Concern about actions undertaken by Moderator

[Oseato]

Why not?

One of the moderators explicitly wants to destroy a roleplaying region: evidently one of some import. Do you not think this is going to offend a large part of the site's roleplaying community? This is a symbolic gesture. The only outcome is extreme offense to the roleplaying community. Do you not think that this is inappropriate from someone who is supposed to make the forum and website a stable place? If this is not the place to do it, could you please re-direct me to where I can make a formal complaint about this behaviour.

The Moderation forum is the place to raise your concern.

Euroslavia directed us to this forum, so I would like to raise a few concerns about this thread.

A Moderator of this site, a member of a group known to have some issues with the members of Haven, has now proposed legislation to remove the password of Haven. As some will recall, the last time this happened there was a serious flamewar started. On top of that, this moderator, who him/her/xhe/it/self was a major component of the coup in the South Pacific, is falsely using his own acts as means to get this resolution passed.

While I find it unlikely that my concerns will receive redress, I think this is a worrying situation for this community. The fact that Moderator is grossly misrepresenting facts on this sight in order to continue an ages old grudge against a "problematic" region is extremely concerning and I would like to understand what recourse, if any, can be sought by members of this community who wish to oppose this egregious misuse of power.

EDIT: Related links: The Mentor's Letter to the Mod Team concerning the issue
Discussion about R/D and RP Opt-out

[Sedgistan]

It's politics, and not against the rules. Any other player would be allowed to do the same as Mall is, and mods are entitled to play the game too.

[Oseato]

I don't think Moderators should be able to lie in the process of playing the game.I think that is a gross misuse of their position and the expectations for fairness with the staff of this site.

[Sedgistan]

Mall is acting as a player, as he is entitled to. Players are allowed to lie - it is not against the rules. SC proposals have no requirement for truthfulness. Besides, I'm not even seeing any lying in the proposal.

[Oseato]

Mall is acting as a player, as he is entitled to. Players are allowed to lie - it is not against the rules. SC proposals have no requirement for truthfulness. Besides, I'm not even seeing any lying in the proposal.

I would say that blaming Haven for couping The South Pacific (an action undertaken by himself and others) and using as justification to open it up is a lie. In any event, thanks for responding.

[Questers]

Mall is acting as a player, as he is entitled to. Players are allowed to lie - it is not against the rules. SC proposals have no requirement for truthfulness. Besides, I'm not even seeing any lying in the proposal.

I agree moderators should be able to play the game. However, what the moderator in question is doing is unneccessarily - and frankly, if you take a look at the thread, possibly trivially - antagonising the roleplaying element of this site for virtually no gain. I understand that this is not a democracy etc, but I think it is very bad form for someone who is supposed to keep the site a stable and enjoyable place for all the people on it to incite something that is almost definitely going to lead to problems.

That's why I wanted to make a complaint about this (Os beat me to it) because I don't think it's particularly becoming of a moderator to do this type of thing. He knows the RP community feels very strongly about this. Virtually the only time you will ever see the RP community united on one thing it is that raiders shouldn't be allowed to disturb RP regions which are passworded. The merits of that argument aren't the point - the point is that he knows that this is an extremely sensitive issue for a large part of this site's community and that we're not going to sit back and take it.

[Nierr]

Mall is acting as a player, as he is entitled to. Players are allowed to lie - it is not against the rules. SC proposals have no requirement for truthfulness. Besides, I'm not even seeing any lying in the proposal.

You heard it here first folks.

Senior Moderator Segistan thinks that using a password to opt out of the oh so sacred gameplay (something he advocated on numerous occasions whenever this discussion was brought up in the past) is 'cowering'.

He also supports the notion that Haven the region was involved in the coup of TSP last year (and he would know a lot about couping TSP, right dev ) and that raiding a region that has chosen to exercise his oft proposed opt-out of gameplay is a-ok because all activity is good activity.

