Discussion - New NSG Rule Suggestion

[Shofercia]

I'd like to suggest a rule: if an obviously unprovoked bait results in a flame, the bait and the flame should both get the equivalent warnings, provided that both participants have an equal warning level; otherwise an adjustment based on warning levels can be made.

Quite often I see posters baited into flaming, when the bait and the flame contribute absolutely nothing to the discussion. Here's the most recent example:

Considering Vetalia is also convinced Islam is SHRINKING, I’d suggest not expecting him to listen to facts, guys.

The preceding quote had nothing to do with Islam, the thread's about DACA & Executive Orders, not Islam, and the only purpose of said post was to bait Vetalia. Here's a link to Vetalia's previous post for proof: viewtopic.php?p=38042926#p38042926

Quite understandably, Vetalia responds:

Not the topic of this thread, but once you find some growth in Islam that is not based on rapidly declining birth rates or outright coercion compared to the millions of Sub-Saharan Africans freely converting to and reinforcing their faith in Jesus Christ as Son of God get back to me. Hopefully many millions more Africans will continue to "apostatize" from Islam and return to Christianity and our churches will protect them from your bloodthirsty retribution, i.e. death for failing to follow your "prophet".

And promptly gets a warning:

This is how you get a *** warning for trolling. ***

Everyone else, I suggest you take a step back, breathe, and get back on track with the discussion on the restoration of DACA.

Thanks!
NVI

This is how you bait to get someone whose opinions you don't like, kicked out from NSG. In fact, that's a textbook example. But for the bait, there wouldn't be a flame. And aside from the baiter, the thread was on topic, so not really sure why the baiter wasn't singled out by the mod, since the baiter was the one driving the thread off topic.

Time to stop that crap, hence the proposal shown above. What does NSG think?

I'm not calling for a warning, or for rescinding the warning, just wondering what NSG thinks of the new rule that I'm suggesting, hence the title - it's a discussion thread, not a report thread. I think my opinion's rather obvious, as obvious as the bait in the example.

[The New California Republic]

Usually, from what I have seen, if someone throws out some flamebait and the flame is indeed forthcoming, then both baiter and flamer will get smacked for it. Not sure why it didn't in this instance, you'll have to wait for a passing Mod or NVI themselves to clarify. Perhaps it was deemed to be dancing on the line of being flamebait, but didn't quite cross it.

[Attempted Socialism]

I would fear that a general rule like that turned many warnings for flaming into counterlitigation for flamebait. Is there anything to be won from a change in rules, that isn't possible within the current ruleset?

[United Republic Empire]

Isn't it the responsibility of the user not to react to flamebait and instead report it if you see it. It is better to not react to the people leaving behind trolling or flambaiting comments. By not playing into their games, you're essentially starving their pleasure that they get out of riling others up. When someone feeds trolls or flamebaiters, they enable the trolls/etc and make them dependent on the person enabling it.

Yes it can be hard to ignore them and just report it, but keep in mind that if the person does it enough then the mods will take care of it as they see fit based on the rules and Max's guidance. Plain and Simple

[Lamoni]

Isn't it the responsibility of the user not to react to flamebait and instead report it if you see it. It is better to not react to the people leaving behind trolling or flambaiting comments. By not playing into their games, you're essentially starving their pleasure that they get out of riling others up. When someone feeds trolls or flamebaiters, they enable the trolls/etc and make them dependent on the person enabling it.

Yes it can be hard to ignore them and just report it, but keep in mind that if the person does it enough then the mods will take care of it as they see fit based on the rules and Max's guidance. Plain and Simple

This is a well developed and moderator approved way to handle the situation. We don't need a new rule on the subject, especially since people can essentially ignore flamebait, which is often left by people wanting to get a reaction. Deny them that reaction, and they won't do it as much.

[Shofercia]

Isn't it the responsibility of the user not to react to flamebait and instead report it if you see it. It is better to not react to the people leaving behind trolling or flambaiting comments. By not playing into their games, you're essentially starving their pleasure that they get out of riling others up. When someone feeds trolls or flamebaiters, they enable the trolls/etc and make them dependent on the person enabling it.

