[Discussion/Announcement] NSG's "Wing" Megathreads

[The Black Forrest]

Furthermore, you're making a lot of assumptions about conservatives not being welcome on the site. Conservatives are welcome on the site. What is not welcome is flaming and trolling. There are plenty of conservatives who make their points -- points that people might find disagreeable -- without resorting to flames and trolling. These conservatives are not warned, and when people complain of their position, they are told to discuss it because it is not breaking the rules.

If some conservatives find it difficult to make their point without calling their opponents names, that is not a bias against conservatives, it is correcting rule-breaking behavior.

If to improve our PR we are supposed to embrace people trolling and flaming, then our PR will not be improving.

Conservatism isn't welcome in NSG. Whenever I post something about religion or conservatism outside the RWDT or the CDT, it is usually met with toxic criticism. This is one aspect that moderation continuously fails to address. The RWDT was a place for right wingers to talk without the toxic responses we usually get. Maybe you don't believe me, but that's my lived experience and the experience of a lot of others. I'm obviously down to argue against rough debaters every now and then, but I would rather not have that be my only experiences on NSG.

"Conservatism isn't welcome in NSG" That one does get thrown out by people who hold views which are considered repugnant and attacked for espousing them especially when they deal with segmenting and or belittling groups of society. If you want to have judgmental views? By all means. You just can't have a "get out of jail" card by saying it's your religion or in some cases culture.

[Strahcoin]

Tbh the rule against trolling is enforced weirdly. If I have a point to make which I know nobody will agree with, I have to explain it with way too much detail so I don't get accused of 'trolling'

No, you have to do it without flaming and trolling. If you find it difficult not to call people names, or dismiss whole groups of people as something horrid, that is on you, not on us.

An entire group of users was labeled "problematic." That, in itself, represents mod bias, because the group was deemed problematic in the eyes of moderation, then their community was destroyed. "Problematic" is the term of choice, and it's utterly subjective and often levied against right wingers.

Individual users' behavior was deemed problematic. Big difference.
Their community was not destroyed -- their thread where they repeatedly engaged in rulebreaking behavior, which anyone is welcome to go view for themselves, was closed.

The rules are not subjective. They are in the One Stop Rules Shop for anyone to see.

Insisting that there is a liberal bias in enforcing the rules says quite a bit, but not about moderation.

Actually, from my experience, there is a left-leaning bias in the rules and/or their enforcement.

Intentionally "misgendering" a player or referencing (not necessarily making) a joke regarding such to make a point can and often does result in a warn for "trolling", even though the former is merely the logically consistent result of believing that gender is binary and static, while the latter is not necessarily trolling (it could be attempting to show logical consistencies within an argument, etc.).

Meanwhile, some posters on the left do seem to get away with making more provoking posts.

[Diarcesia]

No, you have to do it without flaming and trolling. If you find it difficult not to call people names, or dismiss whole groups of people as something horrid, that is on you, not on us.

Individual users' behavior was deemed problematic. Big difference.
Their community was not destroyed -- their thread where they repeatedly engaged in rulebreaking behavior, which anyone is welcome to go view for themselves, was closed.

The rules are not subjective. They are in the One Stop Rules Shop for anyone to see.

Insisting that there is a liberal bias in enforcing the rules says quite a bit, but not about moderation.

Actually, from my experience, there is a left-leaning bias in the rules and/or their enforcement.

Intentionally "misgendering" a player or referencing (not necessarily making) a joke regarding such to make a point can and often does result in a warn for "trolling", even though the former is merely the logically consistent result of believing that gender is binary and static, while the latter is not necessarily trolling (it could be attempting to show logical consistencies within an argument, etc.).

Meanwhile, some posters on the left do seem to get away with making more provoking posts.

Anecdotally, I didn't notice that personally. Do you have some examples?

[Cisairse]

No, you have to do it without flaming and trolling. If you find it difficult not to call people names, or dismiss whole groups of people as something horrid, that is on you, not on us.

Individual users' behavior was deemed problematic. Big difference.
Their community was not destroyed -- their thread where they repeatedly engaged in rulebreaking behavior, which anyone is welcome to go view for themselves, was closed.

The rules are not subjective. They are in the One Stop Rules Shop for anyone to see.

Insisting that there is a liberal bias in enforcing the rules says quite a bit, but not about moderation.

Actually, from my experience, there is a left-leaning bias in the rules and/or their enforcement.

