The Rejected Times

[RiderSyl]

Arguing that because newer mods' decisions aren't being overruled, nobody is supervising the newer mods? No matter how you try to spin it, that doesn't make any sense.

Then I'll repeat the example: why did this "supervision" allow Nuclear Arms Accord to be deleted? Or a different one: why didn't this "supervision" correct the decision not to delete Repeal Rights & Duties, necessitating a discard?

The moderators didn't rectify those fuck-ups to your fancy, so that means that they must be letting the newer mods do whatever the hell they want with no supervision.

[The Dark Star Republic]

that means that they must be letting the newer mods do whatever the hell they want with no supervision.

Yes, I agree.

[Chester Pearson]

Then I'll repeat the example: why did this "supervision" allow Nuclear Arms Accord to be deleted? Or a different one: why didn't this "supervision" correct the decision not to delete Repeal Rights & Duties, necessitating a discard?

The moderators didn't rectify those fuck-ups to your fancy, so that means that they must be letting the newer mods do whatever the hell they want with no supervision.

Here, have an eye-roll smilie for your trouble.

Ride I invite you to come and join us in the GA forums for a while, and see just what DSR is talking about. Within a month or so, it will all become very clear to you.

[RiderSyl]

Ride I invite you to come and join us in the GA forums for a while, and see just what DSR is talking about. Within a month or so, it will all become very clear to you.

I'm going to have to refuse. Exclusivity to the gameplay forum is the best thing for my clarity. Thanks for the offer, regardless.

[Chester Pearson]

Ride I invite you to come and join us in the GA forums for a while, and see just what DSR is talking about. Within a month or so, it will all become very clear to you.

I'm going to have to refuse. Exclusivity to the gameplay forum is the best thing for my clarity. Thanks for the offer, regardless.

I understand and respect your position. Now I would ask that you respect DSR's, and my position on the GA, and not just dismiss it out of hand then?

[RiderSyl]

I'm going to have to refuse. Exclusivity to the gameplay forum is the best thing for my clarity. Thanks for the offer, regardless.

I understand and respect your position. Now I would ask that you respect DSR's, and my position on the GA, and not just dismiss it out of hand then?

Damn your courtesy! Fine.

[Todd McCloud]

Yeah sure, if you want more of the same from possibly the least objective person in the WA game. But, what the hell, you guys should get the opportunity to reap what you sow. Given that basically all WA mods have come from that same friend group, I'm sure they'll gladly welcome your nomination of Kenny. Might as well throw the rest of Antarctic Oasis into the suggestion box, too!

Right now I will take anything that will improve the current situation. I do have a feeling as to why Kryo keeps her peace on the WA forums, and doesn't do much, But I would prefer not to delve back into that again.

Has there been any topics recently on this, regarding the situation in the GA, in technical? I don't really have a dog in the fight over there, but I do know NS sports had a few complaints they had about how their forums were modded (or not modded). While the situation wasn't rectified in the way they called for, the forum appears to be better modded (prolly cause Arch is more active, but hey, whatever works).

[The Dark Star Republic]

Right now I will take anything that will improve the current situation. I do have a feeling as to why Kryo keeps her peace on the WA forums, and doesn't do much, But I would prefer not to delve back into that again.

Has there been any topics recently on this, regarding the situation in the GA, in technical? I don't really have a dog in the fight over there, but I do know NS sports had a few complaints they had about how their forums were modded (or not modded). While the situation wasn't rectified in the way they called for, the forum appears to be better modded (prolly cause Arch is more active, but hey, whatever works).

I think the thing gameplayers are still failing to grasp is that a big problem is the lack of mod interaction with the forum. I understand that in gameplay, the NS forum is relatively unimportant: it's mainly off-sites, and the game mechanics itself, that matter. Whether or not Sedgistan posts in the Gameplay forum doesn't matter much in terms of adjudicating multi-ing or script rules or RMB spamming or other gameplay issues. But the WA is very different: the forum is really important; the moderators themselves message players whenever they delete their proposals telling them to post in the forums! You can see an example of the form letter here.

So, yes, there are quite commonly discussions in the forum - though not in Technical, that's really just for mechanical changes. But we can't force the mods to post on the forum: there's nothing the players can really do here. I put the question before:

While I would hesitate to put words in Kryo's mouth

Why do you have to?

Funnily enough, there was no answer.

[Todd McCloud]

Well, then why don't the mods make a few new mods to focus on GA and/or SC, they report to the senior mods on their decisions, and hopefully that'll over time solve some stuff over there? I got what you meant by saying there's a lack of mod interaction with the forum, and it seems to me that the last few mods were promoted due to their frequency in the GA, so why not just take a few good players, have them focus on the ins and outs of the WA forums, and any important decisions are left to the senior mod? In time they become the experts, and hopefully the problem's solved.

