NationStates

Willaura wrote:

Autarkheia wrote:I think/hope most of the Nazis on here are edgelords who are LARPing. I think.

Isn't roleplaying the point of nationstates

damn bro, that actually hits me where I live.
I thought I was above the roleplayers.

RE: recent comments on mod bias, right-wingers having "more difficulty following the site's rules" etc. (not quoting people's posts directly, post is long enough without it).

Judging what counts as "trolling" involves slippery judgements on what could "reasonably" anger people. When it comes to "flaming", provocation might seem less severe to a moderator when it's winding up someone whose views are diametrically opposed to their own position - subconsciously they'll be thinking a bit that they deserve it.

But more obvious ideological biases in the moderation team aren't the main problem. I don't think it tells the full story to say that right-wingers have more difficulty following the site's rules. You've got to dig a little deeper and look at what elements of the forum's culture lead to certain groups having a disproportionate number of reports against them.

We all know that there are certain left-wing posters here who do little else than constantly post-and-run with ridiculous strawbait with the direct intention of winding up anyone and everyone on the other side, but who nevertheless have relatively "clean" records. We also know that it often takes only the very slightest of hostility in return for them to then make a report to moderation.

Understandably, due to resources - NS moderation tends to be reactive rather than proactive. Given the wider intensifying of the left-wing focus on notions of microaggressions, discourse windows and suchlike over the past decade, right-wing people tend to be over-reported for trivial stuff.

Most of the time they may be cleared, but throw enough mud and eventually a mod who is having a bad day will make a harsh judgement. Quite often the reporter or other leftist posters will have made posts that are similar or worse in terms of level of offence, but it doesn't occur to most right-leaning people to report the little stuff as much as it does to the leftists.

Naturally, after a certain amount of gratuitous reports and occasional minor punishments for behaviour that doesn't seem to have been the worst in the thread, many right-leaning posters start to view the moderation team in oppositional terms, this becomes a common norm, and using the moderation forum becomes something not only that they wouldn't naturally think about, but something that is actively looked down upon. Eventually, the constant sniping from the peanut gallery wears us down. People tend to eventually snap back very strongly against that group of posters who do not debate, behave badly, and then run and tell daddy moderator the moment anyone snaps back at them. Moderation is being "gamed".

There's an imbalance and resolving that has to work two ways. We should all probably report more of the rule-breaking behaviour from the left that we see before we resort to beating them over the head with a table. But the moderators also need to acknowledge there is a problem of trust, and show willing to be more aware of the wider context when a report comes in.

When the "usual suspect" reporters check in it would be beneficial if - rather than solely looking at the reported post - moderators routinely did a search of what that user themselves had posted in the thread. Scepticism should also be the default when it comes to "throwaway" accounts who seem to have a very high percentage of their posts in moderation. If it looks like the poster is engaging in bait in the thread before running off to the mods then they should receive a strong punishment for "bad faith" bait posting.

Maybe some of you do these checks, but I cannot believe for a moment it's routine. I won't explicitly name names as that would likely be judged "harassment", but if such a policy were followed I can personally think of several posters who are far from teetering on the edge of DEAT right now who would have a charge sheet a mile long and be several nations down.

Willaura wrote:

Autarkheia wrote:I think/hope most of the Nazis on here are edgelords who are LARPing. I think.

Isn't roleplaying the point of nationstates

Not in General. This is an out of character forum, for out of character discussion.

Old Tyrannia wrote:

Willaura wrote:Isn't roleplaying the point of nationstates

Not in General. This is an out of character forum, for out of character discussion.

I see, thank you modman

Dumb Ideologies wrote:RE: recent comments on mod bias, right-wingers having "more difficulty following the site's rules" etc. (not quoting people's posts directly, post is long enough without it).

Judging what counts as "trolling" involves slippery judgements on what could "reasonably" anger people. When it comes to "flaming", provocation might seem less severe to a moderator when it's winding up someone whose views are diametrically opposed to their own position - subconsciously they'll be thinking a bit that they deserve it.

But more obvious ideological biases in the moderation team aren't the main problem. I don't think it tells the full story to say that right-wingers have more difficulty following the site's rules. You've got to dig a little deeper and look at what elements of the forum's culture lead to certain groups having a disproportionate number of reports against them.

We all know that there are certain left-wing posters here who do little else than constantly post-and-run with ridiculous strawbait with the direct intention of winding up anyone and everyone on the other side, but who nevertheless have relatively "clean" records. We also know that it often takes only the very slightest of hostility in return for them to then make a report to moderation.

Understandably, due to resources - NS moderation tends to be reactive rather than proactive. Given the wider intensifying of the left-wing focus on notions of microaggressions, discourse windows and suchlike over the past decade, right-wing people tend to be over-reported for trivial stuff.