Yes it can be hard to ignore them and just report it, but keep in mind that if the person does it enough then the mods will take care of it as they see fit based on the rules and Max's guidance. Plain and Simple

And in a perfect World we'd all get along and sing kumbaya, but in reality, NSG has sensitive topics, and mods have shown understanding of this in the past, and modded those topics harder. But if someone is baited in a sensitive topic, on another issue, the response can be a flame, as was, quite rightfully, noted earlier:

Usually, from what I have seen, if someone throws out some flamebait and the flame is indeed forthcoming, then both baiter and flamer will get smacked for it...

What I fail to understand is why it's so hard to punish the bait, when it's blatantly obvious bait? This is an online forum, not a Buddhist Sanctuary. Sometimes posters come here just to bait. Other times posters are so hellbent on spreading their ideology, that they'll deliberately bait to get anyone arguing against said ideology - banned. Your "let's take the high ground" approach is more harmful than useful, because, as someone who's been on this forum since 2006, the high ground ain't taken that often.

It's not just "it can be hard" - sometimes it's impossible. All I'm asking is to partially prevent the bait, when said bait is blatantly obvious to anyone who's not completely oblivious, and contributes nothing to the topic at hand. It's not "playing into their games" - in sensitive topics baiting can produce the equivalent emotional response as light online bullying. And when I see someone "advise" others to just take online bullying on the chin and be a better person, that advice isn't worth the price of my toilet paper.

That advice contributes to an already fractured and divided system, because - guess what? This is an online forum. Users can leave. And when users leave because they've been forced out because of their beliefs, through these types of baits that you demand are ignored for no real reason, and the "peace and love for light online bullying" approach, those beliefs get radicalized. Society gets splintered even more. And then the people providing said advice throw their arms up in the air and go "why, I can't believe society's so divided, it's because of..." and then they proceed to name a symptom, not the cause. And that's anything but plain and simple.

I would fear that a general rule like that turned many warnings for flaming into counterlitigation for flamebait. Is there anything to be won from a change in rules, that isn't possible within the current ruleset?

The rules aren't being changed. There's a suggestion to add a very simple type of enforcement to the rules. Something either blatantly obvious, or it's not. For instance:

Did the bait target a specific poster? If yes, continue. If you're unsure, stop.
Did the bait address anything about the topic? If no, continue. If it responded to something in the OP, stop.
Did the bait result in a flame from its target? If yes, continue. If no flame, stop.
Was the target warned as a result? If yes, warn the baiter. If not, stop.

What, exactly, is so unclear that it'd be subject to litigation?

Isn't it the responsibility of the user not to react to flamebait and instead report it if you see it. It is better to not react to the people leaving behind trolling or flambaiting comments. By not playing into their games, you're essentially starving their pleasure that they get out of riling others up. When someone feeds trolls or flamebaiters, they enable the trolls/etc and make them dependent on the person enabling it.

Yes it can be hard to ignore them and just report it, but keep in mind that if the person does it enough then the mods will take care of it as they see fit based on the rules and Max's guidance. Plain and Simple

This is a well developed and moderator approved way to handle the situation. We don't need a new rule on the subject, especially since people can essentially ignore flamebait, which is often left by people wanting to get a reaction. Deny them that reaction, and they won't do it as much.

Please see my response to United Republic Empire. Of course you're the mod, and as long as I'm on the site, I'll follow the rules, so it's your call and that of other mods.

[Big Jim P]

Two ways to get along without new rules: Thicker skin, don't take the bait, or being smart enough to get something past the mods (damn near impossible).

I adviser the former.

[Phydios]

Don't take the bait. Just don't. Scroll past it and move on. Yes, even when it's specifically targeted at you. You don't have to hold hands and sing campfire songs with someone trying to bait you; you just have to stop playing into their hands.

The minimum age on these forums is 13, so every user is capable of this. If someone hasn't developed the skill of letting provocations bounce off of them without reacting, this is a good time and place to start. The ability to not let yourself be goaded into a reply will keep you out of trouble many times, both here and in real life.

Always remember that even when you are baited, you are the one who controls and is responsible for what you say- not the baiter.

[Liagolas]

I think this is a pretty sound proposal. Certainly, the virtuous thing to do in these situations is to not respond to flamebaiting. But if I fail to rise to the virtue of taking something on the chin, I don't think that baptizes the flamebait into something neutral. The flamebait can still have been provocative, offtopic, and—well, bad. My taking the bait just also puts me in the wrong; it doesn't put the baiter out of the wrong.

In the event that The New California Republic is right and that baiter and flamer usually do both "get smacked," then I can understand not going for this rule change—or perhaps enforcement change, is the better way to put it. But if baiters do tend to get off the hook, then I think Shofercia's suggestion has merit.