Note I say this without knowing if such a system has been done to an extent earlier. I don't think it has but I might be wrong.

[Chester Pearson]

Well, then why don't the mods make a few new mods to focus on GA and/or SC, they report to the senior mods on their decisions, and hopefully that'll over time solve some stuff over there? I got what you meant by saying there's a lack of mod interaction with the forum, and it seems to me that the last few mods were promoted due to their frequency in the GA, so why not just take a few good players, have them focus on the ins and outs of the WA forums, and any important decisions are left to the senior mod? In time they become the experts, and hopefully the problem's solved.

Note I say this without knowing if such a system has been done to an extent earlier. I don't think it has but I might be wrong.

Because those mods, not only have to be familiar with the forums, but on how WA laws work with each other. The more resolutions, the bigger the tangled mess. You have to be able to sort out what duplicates what, and what contradicts what. You also have to know how a resolution is going to affect member nations, to ensure it is in the right category. You also have to be able to pick out the nuances of resolutions to ensure they are not trying to pass something that has nothing to do with the actual resolution they are proposing.

As you can see, it is not as easy as just promoting a few good players. Would I make a good WA mod? Hell no, as I sometimes miss shit.

[Todd McCloud]

Because those mods, not only have to be familiar with the forums, but on how WA laws work with each other. The more resolutions, the bigger the tangled mess. You have to be able to sort out what duplicates what, and what contradicts what. You also have to know how a resolution is going to affect member nations, to ensure it is in the right category. You also have to be able to pick out the nuances of resolutions to ensure they are not trying to pass something that has nothing to do with the actual resolution they are proposing.

As you can see, it is not as easy as just promoting a few good players. Would I make a good WA mod? Hell no, as I sometimes miss shit.

Emphasis mine. There are a number of nuances important in both the GA and SC, yeah. But such nuances can be learned and, with folks devoted to that particular area, learned quickly, I posit. I think the biggest thing would be the time required to devote to the cause. As for the last emphasis bit, that'll come if there are a few people on the case. Perhaps one person is not a good idea. Perhaps several people would be better suited, as a sort of task force.

Like I said, I have no knowledge of if something like this is currently in place or in the works. Just noticing a few things here and there. I think one of the dangers a person can run into is assuming that all the forums operate under the same priciples. They don't. NS sports, for instance, is a good community but operates way differently than GA or II. Consequently, a ruling that would make perfect sense for II may not always for NS Sports. And then, thinking further comes the realization that NS isn't really one game, but several that loosely affect one another somehow. I think that's appealing to a lot of people who play this game, really. Gameplay slow? Check out the GA or SC. Bogged down in II RP's? Try out sports and learn how to scorinate. Content with roleplaying? Well, your region's just been raided, so deal with that.

[KaelThas Quilor]

How about we talk about something germane to gameplay?

[Glen-Rhodes]

Todd, they did add more mods. Mall and Mousebumples.

The issue, if we're being f*cking honest, is that the only people added as mods are those who are already friends with existing mods, in that friend group, or already fall in line with what mods are thinking and doing. The most active players -- and activity should be one of the primary criteria -- don't, in my opinion, fit that mold. That's why you got Mall, who was practically nonexistent when he was made a mod, and Mouse, who would show up out of the blue every now and then. Both were part of the existing friend group, and both already toed the line, but neither was really the best choice in terms of active participating mods.

It's unpopular to point this out, though. Thus it's an unhelpful post for me to write, because the existing mods aren't going anywhere and they're the ones who choose the new mods. That's why the whole lot needs to be thrown out. The GA needs a reset, but everybody's too scared to think so.

[Bears Armed]

or already fall in line with what mods are thinking and doing

If we want consistent rulings, which I think is the case for many of us, then appointing new mods who don't "fall in line with what mods are thinking and doing" would probably be counterproductive...

[Glen-Rhodes]

or already fall in line with what mods are thinking and doing

If we want consistent rulings, which I think is the case for many of us, then appointing new mods who don't "fall in line with what mods are thinking and doing" would probably be counterproductive...

The want for "consistent" rulings, in my opinion, isn't what it means at face value. I think people (including myself) were/are annoyed with the lack of logic in rulings. If somebody comes by with a better argument about how a rule should be interpreted, then mods shouldn't discount it just to keep the interpretation of the rules in permanent stasis. That's not what's meant by consistency, if you ask me. The issue is that rulings are given maybe a week apart, sometimes even simultaneously, that contradict each other, aren't followed as precedent in later cases, and generally don't make sense.

