The Suggestion Box

[UNIverseVERSE]

we look at their TGs.

Suggestion: don't do that anymore. It's rather unsettling that what is supposed to be private communication isn't and that you are so cavalier about it.
EDIT: It's also rather disturbing that some mods remained active in the game-side of NS after being modded if they also could, at any moment, look through TGs that could very well contain private gameplay moves. But hey, I'm never going to use TGs after this statement anyways.

I'm fairly sure that looking at a player's telegrams is a moderator action, and therefore logged - so any mod who did try to abuse it for such things could be trivially identified.

Furthermore, I'm not sure why you are disturbed. A telegram is a direct message from one NS user to another. For obvious reasons, it isn't a fully secret private message, and when circumstances require they can be checked by the people who run the website - the admins, and their designated moderators. The most common reason seems likely to be "to check up on reports of flaming or other forbidden behaviour via TG", but when you're vetting someone for suitability for moderation, anything they do on this site is a reasonable thing to check.

If you want your messages fully private from the people who run a website, don't use the messaging system built into that website. This is bloody internet 101 here, not some sort of super-oppressive NS unique thing.

[Edlichbury]

Suggestion: don't do that anymore. It's rather unsettling that what is supposed to be private communication isn't and that you are so cavalier about it.
EDIT: It's also rather disturbing that some mods remained active in the game-side of NS after being modded if they also could, at any moment, look through TGs that could very well contain private gameplay moves. But hey, I'm never going to use TGs after this statement anyways.

I'm fairly sure that looking at a player's telegrams is a moderator action, and therefore logged - so any mod who did try to abuse it for such things could be trivially identified.

Furthermore, I'm not sure why you are disturbed. A telegram is a direct message from one NS user to another. For obvious reasons, it isn't a fully secret private message, and when circumstances require they can be checked by the people who run the website - the admins, and their designated moderators. The most common reason seems likely to be "to check up on reports of flaming or other forbidden behaviour via TG", but when you're vetting someone for suitability for moderation, anything they do on this site is a reasonable thing to check.

If you want your messages fully private from the people who run a website, don't use the messaging system built into that website. This is bloody internet 101 here, not some sort of super-oppressive NS unique thing.

The fact that they can look through private messages without my knowledge or consent and just now are admitting they do so is frankly disturbing, given their proclivity to interfere with NS-related issues on other sites.
Speaking of that, another suggestion is that after you suppress criticism on your forums, perhaps you shouldn't start a Wikipedia edit war trying to prevent the controversy from spreading. And stop telling us you have any faith in us or any notion of transparency: the current policy of transparency is "We can look through everything you've done without your knowledge or consent, but you can't know anything we do."
That's a terrible system, that breeds contempt from both sides, and considering that up to this point TGs were assumed private unless reported, it bothers me that entirely inoffensive and trivial communication might be held against me.

So I'd like to know publicly: would my tempban have been as severe if the mods were not aware I had joined a different splinter forum? After all, that communication was done through TGs that you've now admitted to looking at.

[Rubiconic Crossings V2 rev 1f]

Suggestion: don't do that anymore. It's rather unsettling that what is supposed to be private communication isn't and that you are so cavalier about it.
EDIT: It's also rather disturbing that some mods remained active in the game-side of NS after being modded if they also could, at any moment, look through TGs that could very well contain private gameplay moves. But hey, I'm never going to use TGs after this statement anyways.

I'm fairly sure that looking at a player's telegrams is a moderator action, and therefore logged - so any mod who did try to abuse it for such things could be trivially identified.

Furthermore, I'm not sure why you are disturbed. A telegram is a direct message from one NS user to another. For obvious reasons, it isn't a fully secret private message, and when circumstances require they can be checked by the people who run the website - the admins, and their designated moderators. The most common reason seems likely to be "to check up on reports of flaming or other forbidden behaviour via TG", but when you're vetting someone for suitability for moderation, anything they do on this site is a reasonable thing to check.

If you want your messages fully private from the people who run a website, don't use the messaging system built into that website. This is bloody internet 101 here, not some sort of super-oppressive NS unique thing.

So what if it's logged if it is not looked at as a matter of wrong doing? Without that second part...censure of wrong doing, all this is is obfuscation. And quite poor obfuscation at that.

As for internet 101...well part of that 101 is etiquette...people don't read other peoples pm's unless there is an ongoing investigation of wrong doing. If you are vetting someone for modhood...you tell the person involved that you are looking through their pm's...you don't do it behind their back.