I'll repeat what I've said before, I knew the moderation team didn't give a shit about regions that don't want to be bullied and harassed, but I didn't expect them to be so open about it. Still, at least that's one thing the team can be transparent about.

There's hope for you guys yet.

[Scolopendra]

You heard it here first folks.

Senior Moderator Segistan thinks that using a password to opt out of the oh so sacred gameplay (something he advocated on numerous occasions whenever this discussion was brought up in the past) is 'cowering'.

He also supports the notion that Haven the region was involved in the coup of TSP last year (and he would know a lot about couping TSP, right dev ) and that raiding a region that has chosen to exercise his oft proposed opt-out of gameplay is a-ok because all activity is good activity.

I'll repeat what I've said before, I knew the moderation team didn't give a shit about regions that don't want to be bullied and harassed, but I didn't expect them to be so open about it. Still, at least that's one thing the team can be transparent about.

There's hope for you guys yet.

That's completely out of line.

It's a matter of public record that I for one hate, to the point of delenda est, the entire R/D shebang. That being said, Mall is permitted to act as a player in Gameplay just as I am permitted to act as a player in RP. He can lie in Gameplay like I can lie in RP should I choose to. He has violated no rules and your attitude is extremely unconstructive.

To presume that this means the entire Moderation cadre is lock-step as mods behind Mall's actions as a player is completely incorrect and unacceptable and you know it.

*** Warn for flamebaiting. ***

[Sedgistan]

Senior Moderator Segistan thinks that using a password to opt out of the oh so sacred gameplay (something he advocated on numerous occasions whenever this discussion was brought up in the past) is 'cowering'.

He also supports the notion that Haven the region was involved in the coup of TSP last year (and he would know a lot about couping TSP, right dev ) and that raiding a region that has chosen to exercise his oft proposed opt-out of gameplay is a-ok because all activity is good activity.

Incorrect. I commented on the assertion that Mall was lying. His proposal has little in the way of facts, and is based more significantly on opinions. His facts, as far as I am aware, are not incorrect. His opinions - I have not expressed a view on either way.

EDIT: The forum ban on Nierr has been reversed following a discussion amongst the team, though that does not mean that the tone of the post is considered in any way appropriate.

[Oseato]

Just would like a few points clarified:

What is the official NS TOS definition of troll?

What are the limits on actions undertaken by members of this site to continue years old flame wars?

[Nierr]

-snip-

-snip-

The warning doesn't appear to have been applied to my account, unless my previous warning was taken off beforehand.

[NERVUN]

Just would like a few points clarified:

What is the official NS TOS definition of troll?

One-Stop Rules Shop

Trolling/Baiting/Gloating: Trolling is defined as posts that are made with the aim of angering people. (like 'ALL JEWS ARE [insert vile comment here]' for example). Someone disagreeing with you does not equate to trolling. Intent is incredibly important and will be judged by the moderators to the best of their abilities. Honest belief does not excuse trolling. Disagreements are expected and conducting yourself in a civil manner is ideal. Trollbaiting is the action of making posts that attract trolls. A prime example of trollbaiting would be gloating over the results of an election.

What are the limits on actions undertaken by members of this site to continue years old flame wars?

Submitting a proposal is not continuing an age old flamewar NOR it is trolling.

[NERVUN]

-snip-

-snip-

The warning doesn't appear to have been applied to my account, unless my previous warning was taken off beforehand.

Thank you for noting that. I'll amend your record.

[Oseato]

Just would like a few points clarified:

What is the official NS TOS definition of troll?

One-Stop Rules Shop

Trolling/Baiting/Gloating: Trolling is defined as posts that are made with the aim of angering people. (like 'ALL JEWS ARE [insert vile comment here]' for example). Someone disagreeing with you does not equate to trolling. Intent is incredibly important and will be judged by the moderators to the best of their abilities. Honest belief does not excuse trolling. Disagreements are expected and conducting yourself in a civil manner is ideal. Trollbaiting is the action of making posts that attract trolls. A prime example of trollbaiting would be gloating over the results of an election.