[United Republic Empire]

I have to ask what is difficult about seeing a flamebait comment and reporting it versus engaging the flamebait comment and allowing the flamebait to continue. Self control allows us all to make decisions based on logic, facts, common sense, experiences, etc. When we begin making decisions based on emotions, the outcome tends to be unsatisfactory for all parties involved. It isn't a matter of "ignore it" - it is a matter of "you see it, you report it". The person reporting it and the mods taking care of it means that it is not being ignored. When you engage with a person that is trolling or flamebaiting, you're essentially telling that person that they have control over you. You're broadcasting it out there that they can troll/flame you and get a negative reaction out of you each and every time. Why would you allow someone to be in control of your reactions like that versus denying them the pleasure of pissing you off and knowing they can piss you off and get a reaction. You as an individual are responsible for your actions and your actions alone, it's never a good idea to let others dictate you sense of self control.

The point that we're making is to not actively engage in flamebait/trolling/etc. Be proactive in acknowledging the problem by reporting it versus being reactive and engaging further with the person that is causing problems. Search "Reactive vs Proactive", this will help give some clarity and understanding to the point that we're explaining.

[United Republic Empire]

I think this is a pretty sound proposal. Certainly, the virtuous thing to do in these situations is to not respond to flamebaiting. But if I fail to rise to the virtue of taking something on the chin, I don't think that baptizes the flamebait into something neutral. The flamebait can still have been provocative, offtopic, and—well, bad. My taking the bait just also puts me in the wrong; it doesn't put the baiter out of the wrong.

In the event that The New California Republic is right and that baiter and flamer usually do both "get smacked," then I can understand not going for this rule change—or perhaps enforcement change, is the better way to put it. But if baiters do tend to get off the hook, then I think Shofercia's suggestion has merit.

From what I've always seen, Flamebaiters and Trolling people don't get off the hook. But every situation is different and context is key

[Shofercia]

I have to ask what is difficult about seeing a flamebait comment and reporting it versus engaging the flamebait comment and allowing the flamebait to continue. Self control allows us all to make decisions based on logic, facts, common sense, experiences, etc. When we begin making decisions based on emotions, the outcome tends to be unsatisfactory for all parties involved. It isn't a matter of "ignore it" - it is a matter of "you see it, you report it". The person reporting it and the mods taking care of it means that it is not being ignored. When you engage with a person that is trolling or flamebaiting, you're essentially telling that person that they have control over you. You're broadcasting it out there that they can troll/flame you and get a negative reaction out of you each and every time. Why would you allow someone to be in control of your reactions like that versus denying them the pleasure of pissing you off and knowing they can piss you off and get a reaction. You as an individual are responsible for your actions and your actions alone, it's never a good idea to let others dictate you sense of self control.

The point that we're making is to not actively engage in flamebait/trolling/etc. Be proactive in acknowledging the problem by reporting it versus being reactive and engaging further with the person that is causing problems. Search "Reactive vs Proactive", this will help give some clarity and understanding to the point that we're explaining.

You simply ignored what I wrote, and rephrased your commentary. My solution is to have a rule to nip intentional baiting in the bud. Your solution is to have posters take it on the chin, as if we should be charitable to baiters, because reporting every single time an NSGer has been baited is, quite frankly, unrealistic. Sometimes baits happen by accident, and sometimes they don't. Instead of having the mods rule on every bait reported, which could be the result of what you're suggesting, my way is to simply have the mods rule on intentional baits rather than unintentional ones, and no matter how many modern day slogans, like "be proactive rather than reactive" that you post, will change that simple distinction.

You're not arguing against the proposal, or the example, you're just repeating the "let online bullying thrive by somehow being a better person" chant in several variations. Case in point: your argument, taken at its least charitable interpretation, is that we should ignore cyber bullying or report it, rather than letting everyone know that said behavior won't be tolerated. And no matter how many times you rephrase it, that interpretation will remain, and render your argument useless.

I think this is a pretty sound proposal. Certainly, the virtuous thing to do in these situations is to not respond to flamebaiting. But if I fail to rise to the virtue of taking something on the chin, I don't think that baptizes the flamebait into something neutral. The flamebait can still have been provocative, offtopic, and—well, bad. My taking the bait just also puts me in the wrong; it doesn't put the baiter out of the wrong.