Trust...remember that word?

[Bears Armed]

The fact that they can look through private messages with my knowledge or consent and just now are admitting they do so

"just now"? That's hardly the first time that it's been mentioned in this forum. How do you think they could moderate complaints about offensive TGs if they didn't have this ability?

[Neo Art]

we look at their TGs.

You....you what?

Now, I haven't posted on NSG for basically a month, and have had really no desire to. But upon finding this...little gem, I just had to investigate a little further. See, when I first read this, my thought was "ok, that can't be right. They can't possibly be doing this without permission, what he means is, that when someone nominated reaches that point, they ask him or her to consent to a more thorough vetting, and only THEN do they read the TGs." And I have absolutely no problem, none what so ever with "we're moving forward with your nomination, but we need to read your TGs to do so, if you refuse, you'll have to be taken out of the process". That's called vetting and it's fairly common. My only objection is it seems to be a bit to "srs bsns" to read someone's private communications for a fucking internet forum volunteer gig, but, whatever.

And then I got informed that nope, that whole "we read through your private correspondances" happens BEFORE any offer is made, before anyone has a chance to reject it. Before the nominee is even notified that it's happening. And too read through someone's private messages because somebody else nominated them (remember, they don't accept self nominations) without TELLING them first? All it takes to have my private communications violates is for someone ELSE (not even necessarily with my knowledge) to think I'd be a good mod?

What the fucking hell dude?

No, seriously, what the fucking hell?

To go through someone's private history with no alligation of wrong doing, and without the individual's (let alone others who had sent TGs to that person) knowledge or consent is...reprehensible, and inexcusable. Nowhere is this posted. Nowhere is this information made. Many people, including myself, were nominated for moderation, and to know, after the fact, that this gave moderation carte blance to go through my private messages. My personal correspondances with my friends? With my girlfriend?. Without even TELLING me?

How fucking dare you.

I know this is the place for suggestions, but frankly, I don't care anymore. This is beyond the pale, and unforgiveable. I don't care about "fixing" NS because I have no more desire to have any part in NS.

This is my last post on these forums.

[The UK in Exile]

It looks to me as though pretty well all of these complaints are coming from within "the NSG community", rather than from players whose activity within NS is more focussed (in one way or another) on their actual nations.
Because NSG doesn't really have anything to do with the players' actual nations it's arguably less "essential" to NS than any of the other sub-forums except perhaps F7,
So, maybe the best way to resolve this situation for the benefit of NS as a whole wouldn't be to scrap & replace all of the current Mods, it would be to abolish NSG (and F7) -- thus leaving the Mods with a lot more time (and hopefully a better mood, too) for dealing with the rest of the forums -- instead?

Appoint more moderators. Especially from the people who are complaining eloquently in this thread.

In other words, "We're going to keep on shouting until you put some of us in power"? I don't know how other people respond to that approach, but it certainly doesn't incline me to feel that you should be trusted with authority.

Flattered as I am that you found my singular post eloquent, I have neither the time, the inclination, the patience, the temperament, nor the eloquence. I do not have the qualities of a mod. (I know, like anyone needed to be told?) Indeed, I'm a little non-plussed that you somehow read that suggestion as about me.

IF you believe there is a problem and IF you want to fix it, it would seem logical that appointing the people who have spotted the problem and the passionately argued for its solution to fix it is a way forward. Especially when one of the issues highlighted is that there is:

The fundamental issue that the Moderation team will not address, let alone acknowledge, is that there is a distinct lack of trust in said team.

Its just advice, take or leave it. if you don't believe there is a problem and you just don't want to fix it, Don't bother.

[Saintland]

It looks to me as though pretty well all of these complaints are coming from within "the NSG community", rather than from players whose activity within NS is more focussed (in one way or another) on their actual nations.
Because NSG doesn't really have anything to do with the players' actual nations it's arguably less "essential" to NS than any of the other sub-forums except perhaps F7,
So, maybe the best way to resolve this situation for the benefit of NS as a whole wouldn't be to scrap & replace all of the current Mods, it would be to abolish NSG (and F7) -- thus leaving the Mods with a lot more time (and hopefully a better mood, too) for dealing with the rest of the forums -- instead?

