judgement

If an ill opinion from a message can be interpreted at all, then it is apparently worthy of warnings.

[Lady Scylla]

I actually have to agree with Nap for once.

To be fair USS may not know that they are on friendly terms nor that this was friendly banter. (I would think that it was fairly obvious, however, that no malicious intent was present)

They do this all the time. A simple glance at history is all you would need.

[Lady Scylla]

When submitting Getting Help Requests (i.e. not in public domain) there's usually some bonus passive-aggressive strawman-ing thrown in as well.

Last time I got a stupid ban and appealed the response started with "a high postcount and long history does not equal permission to bait or troll".

Didn't suggest it did, m80, I suggested that it wasn't baiting or trolling.

There's a chance it might succeed today though as the only time they ever might reverse something is when a lot of people complain (which makes a mockery of the whole "no third party appeals and no posting unless you're directly involved in the report" rule - it's literally what you *need* to do to actually overturn something)

I noticed that too. In GHR's the mods seem... intimidating and angry in their responses at least from my perspective

They've always been super nice to me. I think it depends on how you write the GHR.

[Lady Scylla]

the fuck is this I was laughing at Monitor's judgement

If an ill opinion from a message can be interpreted at all, then it is apparently worthy of warnings.

Moderation watches this thread. It's sort of a containment tank for those here, since you lot do have a tendency to cause problems elsewhere on the forums. It's partly why RWDT has been allowed to bounce on and off topic at times.

[Conscentia]

What, theres no Holy Elective Monarchy?

That'd be covered by the two elective monarchy options.