The mod team needs people who interpret the rules differently. There needs to be real debate about them, which I sincerely doubt ever happens in earnest. (Of course, we'll never really know, because the mods refuse to make their deliberations public.) All the mods follow the same basic premises for interpreting the rules. Nobody who has disagreed with the mods, debated them on fundamental aspects of rules interpretation, has ever been made a mod themselves, in all my years of playing. People like that have been nominated --- I've nominated some of them! But because they don't already agree with the mods, and aren't part of the ZF/AO/whatever circle, they've never been made mods and never will. Is there even an objective rubric for deciding who qualifies to moderate the GA? Doubtful.

[The Dark Star Republic]

There needs to be real debate about them, which I sincerely doubt ever happens in earnest.

What would be good is if the mods would do what Hack did ten(!) years ago.

It became apparent that the "Enodian" rules weren't really working anymore, because Enodia was no longer around, and the rules were heavily dependent on precedent. So Hack redrafted the rules. He posted that draft for player comments, to which he was responsive: for example, the first draft banned committees altogether, but the national sovereigntists argued committees should be allowed, and so they were. He posted a final draft, final round of player comments, final mod responses. Then the new rules were finalised and posted, to be binding.

That was ten years ago and there's never been any subsequent discussion of the rules. Even when the NSUN changed to the WA, they simply did a find+replace and reposted the old rules. There've been a few incremental edits, but no substantial revision. Meanwhile, virtually no players from that time are still around: I think BA, OMGTKK and myself had just begun playing then, or maybe it was slightly before, but none of us were active in the comments; Mousebumples has admitted she herself, who predates us all, paid the NSUN little attention at the time.

It means we're stuck in a mire with a morass of contradictory and confusing half-remembered, half-consistent precedent weighing us down. If the mods cast all of that with a redraft of the rules involving player comment it would actually be a win for them - they would no longer have to contend with rules lawyering that because 8 years ago a proposal doing x was deleted blah blah - and a win for the players, who would have a much clearer sense of what the rules of the game they're playing are.

Of course the last time this was suggested it was dismissed out of hand, and all we got was Douria's "rulings archive", which he was selective about editing, and since he is now CTE can't be updated anymore. So it all accomplished absolutely nothing, which was presumably the intention.

[Belschaft]

If we want consistent rulings, which I think is the case for many of us, then appointing new mods who don't "fall in line with what mods are thinking and doing" would probably be counterproductive...

The want for "consistent" rulings, in my opinion, isn't what it means at face value. I think people (including myself) were/are annoyed with the lack of logic in rulings. If somebody comes by with a better argument about how a rule should be interpreted, then mods shouldn't discount it just to keep the interpretation of the rules in permanent stasis. That's not what's meant by consistency, if you ask me. The issue is that rulings are given maybe a week apart, sometimes even simultaneously, that contradict each other, aren't followed as precedent in later cases, and generally don't make sense.

The mod team needs people who interpret the rules differently. There needs to be real debate about them, which I sincerely doubt ever happens in earnest. (Of course, we'll never really know, because the mods refuse to make their deliberations public.) All the mods follow the same basic premises for interpreting the rules. Nobody who has disagreed with the mods, debated them on fundamental aspects of rules interpretation, has ever been made a mod themselves, in all my years of playing. People like that have been nominated --- I've nominated some of them! But because they don't already agree with the mods, and aren't part of the ZF/AO/whatever circle, they've never been made mods and never will. Is there even an objective rubric for deciding who qualifies to moderate the GA? Doubtful.

Glen, obviously people who publicly object to the rules aren't going to be tasked with enforcing them. Rules need to be enforced consistently, and that means that the people tasked with doing so need to interpret them consistently. Recruiting moderators who will rule contrary to the established basis is simply asking for their decisions to inevitably challenged and overturned on appeal.

What you're annoyed at isn't the "lack of logic", but that you don't like the rulings. Agreeing with you isn't the criteria for a god moderator.

[KaelThas Quilor]

Agreeing with you isn't the criteria for a god moderator

Freudian slip?

[The Dark Star Republic]

Recruiting moderators who will rule contrary to the established basis is simply asking for their decisions to inevitably challenged and overturned on appeal.

The mods don't even allow WA decisions to be appealed, so no fear there!

[Evil Wolf]

The want for "consistent" rulings, in my opinion, isn't what it means at face value. I think people (including myself) were/are annoyed with the lack of logic in rulings. If somebody comes by with a better argument about how a rule should be interpreted, then mods shouldn't discount it just to keep the interpretation of the rules in permanent stasis. That's not what's meant by consistency, if you ask me. The issue is that rulings are given maybe a week apart, sometimes even simultaneously, that contradict each other, aren't followed as precedent in later cases, and generally don't make sense.