Intentionally "misgendering" a player or referencing (not necessarily making) a joke regarding such to make a point can and often does result in a warn for "trolling", even though the former is merely the logically consistent result of believing that gender is binary and static, while the latter is not necessarily trolling (it could be attempting to show logical consistencies within an argument, etc.).

Meanwhile, some posters on the left do seem to get away with making more provoking posts.

If your personal belief system includes "I should be an asshole," the mods aren't being biased by enforcing "no assholes allowed" rules, they're just enforcing rules that you happen to disagree with.

[Strahcoin]

Actually, from my experience, there is a left-leaning bias in the rules and/or their enforcement.

Intentionally "misgendering" a player or referencing (not necessarily making) a joke regarding such to make a point can and often does result in a warn for "trolling", even though the former is merely the logically consistent result of believing that gender is binary and static, while the latter is not necessarily trolling (it could be attempting to show logical consistencies within an argument, etc.).

Meanwhile, some posters on the left do seem to get away with making more provoking posts.

Anecdotally, I didn't notice that personally. Do you have some examples?

I do.

Incident of "intentionally misgendering" resulting in a warn: https://forum.nationstates.net/viewtopic.php?f=16&t=441403&hilit=misgender
Incident of referencing a joke regarding transgenderism resulting in a warn: https://forum.nationstates.net/viewtopic.php?p=36406861#p36406861
The discussion thread of the "misgendering" rulehttps://forum.nationstates.net/viewtopic.php?f=16&t=389990&hilit=misgender
And a couple of posts that may be interpreted as more provoking (not against their right to post such, but the rules don't seem that fair or consistent in this regard):
https://forum.nationstates.net/viewtopic.php?f=20&t=447043&p=35721998#p35721998
https://forum.nationstates.net/viewtopic.php?f=20&t=447043&start=6975&p=35902418&view=show#p35902418

[Diarcesia]

Anecdotally, I didn't notice that personally. Do you have some examples?

I do.

Incident of "intentionally misgendering" resulting in a warn: https://forum.nationstates.net/viewtopic.php?f=16&t=441403&hilit=misgender
Incident of referencing a joke regarding transgenderism resulting in a warn: https://forum.nationstates.net/viewtopic.php?p=36406861#p36406861
The discussion thread of the "misgendering" rulehttps://forum.nationstates.net/viewtopic.php?f=16&t=389990&hilit=misgender
And a couple of posts that may be interpreted as more provoking (not against their right to post such, but the rules don't seem that fair or consistent in this regard):
https://forum.nationstates.net/viewtopic.php?f=20&t=447043&p=35721998#p35721998
https://forum.nationstates.net/viewtopic.php?f=20&t=447043&start=6975&p=35902418&view=show#p35902418

I raise mine as a counterexample. That person's far from a conservative from the looks of it and got smacked nonetheless. If you notice any commonality, it's because they're attacking the poster or goading them to possibly get into trouble. The intent seems to be to attack the poster's character. "Attack the message, not the messenger" is one of the primary rules of thumb when debating in NS.

The thing with intentionally misgendering is that it's clear that it's a character attack simply because they disagree with your views. That's not constructive debate. Based on your sig, you're a Christian. What would you think if an atheist keeps on telling you that you believe in fairy tales while debating religion? Or if a Muslim keeps on calling you kafir because, well, you're not Muslim? Would you report them?

https://forum.nationstates.net/viewtopic.php?f=20&t=447043&p=35721998#p35721998

Definitely rude, though I don't honestly know if this would be actionable. It would be more clear-cut to me had she said "You're an idiot for thinking that a woman has to carry a baby that resulted from her being raped". Same with the other link. I acknowledge that the mods may make errors in cases like these.

[Attempted Socialism]

I don't know...people who call people liars rather than addressing their debate points are pretty toxic, especially if they do it to everyone they disagree with. There are some posters like that.

Or who refuse to accept sources that support points they disagree with, refuse to actually engage with arguments, etc, etc.
There are a lot of posters like that on NSG, and they tend to lean left.

See, this is funny. I have the opposite impression, where the argument-resistant people usually lean right. Given that we have equal and opposite anecdotal experiences, perhaps there's something else at play? Say, a general intransigence to changing viewpoints when you're convinced enough of your own arguments to go argue them online?

Anecdotally, I didn't notice that personally. Do you have some examples?

I do.