While I am inclined to agree that the problem is NSG, not the mods and that the NSG culture is currently way out of line, I still believe that NSG should exist. I'd prefer if the moderators reformed NSG to bring about a more welcoming atmosphere. Since NSG is supposed to be a debate forum, why aren't one-line non-response responses to a lengthy argument (such as "Wrong," with no explanation) considered to be spam, even when they come from NSG regulars? I also think that snark-only replies and "gimmick posting" should be considered spam. Regarding the flaming rule, I'm aware that there is a difference in the way the mods treat "you are a misogynist" as compared to "your argument is misogynistic" even though, from my point of view at least, they are different ways of saying the same thing and therefore both flaming. Calling somebody's argument a name (misogynistic, racist, homophobic, leftist, right-wing, misandric, reverse-racist, heterophobic, moronic, idiotic, stupid, crazy etc.) without even attempting to refute the argument does not come across to me as productive debate. Calling somebody a troll to shut down debate is, rightly, against the rules (and, it seems, along with rules-lawyering, the most controversial rule among the vocal portion of NSG that always complains about the mods) and I think the troll-naming rule should be expanded.

I think the current NSG culture probably drives newcomers who would have been productive contributors to leave NS. In some cases, newcomers see veterans "flaming" them and getting away with it, "spamming" and getting away with it and even "trolling" (gimmick posting) and getting away with it. Although the behavior I'm referring to, which was commonplace in NSG several months ago, is not considered to be against the rules, I think it is easy to see how it could be considered to be a violation of the rules and, I hope, it is easy to follow my reasoning as to why I believe it should be a violation of the rules. Therefore, they get the idea that the mods wouldn't care if they retaliated in kind and they do so, in a way that justifiably brings about mod action. I think coming down hard on borderline behavior, especially such behavior by long-time posters, would have the effect of discouraging not just borderline behavior, but also the more serious violations and would make NSG more welcoming to newcomers, especially newcomers that hold "unpopular" (in NSG) opinions. My point of view can be summarized as follows: If NSG is supposed to be about debate, then behavior that is not conducive to debate should be against the rules in NSG, with reasonable leeway for newcomers of course. If people who disagree in other areas of NS can have a productive conversation instead of descending into "petty sniping" or worse, then I think NSG should be held to the same standard. If there are NSGers who are incapable of debating civilly with somebody with whom they disagree, then I think it would be better if they not participate in a political debate forum. If somebody can not participate in a civil debate with people who hold an opposing point of view on a particular subject, they shouldn't be debating that subject on a political debate forum where they are likely to encounter opposing views.

Judging by this thread and similar past threads, it seems like there are very few complaints with the state of moderation that aren't related to NSG, so I think it would be ill-advised to dramatically change the rest of NS just because one part of NS, which appears to be the majority of the forum-side workload for the mods, has problems with the mods. The only complaint I've seen in this thread unrelated to NSG has to do with transparency and I think it would be reasonable, whenever possible, for the mods to provide explanations for rulings, even if it is by TG to an party with good cause to be interested and under the condition that this information not be shared publicly.

Appoint more moderators. Especially from the people who are complaining eloquently in this thread.

In other words, "We're going to keep on shouting until you put some of us in power"? I don't know how other people respond to that approach, but it certainly doesn't incline me to feel that you should be trusted with authority.

That's the same way this stuff reads to me. If somebody is constantly lobbying to be a mod and calling the existing mods incompetent, I'd prefer that they not be made moderators. As a long-time moderation lurker, I think the mods made a mistake when they appeared to give into pressure from this group a few months ago by DEATing a long-time poster's main nation after some had gone to great lengths to try to get that result. While the decision was understandable, taken out of the context of the situation (and based on a separate, unrelated, report), it seems to have emboldened some into thinking that they can get their way (and remove users they dislike) if they constantly complain about the "failure" of the mods to delete those users. I think this may have encouraged the reaction to the controversial (Cameroi) ruling a few weeks ago, which was followed by requests for explanation. After the mods repeatedly explained the ruling, their explanations were ignored and were followed up with continued demands for an explanation, just because the explanation wasn't "some mod made a mistake, Cameroi is now DOS and that mod is no longer a mod," which is probably the only "explanation" that would be acceptable to the complainers. I don't think it is reasonable, in the slightest, to keep complaining about a moderation decision and bashing the mods after they have repeatedly explained their reasoning and apparently the mods, admins and Max Berry have come to a consensus on the matter. At some point, you just have to accept that a decision has been made through the appropriate process and stop trying to re-litigate it just because you aren't getting your way. If a group of users repeatedly complain about a moderation decision even after being given repeatedly explanations and demand a review even after it has been repeatedly reviewed, shouldn't that qualify as "spamming moderation" and be treated accordingly? I especially don't think it would be a good idea to give into this sort of behavior or even appear to do so, since that would only encourage more of it in the future.