For example?

[Chester Pearson]

Recruiting moderators who will rule contrary to the established basis is simply asking for their decisions to inevitably challenged and overturned on appeal.

The mods don't even allow WA decisions to be appealed, so no fear there!

This is true, since ALL the mods seem to be involved in decisions, yet half of them don't even know what you are talking about when you bring the subject up for appeal.

In six months we have had two very serious moderator fuck-ups. One involved the World Assembly, and one involved Gameplay. In both of those instances, was anyone censured? The mods say they were, in their own private little cave, but we are not permitted to see any of those conversations. What I would like to see is some accountability, not consistency. We are never going to get consistent ruling, because half of them don't even know how to interpret the rules when it comes to resolution writing. The only place you actually get a consistent ruling, is in the Security Council, because Sedge, and Crazy seem to have made it their mission to understand those rules, and enforce them to the letter.

[Glen-Rhodes]

Glen, obviously people who publicly object to the rules aren't going to be tasked with enforcing them. Rules need to be enforced consistently, and that means that the people tasked with doing so need to interpret them consistently. Recruiting moderators who will rule contrary to the established basis is simply asking for their decisions to inevitably challenged and overturned on appeal.

Or it allows the evolution of rules as the game changes and new generations begin to think differently and want to mold the game to their liking. There's very little about the GA rule set that is mandated by the game itself. The rules are more about quality control and establishing boundaries in the GA game, and what counts as "quality" and what those boundaries are should never be set in stone forever. That's how the game dies. By never introducing any mods with different ideas, different interpretations of the rules, and mods who go against rigid traditionalism, you never add dynamism to the GA, which is prone in its nature to becoming boring and exhausted as time goes on.

What you're annoyed at isn't the "lack of logic", but that you don't like the rulings. Agreeing with you isn't the criteria for a god moderator.

Of course I'm not going to complain when a ruling goes the way I want it. But the truth is I was a great rules-lawyer and could use the mods' inconsistency, lack of logic, and confusing precedent to my advantage. And, yeah, of course I complained when things didn't go to my advantage. Who didn't? I would think one of the criteria for good moderation would be the exact opposite of that.

The want for "consistent" rulings, in my opinion, isn't what it means at face value. I think people (including myself) were/are annoyed with the lack of logic in rulings. If somebody comes by with a better argument about how a rule should be interpreted, then mods shouldn't discount it just to keep the interpretation of the rules in permanent stasis. That's not what's meant by consistency, if you ask me. The issue is that rulings are given maybe a week apart, sometimes even simultaneously, that contradict each other, aren't followed as precedent in later cases, and generally don't make sense.

For example?

There are plenty of examples in past issues of TRT. Gruen (TDSR) would probably be able to give you plenty of examples. My favorite is WAR#2, Rights and Duties. It's the basis of so many rulings, as it's literally an attempted codification of the rules, written by a moderator. When a potentially viable repeal and replacement came around, the moderator who wrote the original came out and said that any replacement would probably be ruled illegal as metagaming.

[The Dark Star Republic]

Maybe a good example is the use of the "Discard". It was stated to be reserved only for "egregious" violations, and not for technicalities:

really bad, terrible, awful, violations. Think Max Barry Day, previously undiscovered plagisarism, or saying NS is a game in the text of a Resolution.

A category violation is a technical glitch. If something escapes the author, he takes his lumps. If it escapes the players, they take theirs. If it escapes the mods, we take ours*2. For the most part, category is arguable. Arguable Resolutions get repealed, not dumped.

Just 12 days later, a Discard was invoked. For an "egregious violation"? No, for the most minor technicality imaginable: a branding violation. And why this sudden turnabout? Because the resolution in question was a repeal of Rights & Duties, which was written by another moderator.

The mods are volunteers who do their best for a game we all enjoy playing and the urge to defend them is completely understandable, but the specific moderation of the WA is flawed and pointing this out is not hysterical propaganda, but simple observation.

[Railana]

Damn it, I was going to use GAR #2 as an example too. Well, here's another one that happened recently.

[Chester Pearson]

Because the resolution in question was a repeal of Rights & Duties, which was written by another moderator.

Dun dun dun dahhhhhh. You may have opened a Pandora's that will consume us all!

But truthfully? You have hit the nail on the head. Had #2 which was pushed to vote on the decision of a senior moderator, even though it was illegal been written by another commoner, that function would never have been used. (of course we would even have Rights and Duties in the first place). It doesn't matter what you say anyway though. Max could care less about the WA, and his is the only opinion that really matter here....

Damn it, I was going to use GAR #2 as an example too. Well, here's another one that happened recently.

That wasn't yanked on a technicality. That was yanked on an illegality, and a big one at that.