Incident of "intentionally misgendering" resulting in a warn: https://forum.nationstates.net/viewtopic.php?f=16&t=441403&hilit=misgender
Incident of referencing a joke regarding transgenderism resulting in a warn: https://forum.nationstates.net/viewtopic.php?p=36406861#p36406861
The discussion thread of the "misgendering" rulehttps://forum.nationstates.net/viewtopic.php?f=16&t=389990&hilit=misgender
And a couple of posts that may be interpreted as more provoking (not against their right to post such, but the rules don't seem that fair or consistent in this regard):
https://forum.nationstates.net/viewtopic.php?f=20&t=447043&p=35721998#p35721998
https://forum.nationstates.net/viewtopic.php?f=20&t=447043&start=6975&p=35902418&view=show#p35902418

Your examples show that rulebreaking, such as trolling people by deliberately misgendering them or "joking" that they should be killed in a specific way with a lot of terrible history, is punished, while arguing a point with a curseword isn't. If I should take something away from your (4 anecdotal) links it'd probably be that right-wingers apparently can't or won't uphold the rules, while "left-wingers" can and will. Of course I don't actually think your links are representative. Your original claim was a bias in the rules, but all you've shown is that you do get warned for deliberately trolling people (Which misgendering them is), and not for using expletives. This looks more like your bias to me than anything else.

I don't know...people who call people liars rather than addressing their debate points are pretty toxic, especially if they do it to everyone they disagree with. There are some posters like that.

(...)
That is: Hakons' claim that discussing Christianity or Conservatism outside of the CDT/RWDT is met with toxicity is simply untrue (...)

I won't check your work, but the post you highlight as borderline toxic is, IMO, not even so.

[The New California Republic]

Anecdotally, I didn't notice that personally. Do you have some examples?

I do.

Incident of "intentionally misgendering" resulting in a warn: https://forum.nationstates.net/viewtopic.php?f=16&t=441403&hilit=misgender
Incident of referencing a joke regarding transgenderism resulting in a warn: https://forum.nationstates.net/viewtopic.php?p=36406861#p36406861
The discussion thread of the "misgendering" rulehttps://forum.nationstates.net/viewtopic.php?f=16&t=389990&hilit=misgender
And a couple of posts that may be interpreted as more provoking (not against their right to post such, but the rules don't seem that fair or consistent in this regard):
https://forum.nationstates.net/viewtopic.php?f=20&t=447043&p=35721998#p35721998
https://forum.nationstates.net/viewtopic.php?f=20&t=447043&start=6975&p=35902418&view=show#p35902418

So what is this meant to prove? That rulebreaking results in someone getting warned, while not breaking the rules doesn't?

[WayNeacTia]

I do.

Incident of "intentionally misgendering" resulting in a warn: https://forum.nationstates.net/viewtopic.php?f=16&t=441403&hilit=misgender
Incident of referencing a joke regarding transgenderism resulting in a warn: https://forum.nationstates.net/viewtopic.php?p=36406861#p36406861
The discussion thread of the "misgendering" rulehttps://forum.nationstates.net/viewtopic.php?f=16&t=389990&hilit=misgender
And a couple of posts that may be interpreted as more provoking (not against their right to post such, but the rules don't seem that fair or consistent in this regard):
https://forum.nationstates.net/viewtopic.php?f=20&t=447043&p=35721998#p35721998
https://forum.nationstates.net/viewtopic.php?f=20&t=447043&start=6975&p=35902418&view=show#p35902418

So what is this meant to prove? That rulebreaking results in someone getting warned, while not breaking the rules doesn't?

If only that were in the rules somewhere.

[Alyakia]

Intentionally "misgendering" a player or referencing (not necessarily making) a joke regarding such to make a point can and often does result in a warn for "trolling", even though the former is merely the logically consistent result of believing that gender is binary and static, while the latter is not necessarily trolling (it could be attempting to show logical consistencies within an argument, etc.).

Meanwhile, some posters on the left do seem to get away with making more provoking posts.

you could probably get away with not respecting someone's pronouns if you really wanted to but since most people misgendering are doing it actively and maliciously they always go full in and get probably rightfully warned for being deliberately antagonistic. i bet you could think of like 3 ways right now off the top of your head but you probably want to make sure you call transpeople by the wrong pronouns deliberately to make sure they know you don't respect them and then act surprised when you catch flak for it. now if they were literally holding you down and forcing you to ma'am everyone then maybe you might have a case, but they aren't, and you know they aren't. you just can't control your usage of the h-word. and i find it very intellectually dishonest or intellectually bankrupt to pretend that "being forced to call someone she" and "being forced to not call someone he" are the same thing.

e: this comes off as a lot more aggressive than initially intended because it was supposed to be directed towards a general "you" and since i quoted you it now looks like it's a personal "you". there is probably some irony in this, given the quote is about pronouns.