As for the question in the OP about reporting bias, I think it would be a good idea to check and see if the poster was provoked into breaking the rules and, if so, also reprimand the person who did the provoking. One thing that could help counteract reporting bias would be if the mods were to get into the habit of occasionally skimming general threads for rulebreaking (or just searching the thread for keywords that have a high correlation with rulebreaking) and handing out reprimands for un-reported rulebreaking. If there is the belief that the mods may be reading your post, even if it goes unreported, you'll probably be more inclined to follow the rules. After an initial period of relatively heavy activity of this sort, the mods could probably do this sort of thing less frequently and still get the same effect. If one believes that they are being monitored and understands that they are not "above the rules," they will be less likely to violate the rules.

Although I am basically calling for the mods to enforce a higher standard on NSG, I don't think it would be desirable for mods to just go into NSG and start handing out red-text when less drastic measures would get the desired result. It would be desirable, if possible to replace the current NSG culture with a culture that encourages productive, civil, debate. A more positive culture probably reduce the need for mod action in the long term. Therefore, I think it would be desirable to try to change the culture on NSG, even though it will be very difficult to take posters that come from an extremely polarized and nasty political environment (as the political environment is in today's US and also, judging by what I've heard, the UK and Australia) and encourage them to debate civilly with one another. All too often, people forget that somebody they disagree with is probably just as intelligent as they are and just as confident that they are right. Since this is a problem in society at large, its going to be a problem any political debate forum will have to address if it wishes to remain a political debate forum, not an "everybody agrees with everybody" forum or a name-calling forum.

[Nailed to the Perch]

The fact that they can look through private messages with my knowledge or consent and just now are admitting they do so

"just now"? That's hardly the first time that it's been mentioned in this forum. How do you think they could moderate complaints about offensive TGs if they didn't have this ability?

There is a world of difference between a process in which a player reports receiving abusive TGs, the mods ask permission to look at their TGs in order to address this, the player gives permission, and then the mods look at the specific TGs in question, and a process in which the mods decide to look at anyone's TGs they want without in any way notifying or getting the permission of the people in question. One is a perfectly reasonable use of mod powers. The other is a gross abuse of them.

[Rubiconic Crossings V2 rev 1f]

"just now"? That's hardly the first time that it's been mentioned in this forum. How do you think they could moderate complaints about offensive TGs if they didn't have this ability?

There is a world of difference between a process in which a player reports receiving abusive TGs, the mods ask permission to look at their TGs in order to address this, the player gives permission, and then the mods look at the specific TGs in question, and a process in which the mods decide to look at anyone's TGs they want without in any way notifying or getting the permission of the people in question. One is a perfectly reasonable use of mod powers. The other is a gross abuse of them.

100% correct.

[Individuality-ness]

we look at their TGs

Wait, what?

Okay. So I know that moderation can look at my TGs, for rule breaking and stuff. I could file a GHR request asking you to take a look at my inbox because someone's acting like an ass or something. I gave you permission when I sent the GHR, fine.

Then I find out that it's part of the nominations process. "Okay, they should ask me for permission, right? It's like before, I need to give them permission to go through that".

But no, apparently you don't. By the time we find out that we've been chosen as new mods, it's already been said and done. No permission from me required, all you need is a potential nomination, and most of the time we won't know about it because nominations are done via email.

What the flying fuck?

[Edlichbury]

we look at their TGs

Wait, what?

Okay. So I know that moderation can look at my TGs, for rule breaking and stuff. I could file a GHR request asking you to take a look at my inbox because someone's acting like an ass or something. I gave you permission when I sent the GHR, fine.

Then I find out that it's part of the nominations process. "Okay, they should ask me for permission, right? It's like before, I need to give them permission to go through that".

But no, apparently you don't. By the time we find out that we've been chosen as new mods, it's already been said and done. No permission from me required, all you need is a potential nomination, and most of the time we won't know about it because nominations are done via email.

What the flying fuck?

Actually, if they are okay with going through the TGs of potential mods without any heads up, it would logically follow that they do this for other issues as well.

So again: were the contents of my TGs looked at when I was banned?

[Sneaky Bastards]

:roll:
"just now"? That's hardly the first time that it's been mentioned in this forum. How do you think they could moderate complaints about offensive TGs if they didn't have this ability?