What are the limits on actions undertaken by members of this site to continue years old flame wars?

Submitting a proposal is not continuing an age old flamewar NOR it is trolling.

I'm not suggesting that the simple act of submitting a proposal is a troll or necessarily a continuance. I don't really expect the moderation team to step in at this point, there simply isn't any history of the moderation team doing so, so I guess that is understandable. However, with all due respect, Haven has had a checkered past with moderation and the Security Council and its always ended with serious problems that moderators have had to step in and solve.

Now not only is it happening again, a member of the moderation team is the one stirring the pot! And on top of that that mod is trying to blame the target region for HIS actions. Surely this requires some sort of consideration.

Again, thanks for the responses.

[NERVUN]

One-Stop Rules Shop



Submitting a proposal is not continuing an age old flamewar NOR it is trolling.

I'm not suggesting that the simple act of submitting a proposal is a troll or necessarily a continuance. I don't really expect the moderation team to step in at this point, there simply isn't any history of the moderation team doing so, so I guess that is understandable. However, with all due respect, Haven has had a checkered past with moderation and the Security Council and its always ended with serious problems that moderators have had to step in and solve.

Now not only is it happening again, a member of the moderation team is the one stirring the pot! And on top of that that mod is trying to blame the target region for HIS actions. Surely this requires some sort of consideration.

Again, thanks for the responses.

As Reppy posted elsewhere, said Mod is acting as a player. We have no evidence that Mall has abused his position as a Mod when submitting this. He's so clean he squeaks.

As a player, in a political game, and in a section of the game that is meant to simulate international politics (Think of the real world Security Council in the Organization-That-Cannot-Be-Named and the shenanigans that it gets up to), he is perfectly inline with that.

RPers can counter with their own facts and statements.

[Oseato]

As a player, in a political game, and in a section of the game that is meant to simulate international politics (Think of the real world Security Council in the Organization-That-Cannot-Be-Named and the shenanigans that it gets up to), he is perfectly inline with that.

RPers can counter with their own facts and statements.

The problem with this is that having one's name if bright red tends to hold some sway over people which makes the "facts and statements" almost irrelevant, or atleast extremely difficult to overcome.

[Ambroscus Koth]

If people see bright colors and immediately feel like they have power held over them in an irrelevant place, that sounds like a personal problem. What do you want Moderation to do about that?

[Vetok]

I'm not suggesting that the simple act of submitting a proposal is a troll or necessarily a continuance. I don't really expect the moderation team to step in at this point, there simply isn't any history of the moderation team doing so, so I guess that is understandable. However, with all due respect, Haven has had a checkered past with moderation and the Security Council and its always ended with serious problems that moderators have had to step in and solve.

Now not only is it happening again, a member of the moderation team is the one stirring the pot! And on top of that that mod is trying to blame the target region for HIS actions. Surely this requires some sort of consideration.

Again, thanks for the responses.

As Reppy posted elsewhere, said Mod is acting as a player. We have no evidence that Mall has abused his position as a Mod when submitting this. He's so clean he squeaks.

As a player, in a political game, and in a section of the game that is meant to simulate international politics (Think of the real world Security Council in the Organization-That-Cannot-Be-Named and the shenanigans that it gets up to), he is perfectly inline with that.

RPers can counter with their own facts and statements.

He's free to lie and provide no evidence for his claims in the proposal? By that logic, do any proposals need backing up via facts? If this is not the case, please respond soonest so we know we don't have to go to the trouble of proving him wrong and can just claim he's wrong.

[NERVUN]

As a player, in a political game, and in a section of the game that is meant to simulate international politics (Think of the real world Security Council in the Organization-That-Cannot-Be-Named and the shenanigans that it gets up to), he is perfectly inline with that.

RPers can counter with their own facts and statements.

The problem with this is that having one's name if bright red tends to hold some sway over people which makes the "facts and statements" almost irrelevant, or atleast extremely difficult to overcome.