[Diarcesia]

Or who refuse to accept sources that support points they disagree with, refuse to actually engage with arguments, etc, etc.
There are a lot of posters like that on NSG, and they tend to lean left.

See, this is funny. I have the opposite impression, where the argument-resistant people usually lean right. Given that we have equal and opposite anecdotal experiences, perhaps there's something else at play? Say, a general intransigence to changing viewpoints when you're convinced enough of your own arguments to go argue them online?

You argue them online because you are convinced enough of them in the first place. It stops being constructive if you do so with the intent to win converts to your side, not to refine or rebut the arguments made. That is, you're not willing to change your views.

[Attempted Socialism]

See, this is funny. I have the opposite impression, where the argument-resistant people usually lean right. Given that we have equal and opposite anecdotal experiences, perhaps there's something else at play? Say, a general intransigence to changing viewpoints when you're convinced enough of your own arguments to go argue them online?

You argue them online because you are convinced enough of them in the first place. It stops being constructive if you do so with the intent to win converts to your side, not to refine or rebut the arguments made. That is, you're not willing to change your views.

I have been doing politics for close to two decades now. Though it may sound terrible, most political discourse isn't about your interlocutors, but rather the uncommitted onlookers. People who do politics, broadly speaking, are too convinced of their own righteousness to change opinions just because you can consistently show they're wrong. As an example, I think it took me half a decade to be convinced by nuclear power, despite having access to the exact same evidence when first I was shown to be wrong and when I changed my mind.
My point here is that it's extremely prevalent among all people (Left, centre or right) who are actually convinced by their own arguments to refuse to accept sources they disagree with, or engage with arguments, which was Diopolis' allegation hurled only at left-leaning posters. My anecdotal experience, which in my mind is naturally more right than Diopolis ditto, is that it is right-leaning people who do it, because those are the ones I most consistently disagree with. An argument that tried to make some left-leaning posters look like toxic, argument-resistant jerks is neatly reversed.
If there's a moderator bias, it has to be shown with more than empty anecdotes and vague recriminations against "left leaning" posters.

[Grenartia]

People debating with you is not your opinions not being welcome. It's debate. It's literally the point of NSG. If your opinions can't withstand such scrutiny, the problem is with your opinions, not the scrutiny. Disagreeing with you is not "toxic", and pretty well anything that could actually be reasonably described as "toxic" is already against the rules, and will be dealt with if you report it.

A dogpile is different from having a debate.

Why is it our fault that you have unpopular opinions and get outnumbered as a result? Genuine question.

I don't know...people who call people liars rather than addressing their debate points are pretty toxic, especially if they do it to everyone they disagree with. There are some posters like that.

Your silly attempt to derail the thread with a poorly-disguised personal attack notwithstanding, no. People calling you out for lying is not "toxic".

At any rate, Hakons' claim seemed implausible to me, so I did a little experiment. I went to Hakons' profile, and clicked through the last ten pages of their posts. I opened every thread that they'd posted in that was in NSG and neither the CDT nor the RWDT (a total of 17 threads). I then searched for "Hakons" in each of those threads, producing a list of all of the posts quoting Hakons (after filtering out posts that weren't of this form, a total of 177 posts). I then read them all, looking for anything that could reasonably be described as "toxic". Two threads had no such posts. One contained only a post agreeing with Hakons. Nine contained nothing but polite, reasonable responses (and a single borderline-spam post that was nonetheless perfectly civil). I also note that one of these contained a very civil response to a significantly less civil post by Hakons. That leaves five threads. Of these: the thread about transgender health protections being rolled back contained one post that was mildly snarky. The riots/protests thread II contained one post which engaged in reasonable debate in a mildly snarky way and one post calling out an uncivil post of Hakons'. The religion in schools thread contained one post that engaged in reasonable debate in a mildly snarky way, and two calling out Hakons' debating tactics as impolite. The US riots thread (1) contained, out of 60 such posts, three mildly snarky posts, three posts calling out Hakons' tactics, and one polite response to an impolite post of Hakons'. Finally, the LGBT adoption thread contained, out of 32 such posts, three that were mildly snarky, and the only post of the entire lot that I'd consider even borderline "toxic" (this one).