There is a world of difference between a process in which a player reports receiving abusive TGs, the mods ask permission to look at their TGs in order to address this, the player gives permission, and then the mods look at the specific TGs in question, and a process in which the mods decide to look at anyone's TGs they want without in any way notifying or getting the permission of the people in question. One is a perfectly reasonable use of mod powers. The other is a gross abuse of them.

Correction: One is a fantasy that the a fringe group of disgruntled users thinks how the system should work, the other is a perfectly reasonable use of mod powers.

You guys can drop the faux outrage over the mods looking through the TGs. Its no different than getting a background check in real life for a job. If Max felt that was out of line for the mods to do as part of the review process for nominees, I'm sure he would have disallowed that.

[The UK in Exile]

There is a world of difference between a process in which a player reports receiving abusive TGs, the mods ask permission to look at their TGs in order to address this, the player gives permission, and then the mods look at the specific TGs in question, and a process in which the mods decide to look at anyone's TGs they want without in any way notifying or getting the permission of the people in question. One is a perfectly reasonable use of mod powers. The other is a gross abuse of them.

Correction: One is a fantasy that the a fringe group of disgruntled users thinks how the system should work, the other is a perfectly reasonable use of mod powers.

You guys can drop the faux outrage over the mods looking through the TGs. Its no different than getting a background check in real life for a job. If Max felt that was out of line for the mods to do as part of the review process for nominees, I'm sure he would have disallowed that.

Its nothing like a background check in real life.

for a start, you consent to a background check in real life.

[Edlichbury]

There is a world of difference between a process in which a player reports receiving abusive TGs, the mods ask permission to look at their TGs in order to address this, the player gives permission, and then the mods look at the specific TGs in question, and a process in which the mods decide to look at anyone's TGs they want without in any way notifying or getting the permission of the people in question. One is a perfectly reasonable use of mod powers. The other is a gross abuse of them.

Correction: One is a fantasy that the a fringe group of disgruntled users thinks how the system should work, the other is a perfectly reasonable use of mod powers.

You guys can drop the faux outrage over the mods looking through the TGs. Its no different than getting a background check in real life for a job. If Max felt that was out of line for the mods to do as part of the review process for nominees, I'm sure he would have disallowed that.

It is significantly different - you apply for a job. This was a nomination - no control at all. Even if they only have looked at the TGs of those nominated, no one had control over whether or not they were nominated and could only hope they declined before the TGs were looked at.
And I don't give a rat's ass what they think is or is not out of line: private communication should be private.

[Souseiseki]

There is a world of difference between a process in which a player reports receiving abusive TGs, the mods ask permission to look at their TGs in order to address this, the player gives permission, and then the mods look at the specific TGs in question, and a process in which the mods decide to look at anyone's TGs they want without in any way notifying or getting the permission of the people in question. One is a perfectly reasonable use of mod powers. The other is a gross abuse of them.

Correction: One is a fantasy that the a fringe group of disgruntled users thinks how the system should work, the other is a perfectly reasonable use of mod powers.

You guys can drop the faux outrage over the mods looking through the TGs. Its no different than getting a background check in real life for a job. If Max felt that was out of line for the mods to do as part of the review process for nominees, I'm sure he would have disallowed that.

nice flag. are you reploid productions?

[Edlichbury]

Correction: One is a fantasy that the a fringe group of disgruntled users thinks how the system should work, the other is a perfectly reasonable use of mod powers.

You guys can drop the faux outrage over the mods looking through the TGs. Its no different than getting a background check in real life for a job. If Max felt that was out of line for the mods to do as part of the review process for nominees, I'm sure he would have disallowed that.

nice flag. are you reploid productions?

Silly question: transparency means they can know personal information about us, not the other way around! That'd be ridiculous.

[Individuality-ness]

There is a world of difference between a process in which a player reports receiving abusive TGs, the mods ask permission to look at their TGs in order to address this, the player gives permission, and then the mods look at the specific TGs in question, and a process in which the mods decide to look at anyone's TGs they want without in any way notifying or getting the permission of the people in question. One is a perfectly reasonable use of mod powers. The other is a gross abuse of them.

Correction: One is a fantasy that the a fringe group of disgruntled users thinks how the system should work, the other is a perfectly reasonable use of mod powers.