Most of the time they may be cleared, but throw enough mud and eventually a mod who is having a bad day will make a harsh judgement. Quite often the reporter or other leftist posters will have made posts that are similar or worse in terms of level of offence, but it doesn't occur to most right-leaning people to report the little stuff as much as it does to the leftists.

Naturally, after a certain amount of gratuitous reports and occasional minor punishments for behaviour that doesn't seem to have been the worst in the thread, many right-leaning posters start to view the moderation team in oppositional terms, this becomes a common norm, and using the moderation forum becomes something not only that they wouldn't naturally think about, but something that is actively looked down upon. Eventually, the constant sniping from the peanut gallery wears us down. People tend to eventually snap back very strongly against that group of posters who do not debate, behave badly, and then run and tell daddy moderator the moment anyone snaps back at them. Moderation is being "gamed".

There's an imbalance and resolving that has to work two ways. We should all probably report more of the rule-breaking behaviour from the left that we see before we resort to beating them over the head with a table. But the moderators also need to acknowledge there is a problem of trust, and show willing to be more aware of the wider context when a report comes in.

When the "usual suspect" reporters check in it would be beneficial if - rather than solely looking at the reported post - moderators routinely did a search of what that user themselves had posted in the thread. Scepticism should also be the default when it comes to "throwaway" accounts who seem to have a very high percentage of their posts in moderation. If it looks like the poster is engaging in bait in the thread before running off to the mods then they should receive a strong punishment for "bad faith" bait posting.

Maybe some of you do these checks, but I cannot believe for a moment it's routine. I won't explicitly name names as that would likely be judged "harassment", but if such a policy were followed I can personally think of several posters who are far from teetering on the edge of DEAT right now who would have a charge sheet a mile long and be several nations down.

I've only ever reported someone a few times, and it was fellow lefties. Not to mention i've gotten in trouble myself.

Nationstates has always had a center left biased, this is evident in that the creator of the website himself is center-left.

The Liberated Territories wrote:Nationstates has always had a center left biased, this is evident in that the creator of the website himself is center-left.

I've read some of Max Barry's works, and the bias is evident.

I got a loom from a mod just for criticizing Vassenor's debating tactics. Thankfully it didn't escalate.

LiberNovusAmericae wrote:I got a loom from a mod just for criticizing Vassenor's debating tactics. Thankfully it didn't escalate.

I understand and share your frustrations on this point as someone who has experienced exactly the same thing, but it's best to avoid bringing in names of specific posters here. Regardless of the legitimacy of such complaints, the current - slightly peculiar - interpretation of the rules seems to be that mentioning problem posters by name outside of a moderation thread will often qualify as "harassment", an offence whose definition currently seems to be widening almost daily. This then often provides a pretext to close down the discussion.

AnComs, Fascists, and Bolsheviks arguing and I'm just a Democratic Socialist over here eating popcorn.

Dumb Ideologies wrote:Understandably, due to resources - NS moderation tends to be reactive rather than proactive. Given the wider intensifying of the left-wing focus on notions of microaggressions, discourse windows and suchlike over the past decade, right-wing people tend to be over-reported for trivial stuff.

Most of the time they may be cleared, but throw enough mud and eventually a mod who is having a bad day will make a harsh judgement. Quite often the reporter or other leftist posters will have made posts that are similar or worse in terms of level of offence, but it doesn't occur to most right-leaning people to report the little stuff as much as it does to the leftists.

lol

The persecution complex never ends. Funny for a group that likes to accuse others of being soft-skinned.

Conserative Morality wrote:lol

The persecution complex never ends. Funny for a group that likes to accuse others of being soft-skinned.

My role in the RWDT family is that of the very distant cousin who occasionally pops in for a nice cup of tea while having more in common on many issues with the leftists over on the other side of the street. I rarely even get mentioned in the memes (boo-hoo ) My current warning level is a very cosy zero. Do I feel at all persecuted? No. You're responding to the post that you wanted someone to have posted, not the post that you got.

While I'm frustrated at what has happened to the community here, my argument is not a standard "persecution" narrative. It is an analysis that posits that direct bias on the part of moderators forms a relatively small part in the equation, with "our" - and I use that term loosely - problem primarily being not gaming the moderation system as effectively as the left-liberals. A theory of "bottom-up" manipulation and partial capture of the moderation system by dishonest opportunists very poorly fits the top-down binary victim/oppressor narrative that you're trying to squeeze it into and upon which your post relies.

Even more curiously, calling other people thin-skinned and snowflakey is as much or more a part of your box of debate tricks than other people here, and you've certainly deployed it on more occasions than myself. You're leaping to such strange and ill-fitting assertions about everyone else here supposedly accusing people of being soft-skinned while being soft-skinned themselves - it almost makes one think you need to take those gloves off and present your own supple young hands for a skin-softness inspection.