That is: Hakons' claim that discussing Christianity or Conservatism outside of the CDT/RWDT is met with toxicity is simply untrue (for reference, the threads that contained only reasonable non-snarky responses above were "is Antifa a terrorist group", "what makes a cult", the Illinois medicaid expansion thread, "should non-profits be taxed", "what makes a good christian", the 4th Coronavirus thread, "what would it take for you to vote for Biden", the 6th and 7th US general election threads, MAGAThread XIX, the Washington & Jefferson statues thread and the CHAZ thread, so there was no shortage of discussion of those two topics in the dataset).

That seems to be a pattern I've noticed with a lot of right wingers here. If they disparage you, its "civil debate". If you make reasoned, logical arguments against them, its "toxic and rude".

No, you have to do it without flaming and trolling. If you find it difficult not to call people names, or dismiss whole groups of people as something horrid, that is on you, not on us.

Individual users' behavior was deemed problematic. Big difference.
Their community was not destroyed -- their thread where they repeatedly engaged in rulebreaking behavior, which anyone is welcome to go view for themselves, was closed.

The rules are not subjective. They are in the One Stop Rules Shop for anyone to see.

Insisting that there is a liberal bias in enforcing the rules says quite a bit, but not about moderation.

Actually, from my experience, there is a left-leaning bias in the rules and/or their enforcement.

If this is the case, surely you can prove it?

Intentionally "misgendering" a player

Is arguably a form of flaming and/or flamebaiting, and is definitely trolling.

or referencing (not necessarily making) a joke regarding such

What, you mean that tired as fuck attack helicopter 'joke'? It honestly stopped being funny the instant it was copy-pasted. That's all it is. An unfunny "joke" that is ONLY used as a weapon against trans people. Therefore, trolling. Basic fucking respect for other people shouldn't be a concept exclusive to the left, and to claim otherwise is probably the best argument against rightism.

to make a point can and often does result in a warn for "trolling", even though the former is merely the logically consistent result of believing that gender is binary and static,

Doesn't make it any less of a flame.

while the latter is not necessarily trolling (it could be attempting to show logical consistencies within an argument, etc.).

It is never used for that purpose, and more often than not, where it is allowed, it is copypasted the instant a trans person dares be visible in an online space. It is little more than an unoriginal strawman argument crossed with flamebaiting. If your "counterargument" inherently involves disrespecting someone's existence, then you shouldn't be making it.

TL;DR:

If your personal belief system includes "I should be an asshole," the mods aren't being biased by enforcing "no assholes allowed" rules, they're just enforcing rules that you happen to disagree with.

Meanwhile, some posters on the left do seem to get away with making more provoking posts.

Such as...?

And a couple of posts that may be interpreted as more provoking (not against their right to post such, but the rules don't seem that fair or consistent in this regard):
https://forum.nationstates.net/viewtopic.php?f=20&t=447043&p=35721998#p35721998
https://forum.nationstates.net/viewtopic.php?f=20&t=447043&start=6975&p=35902418&view=show#p35902418

There's a difference between being brusque and rulebreaking. Plenty of rightwingers are just as, or even more brusque than those two posts.

[Katganistan]

Question. Are threads that are about certain viewpoints, say, a megathread about socialism or a megathread about American libertarianism allowed, or do they fall under the ruling?

We'd prefer not beginning any more megathreads. Just discuss whatever you want to discuss on its own merits.

It seems from what's been said upthread that an unintended consequence of the WDTs was to create an environment where an opponent criticizing an argument's merits is considered "toxic". General is a discussion forum, so discuss and defend your points with people who disagree with them.

[Esternial]

No, you have to do it without flaming and trolling. If you find it difficult not to call people names, or dismiss whole groups of people as something horrid, that is on you, not on us.

Individual users' behavior was deemed problematic. Big difference.
Their community was not destroyed -- their thread where they repeatedly engaged in rulebreaking behavior, which anyone is welcome to go view for themselves, was closed.

The rules are not subjective. They are in the One Stop Rules Shop for anyone to see.

Insisting that there is a liberal bias in enforcing the rules says quite a bit, but not about moderation.

Actually, from my experience, there is a left-leaning bias in the rules and/or their enforcement.