In the event that The New California Republic is right and that baiter and flamer usually do both "get smacked," then I can understand not going for this rule change—or perhaps enforcement change, is the better way to put it. But if baiters do tend to get off the hook, then I think Shofercia's suggestion has merit.

From what I've always seen, Flamebaiters and Trolling people don't get off the hook. But every situation is different and context is key

The very example posted in the OP of this thread proves otherwise, as is clearly stated in the OP. If this was in an actual workplace, rather than an online forum, I'd dig through and find countless examples to prove you even more wrong. It's very easy to get away with baiting on NSG, which is the very forum that we're talking about; NSG isn't Gameplay.

[Shofercia]

Don't take the bait. Just don't. Scroll past it and move on. Yes, even when it's specifically targeted at you. You don't have to hold hands and sing campfire songs with someone trying to bait you; you just have to stop playing into their hands.

The minimum age on these forums is 13, so every user is capable of this. If someone hasn't developed the skill of letting provocations bounce off of them without reacting, this is a good time and place to start. The ability to not let yourself be goaded into a reply will keep you out of trouble many times, both here and in real life.

Always remember that even when you are baited, you are the one who controls and is responsible for what you say- not the baiter.

I have a feeling I already responded to something like this.

Two ways to get along without new rules: Thicker skin, don't take the bait, or being smart enough to get something past the mods (damn near impossible).

I adviser the former.

A third solution would be to humiliate the bait, rather than the baiter, i.e:

Saying "Islam is shrinking is a dumb argument, because..." is perfectly fine, and even encouraged if you can back it up with facts. Saying "don't listen to this poster because he made a bad argument on an online forum" sounds rather dumb.

and mods have never responded to that, but it takes time and skill to learn how to do that properly. Your suggestion is solid, but it benefits the vets, like you and me, rather than the newbies. The issue for me is that NSG is one of the remaining forums where a single ideology hasn't taken over, so it's one of the few remaining online places where ideologies can be debated, minds can be changed, etc.

It's much easier to post on a partisan forum, where you can be as much of a prick as you want, as long as you tow the partisan line and provide quality analysis. And if newbies leave forums like NSG for partisan forums, then America simply grows even more divided, and a House Divided Cannot Stand. That's my dog in this fight. I know that it ain't much, in fact it's extremely minuscule, but every little bit helps, and it's not like a thread in moderation is going to harm me.

And yeah, I've done the latter, I was an unimaginable dick just to see how far I could take it, and it was the other user who got banned, and I had to ask for them to be unbanned, surprising them. This wasn't NSG, it was another forum, which I won't be advertising here, I'll just say that I provided quality analysis that their mods needed, so I had a "get out of jail free" card. Point is - it's much easier to post on a partisan forum, than on a forum where you can have your views challenged all the time, so let's challenge the views, rather than making it a bait pissing contest.

I think this is a pretty sound proposal. Certainly, the virtuous thing to do in these situations is to not respond to flamebaiting. But if I fail to rise to the virtue of taking something on the chin, I don't think that baptizes the flamebait into something neutral. The flamebait can still have been provocative, offtopic, and—well, bad. My taking the bait just also puts me in the wrong; it doesn't put the baiter out of the wrong.

In the event that The New California Republic is right and that baiter and flamer usually do both "get smacked," then I can understand not going for this rule change—or perhaps enforcement change, is the better way to put it. But if baiters do tend to get off the hook, then I think Shofercia's suggestion has merit.

Thank you!

[United Republic Empire]

I have to ask what is difficult about seeing a flamebait comment and reporting it versus engaging the flamebait comment and allowing the flamebait to continue. Self control allows us all to make decisions based on logic, facts, common sense, experiences, etc. When we begin making decisions based on emotions, the outcome tends to be unsatisfactory for all parties involved. It isn't a matter of "ignore it" - it is a matter of "you see it, you report it". The person reporting it and the mods taking care of it means that it is not being ignored. When you engage with a person that is trolling or flamebaiting, you're essentially telling that person that they have control over you. You're broadcasting it out there that they can troll/flame you and get a negative reaction out of you each and every time. Why would you allow someone to be in control of your reactions like that versus denying them the pleasure of pissing you off and knowing they can piss you off and get a reaction. You as an individual are responsible for your actions and your actions alone, it's never a good idea to let others dictate you sense of self control.