May I suggest a TG campaign then?

[New Azura]

Does it not concern Moderation that a forum moderator, whose primary purpose above his/her 'playing' the 'game' is to be an impartial mediator in disputes and to mete out discipline when called for, is proposing through apparent game mechanics a resolution that would inevitably alter said mechanics? Is there not a conflict of interest there, since the stated goal in a clearly out-of-character context is retribution for a previous incident that has no actual proof? The argument that he/she has a right to play the game is an appeal to authority—moderators by definition must be held to a higher standard, lest there be no system of rules and authority to govern the forums.

[NERVUN]

Does it not concern Moderation that a forum moderator, whose primary purpose above his/her 'playing' the 'game' is to be an impartial mediator in disputes and to mete out discipline when called for, is proposing through apparent game mechanics a resolution that would inevitably alter said mechanics? Is there not a conflict of interest there, since the stated goal in a clearly out-of-character context is retribution for a previous incident that has no actual proof? The argument that he/she has a right to play the game is an appeal to authority—moderators by definition must be held to a higher standard, lest there be no system of rules and authority to govern the forums.

Mods are players too. That means that when I am in my stomping ground (General), even though I spend a good chunk of my time being a mediator and fixing problems, I am allowed to debate as much as I want to within the rules and as long as I do not abuse my position.

If Mall was stating that people should vote for this or he would ban them, that would be an abuse. If Mall had used his Mod powers to somehow hijack the SC, that would be an abuse. Mall isn't doing any of that, he is, as a player, drafting a liberation through the SC, which is a perfectly legal part of the game. R/D is, by order of Admin, a legal part of the game. He's not doing anything that would be out of bounds, or range, of any other player.

[Vetok]

Does it not concern Moderation that a forum moderator, whose primary purpose above his/her 'playing' the 'game' is to be an impartial mediator in disputes and to mete out discipline when called for, is proposing through apparent game mechanics a resolution that would inevitably alter said mechanics? Is there not a conflict of interest there, since the stated goal in a clearly out-of-character context is retribution for a previous incident that has no actual proof? The argument that he/she has a right to play the game is an appeal to authority—moderators by definition must be held to a higher standard, lest there be no system of rules and authority to govern the forums.

Mods are players too. That means that when I am in my stomping ground (General), even though I spend a good chunk of my time being a mediator and fixing problems, I am allowed to debate as much as I want to within the rules and as long as I do not abuse my position.

If Mall was stating that people should vote for this or he would ban them, that would be an abuse. If Mall had used his Mod powers to somehow hijack the SC, that would be an abuse. Mall isn't doing any of that, he is, as a player, drafting a liberation through the SC, which is a perfectly legal part of the game. R/D is, by order of Admin, a legal part of the game. He's not doing anything that would be out of bounds, or range, of any other player.

I will ask again; is he allowed to lie and present no evidence to back up his proposal? If so, we are released from the burden of proving him wrong in return and we can declare him wrong.

Edit; if Batorys making an analogy in the debate is flamebaiting, what is Mallorea's persistent refusal to provide evidence? I submit that he, in his role as a player and author of this proposal, is acting in bad faith and is actually doing so with the intention of trolling/flamebaiting those in the roleplaying community who have strong feelings about the debacle that is R&D/RP interaction.

[New Azura]

Does it not concern Moderation that a forum moderator, whose primary purpose above his/her 'playing' the 'game' is to be an impartial mediator in disputes and to mete out discipline when called for, is proposing through apparent game mechanics a resolution that would inevitably alter said mechanics? Is there not a conflict of interest there, since the stated goal in a clearly out-of-character context is retribution for a previous incident that has no actual proof? The argument that he/she has a right to play the game is an appeal to authority—moderators by definition must be held to a higher standard, lest there be no system of rules and authority to govern the forums.

Mods are players too. That means that when I am in my stomping ground (General), even though I spend a good chunk of my time being a mediator and fixing problems, I am allowed to debate as much as I want to within the rules and as long as I do not abuse my position.