Intentionally "misgendering" a player or referencing (not necessarily making) a joke regarding such to make a point can and often does result in a warn for "trolling", even though the former is merely the logically consistent result of believing that gender is binary and static, while the latter is not necessarily trolling (it could be attempting to show logical consistencies within an argument, etc.).

Meanwhile, some posters on the left do seem to get away with making more provoking posts.

This is really not a good argument. Intentionally misgendering people is intentionally insulting them. Just use "they". It's not difficult.

Hiding behind the excuse "but I actually believe that so I can say it" hasn't worked here since a long, long time.

I have been doing politics for close to two decades now. Though it may sound terrible, most political discourse isn't about your interlocutors, but rather the uncommitted onlookers. People who do politics, broadly speaking, are too convinced of their own righteousness to change opinions just because you can consistently show they're wrong. As an example, I think it took me half a decade to be convinced by nuclear power, despite having access to the exact same evidence when first I was shown to be wrong and when I changed my mind.
My point here is that it's extremely prevalent among all people (Left, centre or right) who are actually convinced by their own arguments to refuse to accept sources they disagree with, or engage with arguments, which was Diopolis' allegation hurled only at left-leaning posters. My anecdotal experience, which in my mind is naturally more right than Diopolis ditto, is that it is right-leaning people who do it, because those are the ones I most consistently disagree with. An argument that tried to make some left-leaning posters look like toxic, argument-resistant jerks is neatly reversed.
If there's a moderator bias, it has to be shown with more than empty anecdotes and vague recriminations against "left leaning" posters.

The left is also relatively more represented on this forum, so it stands to reason there are more left-wing people displaying this behavior.

Additionally, this perception also completely rely on what you consider "correct" sources. If you're extreme right-wing, I can understand if you complain about the horrible lefties not accepting your reliable source on "realconservativenews.com".

Though again I don't entirely see how this ties back to Moderation. This is about overall forum culture and perception by portions of the playerbase. Moderation isn't around to babysit and create safe spaces...

[La Xinga]

That seems to be a pattern I've noticed with a lot of right wingers here. If they disparage you, its "civil debate". If you make reasoned, logical arguments against them, its "toxic and rude".

I'm a right-winger, and I believe that's not the case, at least by me and some others.

[Diarcesia]

Actually, from my experience, there is a left-leaning bias in the rules and/or their enforcement.

Intentionally "misgendering" a player or referencing (not necessarily making) a joke regarding such to make a point can and often does result in a warn for "trolling", even though the former is merely the logically consistent result of believing that gender is binary and static, while the latter is not necessarily trolling (it could be attempting to show logical consistencies within an argument, etc.).

Meanwhile, some posters on the left do seem to get away with making more provoking posts.

This is really not a good argument. Intentionally misgendering people is intentionally insulting them. Just use "they". It's not difficult.

Hiding behind the excuse "but I actually believe that so I can say it" hasn't worked here since a long, long time.

I have been doing politics for close to two decades now. Though it may sound terrible, most political discourse isn't about your interlocutors, but rather the uncommitted onlookers. People who do politics, broadly speaking, are too convinced of their own righteousness to change opinions just because you can consistently show they're wrong. As an example, I think it took me half a decade to be convinced by nuclear power, despite having access to the exact same evidence when first I was shown to be wrong and when I changed my mind.
My point here is that it's extremely prevalent among all people (Left, centre or right) who are actually convinced by their own arguments to refuse to accept sources they disagree with, or engage with arguments, which was Diopolis' allegation hurled only at left-leaning posters. My anecdotal experience, which in my mind is naturally more right than Diopolis ditto, is that it is right-leaning people who do it, because those are the ones I most consistently disagree with. An argument that tried to make some left-leaning posters look like toxic, argument-resistant jerks is neatly reversed.
If there's a moderator bias, it has to be shown with more than empty anecdotes and vague recriminations against "left leaning" posters.

The left is also relatively more represented on this forum, so it stands to reason there are more left-wing people displaying this behavior.

Additionally, this perception also completely rely on what you consider "correct" sources. If you're extreme right-wing, I can understand if you complain about the horrible lefties not accepting your reliable source on "realconservativenews.com".

Though again I don't entirely see how this ties back to Moderation. This is about overall forum culture and perception by portions of the playerbase. Moderation isn't around to babysit and create safe spaces...

One of the complaints raised up is that the mods decisions are colored by political bias, that's why it gets talked about in this particular thread.

[La Xinga]

This is really not a good argument. Intentionally misgendering people is intentionally insulting them. Just use "they". It's not difficult.