The point that we're making is to not actively engage in flamebait/trolling/etc. Be proactive in acknowledging the problem by reporting it versus being reactive and engaging further with the person that is causing problems. Search "Reactive vs Proactive", this will help give some clarity and understanding to the point that we're explaining.

You simply ignored what I wrote, and rephrased your commentary. My solution is to have a rule to nip intentional baiting in the bud. Your solution is to have posters take it on the chin, as if we should be charitable to baiters, because reporting every single time an NSGer has been baited is, quite frankly, unrealistic. Sometimes baits happen by accident, and sometimes they don't. Instead of having the mods rule on every bait reported, which could be the result of what you're suggesting, my way is to simply have the mods rule on intentional baits rather than unintentional ones, and no matter how many modern day slogans, like "be proactive rather than reactive" that you post, will change that simple distinction.

You're not arguing against the proposal, or the example, you're just repeating the "let online bullying thrive by somehow being a better person" chant in several variations. Case in point: your argument, taken at its least charitable interpretation, is that we should ignore cyber bullying or report it, rather than letting everyone know that said behavior won't be tolerated. And no matter how many times you rephrase it, that interpretation will remain, and render your argument useless.

From what I've always seen, Flamebaiters and Trolling people don't get off the hook. But every situation is different and context is key

The very example posted in the OP of this thread proves otherwise, as is clearly stated in the OP. If this was in an actual workplace, rather than an online forum, I'd dig through and find countless examples to prove you even more wrong. It's very easy to get away with baiting on NSG, which is the very forum that we're talking about; NSG isn't Gameplay.

You're contradicting your argument there. "Sometimes baits happen by accident, and sometimes they don't." - so you want a rule in place to punish people that flamebait but on the other hand not punish them if it was on accident. This would be non-feasible due to the fact that it is solely based on whether it was intentional or not. You argument provides room for people to get away with flame-baiting by doing so in an "unintentional" way. Whereas my explanation denies the person that is flamebaiting/trolling the pleasure of angering others, it shutters them out by everyone simply choosing to self control themselves and disengage into an argument, and gets reported for mods to intervene appropriately.

"let online bullying thrive" - yeah no, I clearly stated to report it, by continuing to engage with them, you are actually allowing it to thrive by giving them the attention that they seek.

that said behavior won't be tolerated. - okay so by engaging with them rather than report it, you're tolerating the behavior by given it attention. It enable the person by telling them that if they break the rules then someone is going give them attention that they are seeking. When you simply report it and simple allow a mod to take action - that is how you show it won't be tolerated.

I had rephrased my explanation because after reading your comment that came afterwards, it had occurred to me that you may have misunderstood. I would also like to explain to you that when you outright disregard opposing views with "And no matter how many times you rephrase it, that interpretation will remain, and render your argument useless." - You're doing the same to the moderation team by proposing your opposing views to them as I did to you by giving you an opposing explanation. What is the expectation for others to consider your argument when you have a complete disregard for opposing ones, such as your opposing argument towards the current policy in place. Would if be satisfactory for the mods to disregard your argument

[Shofercia]

You simply ignored what I wrote, and rephrased your commentary. My solution is to have a rule to nip intentional baiting in the bud. Your solution is to have posters take it on the chin, as if we should be charitable to baiters, because reporting every single time an NSGer has been baited is, quite frankly, unrealistic. Sometimes baits happen by accident, and sometimes they don't. Instead of having the mods rule on every bait reported, which could be the result of what you're suggesting, my way is to simply have the mods rule on intentional baits rather than unintentional ones, and no matter how many modern day slogans, like "be proactive rather than reactive" that you post, will change that simple distinction.

You're not arguing against the proposal, or the example, you're just repeating the "let online bullying thrive by somehow being a better person" chant in several variations. Case in point: your argument, taken at its least charitable interpretation, is that we should ignore cyber bullying or report it, rather than letting everyone know that said behavior won't be tolerated. And no matter how many times you rephrase it, that interpretation will remain, and render your argument useless.




The very example posted in the OP of this thread proves otherwise, as is clearly stated in the OP. If this was in an actual workplace, rather than an online forum, I'd dig through and find countless examples to prove you even more wrong. It's very easy to get away with baiting on NSG, which is the very forum that we're talking about; NSG isn't Gameplay.