If Mall was stating that people should vote for this or he would ban them, that would be an abuse. If Mall had used his Mod powers to somehow hijack the SC, that would be an abuse. Mall isn't doing any of that, he is, as a player, drafting a liberation through the SC, which is a perfectly legal part of the game. R/D is, by order of Admin, a legal part of the game. He's not doing anything that would be out of bounds, or range, of any other player.

I must respectfully disagree; the mechanics of the game are such that regions have passwords, as much to protect them from raiding as it is to 'opt out' of that aspect of gameplay, since defending and raiding by definition is an auxiliary form of gameplay not originally conceptualized in the development of the forums, per numerous admonitions in the past. Hence, by arguing from an in-character / gameplay context to fundamentally change the mechanics of the game, for the stated purpose of retribution on a region for activities that aren't even clearly specified or proven, he's demonstrating undue bias in a fashion that changes the game's paradigm. If this draft goes through, it fundamentally defeats the very mechanism of passwords, because there would no longer be any distinction between occupied regions and 'we want to discuss our favorite TV Show!' regions. I would consider that a fundamental abuse of authority, considering said moderator, for personal reasons, is trying to alter the physical game mechanics to achieve an in-game purpose.

[NERVUN]

Mods are players too. That means that when I am in my stomping ground (General), even though I spend a good chunk of my time being a mediator and fixing problems, I am allowed to debate as much as I want to within the rules and as long as I do not abuse my position.

If Mall was stating that people should vote for this or he would ban them, that would be an abuse. If Mall had used his Mod powers to somehow hijack the SC, that would be an abuse. Mall isn't doing any of that, he is, as a player, drafting a liberation through the SC, which is a perfectly legal part of the game. R/D is, by order of Admin, a legal part of the game. He's not doing anything that would be out of bounds, or range, of any other player.

I will ask again; is he allowed to lie and present no evidence to back up his proposal? If so, we are released from the burden of proving him wrong in return and we can declare him wrong.

I thought we already answered this. It's a political game... When are you ever NOT allowed to lie in politics?

Seriously, deceit, stretching truths, fibbing, that's all part of it. Now, we are NOT ruling on Mall's statements. We don't care, for the SC, we have NEVER cared, as long as the debate doesn't go into endless repetitions of Nu-uh! Uh-huh! back and forth, you guys can spin your statements for all its worth.

[NERVUN]

Mods are players too. That means that when I am in my stomping ground (General), even though I spend a good chunk of my time being a mediator and fixing problems, I am allowed to debate as much as I want to within the rules and as long as I do not abuse my position.

If Mall was stating that people should vote for this or he would ban them, that would be an abuse. If Mall had used his Mod powers to somehow hijack the SC, that would be an abuse. Mall isn't doing any of that, he is, as a player, drafting a liberation through the SC, which is a perfectly legal part of the game. R/D is, by order of Admin, a legal part of the game. He's not doing anything that would be out of bounds, or range, of any other player.

I must respectfully disagree; the mechanics of the game are such that regions have passwords, as much to protect them from raiding as it is to 'opt out' of that aspect of gameplay, since defending and raiding by definition is an auxiliary form of gameplay not originally conceptualized in the development of the forums, per numerous admonitions in the past. Hence, by arguing from an in-character / gameplay context to fundamentally change the mechanics of the game, for the stated purpose of retribution on a region for activities that aren't even clearly specified or proven, he's demonstrating undue bias in a fashion that changes the game's paradigm. If this draft goes through, it fundamentally defeats the very mechanism of passwords, because there would no longer be any distinction between occupied regions and 'we want to discuss our favorite TV Show!' regions. I would consider that a fundamental abuse of authority, considering said moderator, for personal reasons, is trying to alter the physical game mechanics to achieve an in-game purpose.

Liberations, the removal of passwords, has been around for years no. This. Is. Not. New. This is something [violet] herself has addressed. It is not changing game mechanics at all. It's using the current tools.