You guys can drop the faux outrage over the mods looking through the TGs. Its no different than getting a background check in real life for a job. If Max felt that was out of line for the mods to do as part of the review process for nominees, I'm sure he would have disallowed that.

LOLOLOLOLOL NO.

For one thing, you're the person applying for the job. You can't nominate yourself as a mod (and anyone who does that should never be a mod, ever). If you're applying, they let you know that they're going to do a check, and your application is permission for them to check your records.

For another thing, they actually let you know that they're going to do a background check and what they plan to look at.

[Sneaky Bastards]

Correction: One is a fantasy that the a fringe group of disgruntled users thinks how the system should work, the other is a perfectly reasonable use of mod powers.

You guys can drop the faux outrage over the mods looking through the TGs. Its no different than getting a background check in real life for a job. If Max felt that was out of line for the mods to do as part of the review process for nominees, I'm sure he would have disallowed that.

nice flag. are you reploid productions?

I wish I was. I want a cult that worships my ass. :/

[Ankoku Satsui no Hadou Samurai]

nice flag. are you reploid productions?

I wish I was. I want a cult that worships my ass. :/

That's funny, I check your profile, I check your flag, I check your posting history, and the similarities are striking.

You know, just like in a background check for a job.

[Souseiseki]

nice flag. are you reploid productions?

I wish I was. I want a cult that worships my ass. :/

so you're just a "sneaky bastard" with a flag basically the same as reppy who just so happens to do most of their posting in the suggestion box and technical with a healthy interest in mecha?

i hate to be nasty but i'm not entirely convinced. if only i could read your TGs.

e: or you've deliberately misinterpreted the question/made a joke that didn't work. in which case, again, not sympathetic.

e2:

Code: Select all

for x in mods:
    print "are you %?s" % x

[Rubiconic Crossings V2 rev 1f]

nice flag. are you reploid productions?

I wish I was. I want a cult that worships my ass. :/

Not acting like an ass might be beneficial to your want.

[Ankoku Satsui no Hadou Samurai]

It's also not the first time Reploid Productions posts with a puppet mocking users in moderation-related threads.

[Nailed to the Perch]

There is a world of difference between a process in which a player reports receiving abusive TGs, the mods ask permission to look at their TGs in order to address this, the player gives permission, and then the mods look at the specific TGs in question, and a process in which the mods decide to look at anyone's TGs they want without in any way notifying or getting the permission of the people in question. One is a perfectly reasonable use of mod powers. The other is a gross abuse of them.

Correction: One is a fantasy that the a fringe group of disgruntled users thinks how the system should work, the other is a perfectly reasonable use of mod powers.

You guys can drop the faux outrage over the mods looking through the TGs. Its no different than getting a background check in real life for a job. If Max felt that was out of line for the mods to do as part of the review process for nominees, I'm sure he would have disallowed that.

I don't know whose puppet you are, but it looks a bit ridiculous to accuse others of being part of an imaginary cabal of conspirators while using a "sneaky" nation with 27 posts to its name. I don't speak for anyone but me. I'm not a "fringe group" or a "you guys." I'm one person who finds this really objectionable.

In real life, when you apply for a job, you (a) are inherently aware that you're applying for a job, and (b) are notified by potential employers of what they will look at, which, short of applying to work for the friggin' CIA, generally does NOT entail "we will read your private correspondence," because that would be nuts. What we've been told here is that the mods read the TGs of people who in no way "applied" to be mods, but were nominated by other people (and may not even have known they were nominated), and who were not told until after the fact that reading their TGs was involved. I have no idea why anyone's outrage over this would need to be "faux," because that's remarkably inappropriate.

Also, I have no idea why you feel your last line is relevant unless you're under the impression that Max Barry is an infallible godlike being. I don't particularly dispute that he supports things the mods do. In this case, he's wrong to do so, because reading people's private correspondence without their knowledge or consent is not an appropriate use of moderation.

[Sneaky Bastards]

I wish I was. I want a cult that worships my ass. :/

Not acting like an ass might be beneficial to your want.

Can't help myself. I'm an asshole. Acting like an ass is I what I do best.

It's also not the first time Reploid Productions posts with a puppet mocking users in moderation-related threads.

Ooooh, good idea. I should make a puppet that's similarly named to me and mock people with it. Not So Sneaky Bitches?

[Edlichbury]

fringe group of disgruntled players

That same " some ex-player with a grudge." that you got into a Wikipedia edit war over, or the one you accused of "slander" on Wikipedia?

Careful, your true colours might bleed out.