Hiding behind the excuse "but I actually believe that so I can say it" hasn't worked here since a long, long time.


The left is also relatively more represented on this forum, so it stands to reason there are more left-wing people displaying this behavior.

Additionally, this perception also completely rely on what you consider "correct" sources. If you're extreme right-wing, I can understand if you complain about the horrible lefties not accepting your reliable source on "realconservativenews.com".

Though again I don't entirely see how this ties back to Moderation. This is about overall forum culture and perception by portions of the playerbase. Moderation isn't around to babysit and create safe spaces...

One of the complaints raised up is that the mods decisions are colored by political bias, that's why it gets talked about in this particular thread.

Can I see some of those mod decisions? I'm not for your argument or against it, I just wanna see more mod decisions, something about seeing warnings (not directed at me ) is surprisingly calming.

[Diarcesia]

One of the complaints raised up is that the mods decisions are colored by political bias, that's why it gets talked about in this particular thread.

Can I see some of those mod decisions? I'm not for your argument or against it, I just wanna see more mod decisions, something about seeing warnings (not directed at me ) is surprisingly calming.

Check these:

Anecdotally, I didn't notice that personally. Do you have some examples?

I do.

Incident of "intentionally misgendering" resulting in a warn: https://forum.nationstates.net/viewtopic.php?f=16&t=441403&hilit=misgender
Incident of referencing a joke regarding transgenderism resulting in a warn: https://forum.nationstates.net/viewtopic.php?p=36406861#p36406861
The discussion thread of the "misgendering" rulehttps://forum.nationstates.net/viewtopic.php?f=16&t=389990&hilit=misgender
And a couple of posts that may be interpreted as more provoking (not against their right to post such, but the rules don't seem that fair or consistent in this regard):
https://forum.nationstates.net/viewtopic.php?f=20&t=447043&p=35721998#p35721998
https://forum.nationstates.net/viewtopic.php?f=20&t=447043&start=6975&p=35902418&view=show#p35902418

I raise mine as a counterexample...

[Atheris]

One of the complaints raised up is that the mods decisions are colored by political bias, that's why it gets talked about in this particular thread.

Can I see some of those mod decisions? I'm not for your argument or against it, I just wanna see more mod decisions, something about seeing warnings (not directed at me ) is surprisingly calming.

Same here. I love browsing Moderation.

[La Xinga]

This is really not a good argument. Intentionally misgendering people is intentionally insulting them. Just use "they". It's not difficult.

Hiding behind the excuse "but I actually believe that so I can say it" hasn't worked here since a long, long time.


The left is also relatively more represented on this forum, so it stands to reason there are more left-wing people displaying this behavior.

Additionally, this perception also completely rely on what you consider "correct" sources. If you're extreme right-wing, I can understand if you complain about the horrible lefties not accepting your reliable source on "realconservativenews.com".

Though again I don't entirely see how this ties back to Moderation. This is about overall forum culture and perception by portions of the playerbase. Moderation isn't around to babysit and create safe spaces...

One of the complaints raised up is that the mods decisions are colored by political bias, that's why it gets talked about in this particular thread.

I don't really see any mod bias besides by Strahcoin's second-to-last one, which I believe may have been flaming.

[Attempted Socialism]

I have been doing politics for close to two decades now. Though it may sound terrible, most political discourse isn't about your interlocutors, but rather the uncommitted onlookers. People who do politics, broadly speaking, are too convinced of their own righteousness to change opinions just because you can consistently show they're wrong. As an example, I think it took me half a decade to be convinced by nuclear power, despite having access to the exact same evidence when first I was shown to be wrong and when I changed my mind.
My point here is that it's extremely prevalent among all people (Left, centre or right) who are actually convinced by their own arguments to refuse to accept sources they disagree with, or engage with arguments, which was Diopolis' allegation hurled only at left-leaning posters. My anecdotal experience, which in my mind is naturally more right than Diopolis ditto, is that it is right-leaning people who do it, because those are the ones I most consistently disagree with. An argument that tried to make some left-leaning posters look like toxic, argument-resistant jerks is neatly reversed.
If there's a moderator bias, it has to be shown with more than empty anecdotes and vague recriminations against "left leaning" posters.

The left is also relatively more represented on this forum, so it stands to reason there are more left-wing people displaying this behavior.

Additionally, this perception also completely rely on what you consider "correct" sources. If you're extreme right-wing, I can understand if you complain about the horrible lefties not accepting your reliable source on "realconservativenews.com".