All in all, a very poor effort which serves mostly as an excellent exemplar for the sort of strawbait I alleged was occurring. Cheers!

Heil Hitler

Dumb Ideologies wrote:My role in the RWDT family is that of the very distant cousin who occasionally pops in for a nice cup of tea while having more in common on many issues with the leftists over on the other side of the street. I rarely even get mentioned in the memes (boo-hoo ) My current warning level is a very cosy zero. Do I feel at all persecuted? No. You're responding to the post that you wanted someone to have posted, not the post that you got.

While I'm frustrated at what has happened to the community here, my argument is not a standard "persecution" narrative. It is an analysis that posits that direct bias on the part of moderators forms a relatively small part in the equation, with "our" - and I use that term loosely - problem primarily being not gaming the moderation system as effectively as the left-liberals. A theory of "bottom-up" manipulation and partial capture of the moderation system by dishonest opportunists very poorly fits the top-down binary victim/oppressor narrative that you're trying to squeeze it into and upon which your post relies.

Even more curiously, calling other people thin-skinned and snowflakey is as much or more a part of your box of debate tricks than other people here, and you've certainly deployed it on more occasions than myself. You're leaping to such strange and ill-fitting assertions about everyone else here supposedly accusing people of being soft-skinned while being soft-skinned themselves - it almost makes one think you need to take those gloves off and present your own supple young hands for a skin-softness inspection.

All in all, a very poor effort which serves mostly as an excellent exemplar for the sort of strawbait I alleged was occurring. Cheers!

Don't worry DI, I am well aware of your taste for excessive verbosity to express simple points in order to hide how monumentally flawed they are and using humor to hide your own awareness of the weakness of your points. You made a standard "Boo hoo we are being persecuted" post and you're expecting it to be treated as a legitimate point because you stretched it into paragraphs. People like you are as bad as the Nrx used to be.

Torrocca wrote:

The New California Republic wrote:An unfortunate side-effect of people retreating to their echo chambers.

I want the old blood back. They were more fun to talk to and decidedly not Nazis. ;~;

I'm still here.

El-Amin Caliphate wrote:

Saiwania wrote:
I find that the majority of the time, generally speaking- the mods around here treat me better than the other users. The rules are still a tad more liberal than I'd like them to be, but this is just how it is. The website owner and founder is Australian after all, which is a nation that is somewhat more hostile to far right politics, as is the case with Germany because of the Nazi era it had.

If you're fringe right as opposed to fringe left, you do have to code your language more because fringe right politics has inherently more risk of running afoul of one or more rules on here. There is a way you can operate unhindered but I've still gotten my fair share of trouble. Its hard if you don't have your guard up. If in doubt, its best to not post.

I'm what people would describe as fringe right and I've only had 1 infraction due to my beliefs, if even that.

I've had a couple. They were pretty much all dustups with one specific poster who's now DOS, though.
The point is, I have no difficulty believing that there's some level of bias against right wingers among the mod team as a whole, but it's certainly not to the extent that people around here make it out to be, and most cases of supposed mod bias do concern legitimate wrongdoing. Do they sometimes come down harsher on rightwingers than they would on an equivalent leftist? Yes. But we definitely need to keep our wits about us too and not go all #blacklivesmatter about it.

Conserative Morality wrote:

Dumb Ideologies wrote:My role in the RWDT family is that of the very distant cousin who occasionally pops in for a nice cup of tea while having more in common on many issues with the leftists over on the other side of the street. I rarely even get mentioned in the memes (boo-hoo ) My current warning level is a very cosy zero. Do I feel at all persecuted? No. You're responding to the post that you wanted someone to have posted, not the post that you got.

While I'm frustrated at what has happened to the community here, my argument is not a standard "persecution" narrative. It is an analysis that posits that direct bias on the part of moderators forms a relatively small part in the equation, with "our" - and I use that term loosely - problem primarily being not gaming the moderation system as effectively as the left-liberals. A theory of "bottom-up" manipulation and partial capture of the moderation system by dishonest opportunists very poorly fits the top-down binary victim/oppressor narrative that you're trying to squeeze it into and upon which your post relies.

Even more curiously, calling other people thin-skinned and snowflakey is as much or more a part of your box of debate tricks than other people here, and you've certainly deployed it on more occasions than myself. You're leaping to such strange and ill-fitting assertions about everyone else here supposedly accusing people of being soft-skinned while being soft-skinned themselves - it almost makes one think you need to take those gloves off and present your own supple young hands for a skin-softness inspection.

All in all, a very poor effort which serves mostly as an excellent exemplar for the sort of strawbait I alleged was occurring. Cheers!