Though again I don't entirely see how this ties back to Moderation. This is about overall forum culture and perception by portions of the playerbase. Moderation isn't around to babysit and create safe spaces...

From where I stand, the left is severely underrepresented, but perhaps that's somewhat influenced by where I consider the political centre to be. What I responded to, however, was whether some ominous left-leaning group is refusing sources (Which, for the sake of argument, I assumed to be actual, credible sources) or to engage with arguments in order to create a toxic, anti-conservative milieu. If moderators were willfully ignoring constant low-grade trolling or other forms of actual toxicity due to their political leanings and that of the trolls or targets, I would get the argument Diopolis made.

[Strahcoin]

I do.

Incident of "intentionally misgendering" resulting in a warn: https://forum.nationstates.net/viewtopic.php?f=16&t=441403&hilit=misgender
Incident of referencing a joke regarding transgenderism resulting in a warn: https://forum.nationstates.net/viewtopic.php?p=36406861#p36406861
The discussion thread of the "misgendering" rulehttps://forum.nationstates.net/viewtopic.php?f=16&t=389990&hilit=misgender
And a couple of posts that may be interpreted as more provoking (not against their right to post such, but the rules don't seem that fair or consistent in this regard):
https://forum.nationstates.net/viewtopic.php?f=20&t=447043&p=35721998#p35721998
https://forum.nationstates.net/viewtopic.php?f=20&t=447043&start=6975&p=35902418&view=show#p35902418

I raise mine as a counterexample. That person's far from a conservative from the looks of it and got smacked nonetheless. If you notice any commonality, it's because they're attacking the poster or goading them to possibly get into trouble. The intent seems to be to attack the poster's character. "Attack the message, not the messenger" is one of the primary rules of thumb when debating in NS.

The thing with intentionally misgendering is that it's clear that it's a character attack simply because they disagree with your views. That's not constructive debate. Based on your sig, you're a Christian. What would you think if an atheist keeps on telling you that you believe in fairy tales while debating religion? Or if a Muslim keeps on calling you kafir because, well, you're not Muslim? Would you report them?

https://forum.nationstates.net/viewtopic.php?f=20&t=447043&p=35721998#p35721998

Definitely rude, though I don't honestly know if this would be actionable. It would be more clear-cut to me had she said "You're an idiot for thinking that a woman has to carry a baby that resulted from her being raped". Same with the other link. I acknowledge that the mods may make errors in cases like these.

1. It's definitely true that many outright troll posters like the counter-example provided got warned (or, in some cases, banned), and the NS rules is generally "civil posts are okay; troll posts are not". However, I fail to see how intentionally "misgendering" is a character attack. (Whether one is biologically a male or female is not intended to be insulting, nor is it intended to dismiss/devalue an argument.)
Oh, and I'm an atheist. I don't see myself reporting trolls/flames directed at my character, though that's mainly due to my lack of confidence to utilize the reporting system my personal opposition to silencing one from peacefully speaking (even if said speech is offensive and/or rude).
2. Yeah, I'm not a fan of banning individuals for making borderline posts. And it's certainly possible that the mods did not intend to imply a bias in the system. However, it does reveal an inconsistency within the ruling system - if these more obviously rude posts are tolerated, then why isn't intentionally "misgendering" someone?
And those aren't the only incidents. A couple more pieces of evidence:
https://forum.nationstates.net/viewtopic.php?f=20&t=468710&p=35995128#p35995128 (Provoked a response, the poster of which getting banned)
https://forum.nationstates.net/viewtopic.php?p=36700992#p36700992 (I don't know whether accusing Reagan with "double treason" without evidence or implying that "Trump supporters might just love him precisely because he does things like that and gets away with it" is actionable or not. It doesn't exactly take into consideration the number of Trump supporters on the site, however, and I certainly don't see how calling someone by a different pronoun than they wish would be more serious.)

[La Xinga]

Well, the last couple reports on moderation are on right-wing people, is that mod-bias, or right-wingers break the rule more often?

Or am I just dumb at the forums and can't tell who's right-wing or who's left-wing?

[The New California Republic]

However, it does reveal an inconsistency within the ruling system - if these more obviously rude posts are tolerated, then why isn't intentionally "misgendering" someone?

It isn't inconsistent at all. Rudeness is rudeness, while trolling is trolling. I shouldn't really need to emphasise tautologies like that, but here we are...