Don't worry DI, I am well aware of your taste for excessive verbosity to express simple points in order to hide how monumentally flawed they are and using humor to hide your own awareness of the weakness of your points. You made a standard "Boo hoo we are being persecuted" post and you're expecting it to be treated as a legitimate point because you stretched it into paragraphs. People like you are as bad as the Nrx used to be.

Any chance you guys could get back to something political instead of arguing about who has a bigger persecution complex?

Genivaria wrote:AnComs, Fascists, and Bolsheviks arguing and I'm just a Democratic Socialist over here eating popcorn.

On the sidelines where you belong.

West Leas Oros 2 wrote:

The Liberated Territories wrote:Nationstates has always had a center left biased, this is evident in that the creator of the website himself is center-left.

I've read some of Max Barry's works, and the bias is evident.

I'm open to good critique but most of Jennifer whatever is just an elaborate strawman.

The Liberated Territories wrote:

West Leas Oros 2 wrote:I've read some of Max Barry's works, and the bias is evident.

I'm open to good critique but most of Jennifer whatever is just an elaborate strawman.

In the same vein that 1984 is a strawman against fascists and authoritarian communists or, like, actually?

Valrifell wrote:

The Liberated Territories wrote:
I'm open to good critique but most of Jennifer whatever is just an elaborate strawman.

In the same vein that 1984 is a strawman against fascists and authoritarian communists or, like, actually?

I wouldn't say that 1984 is targeting anything specific other than authoritarianism.

USS Monitor wrote:Any chance you guys could get back to something political instead of arguing about who has a bigger persecution complex?

Of course. Always delighted to leave behind foolish notions such as these. For future reference, if the demand of my public is that I should take on such delusions, it will not be in the overly urban-sounding built form of a "complex". I will have a sprawling persecution estate in the heart of the English countryside.

Genivaria wrote:AnComs, Fascists, and Bolsheviks arguing and I'm just a Democratic Socialist over here eating popcorn.

>calls himself a "Democratic Socialist"
>almost always just a Social Democrat

*obnoxiously eats a chip*

Very few DemSocs are actually DemSocs, they are SocDems, but the term "Socialist" sounds cool and epic.

The Liberated Territories wrote:

Valrifell wrote:
In the same vein that 1984 is a strawman against fascists and authoritarian communists or, like, actually?

I wouldn't say that 1984 is targeting anything specific other than authoritarianism.

I'm pretty sure that 1984 doesn't target authoritarianism, but totalitarianism.

Torrocca wrote:Who gives a fuck? They still committed war crimes regardless of whether or not they were signatories.

You should go back a few of our replays and you'll see that I'm arguing, by definition, no war crime were committed. Just because now so many nations are signed onto a bill, and the world is more organized, doesn't mean you can redefine history. Nazi Germany committed zero crimes against humanity, Nazi Germany committed zero war crimes. Fact, by every object and subject method one can use to measure these kind of things.

Torrocca wrote:Ah, yeah, I'm fucking certain that you have verifiable, unbiased, factually-correct sources to prove that the USSR some-fucking-how attacked Nazi Germany with Jewish people.

Not necessary, it is normally the responsibility of the one with the crackpot theory to prove their point when it goes against the grain of well established fact (in this case, that jews played a major roll both in Russia and German soviet/communist parties). The ball is in your court on this one.

Torrocca wrote:Show us where I said that the rapes never happened, and prove that these orders were mere propaganda and not designed specifically to stop the rapes.
Lol what the fuck, the Soviets didn't even break into Germany until the beginning of 1945.

Please read what I am typing, I'm not just doing it for my own health. . . But yours as well. People bring up the order as a means nullifying or lessening what the soviets did. Hence why I started the first part of my reply with, "Classic soviet apologetic". And it is propaganda, unless your poor attempt to muddy the water was done for other reasons beside political (possible, maybe, but I didn't give your the benefit of the doubt). Regardless, they (the orders) where not given until after Germany proper was invaded. I was also referring the the Greater Nazi Empire at the time, and allies, not just the mere boarders of Germany because commies rape there way across those parts of Europe also.

Torrocca wrote:Lol nah, fuck that noise. And fuck this stupid fucking pro-Nazi conspiracy bullshit you're peddling as well, more importantly.

Pro-Nazi, no sir, I'm neither pro nor anti nazi... I'm just point out the lack of wrongness in their actions.

Grenartia wrote:Quite. Fascism is basically a computer virus for the mind.

Their is objectively nothing wrong with having fascism as an underling principle of your nations government.

West Leas Oros 2 wrote:

Zex wrote:Ctrl+F " R A P E " 0 results found... Hmm... Still, an interesting badge.

It mentions the burning of villages and the deportation of victims as slaves

Employment is not rape, nor slavery, but I'm sure communists would disagree.