You're contradicting your argument there. "Sometimes baits happen by accident, and sometimes they don't." - so you want a rule in place to punish people that flamebait but on the other hand not punish them if it was on accident. This would be non-feasible due to the fact that it is solely based on whether it was intentional or not. You argument provides room for people to get away with flame-baiting by doing so in an "unintentional" way. Whereas my explanation denies the person that is flamebaiting/trolling the pleasure of angering others, it shutters them out by everyone simply choosing to self control themselves and disengage into an argument, and gets reported for mods to intervene appropriately.

"let online bullying thrive" - yeah no, I clearly stated to report it, by continuing to engage with them, you are actually allowing it to thrive by giving them the attention that they seek.

that said behavior won't be tolerated. - okay so by engaging with them rather than report it, you're tolerating the behavior by given it attention. It enable the person by telling them that if they break the rules then someone is going give them attention that they are seeking. When you simply report it and simple allow a mod to take action - that is how you show it won't be tolerated.

I had rephrased my explanation because after reading your comment that came afterwards, it had occurred to me that you may have misunderstood. I would also like to explain to you that when you outright disregard opposing views with "And no matter how many times you rephrase it, that interpretation will remain, and render your argument useless." - You're doing the same to the moderation team by proposing your opposing views to them as I did to you by giving you an opposing explanation. What is the expectation for others to consider your argument when you have a complete disregard for opposing ones, such as your opposing argument towards the current policy in place. Would if be satisfactory for the mods to disregard your argument

It seems that you've completely misread my argument, so let me reiterate the key point: I want a rule in place that punishes intentional flamebait, which is really easy to deduce. I even offered a very simple approach:

Did the bait target a specific poster? If yes, continue. If you're unsure, stop.
Did the bait address anything about the topic? If no, continue. If it responded to something in the OP, stop.
Did the bait result in a flame from its target? If yes, continue. If no flame, stop.
Was the target warned as a result? If yes, warn the baiter. If not, stop.

There's no contradiction in my argument. If you bait an opponent for da lulz or to get your opponent to flame you so that they're banhammered from NSG, (again, talking about NSG, not Gameplay,) you should be warned. If two people go at each other on NSG, and accidental baiting on both sides results, that's a point that's not covered by the addition to the rule. I am adding a rule, not changing it. As thus, I fail to see the contradiction here. The sole purpose of the rule is to lessen baiting, as I'm a realist, and I understand that it cannot be eliminated.

Let me hammer this point home: on Gameplay, you lose a region, or an RP. Big whoop. On NSG I've seen a poster whose relatives were brutally murdered, simply informed that they're lying in a very baity manner, and the baiter got away. It's two very different forums. When I RP in NS Sports, I have no issues "just ignoring bait" since it's extremely mild and in the cases I've encountered on NS Sports, a forum similar to Gameplay, it's always extremely mild. That's not the case on NSG. In one of the rulings, you were even told: Not actionable; clear and unambiguous sarcasm used to counter an opposing argument is not inherently against the rules. And that's something that any NSGer would've easily been able to spot. Gameplay and NSG are two very different forums.

The only reason that I wrote the above written paragraph is to show that the arguments you're making might apply in a sheltered environment, but won't apply in either reality, or on NSG. You might not need a helmet, or an additional rule against baiting, if you're just riding your bike on the playground. But when you're on the road, a helmet might be useful. If you're on a forum like NSG, where shit gets real rather quickly, an additional anti-baiting rule is useful.

Furthermore, you claim that my rule allows people to get away with unintentional baiting, which is a lie. I clearly stated, earlier, that:

The rules aren't being changed. There's a suggestion to add a very simple type of enforcement to the rules.

So to claim that my rule allows someone to dodge unintentional baiting is simply wrong, as it has no bearing on unintentional baiting one way or another.

I am suggesting an additional rule designed specifically to discourage baiting, and yet you've somehow managed to deduce that it actually encourages baiting. All my rule does is that it prevents the baiters from escaping a warning if the bait was clearly intentional. That's all it does. It doesn't let unintentional baiters get away, as you've mistakenly alleged, since it has no effect on unintentional baiting.

You've argued the "ignore & report" point numerous times, and yet, each time you failed to rebut anything I've said, so I see no point engaging with you further on that claim, since you'll just ignore what I say, claim that you've addressed it, and pretend that you've done just that.

Now to address that strawman at the very end. If your argument is based on pigs flying across the Pacific, and I respond with "And no matter how many times you rephrase it, that interpretation the fact that pigs do not fly across the Pacific will remain, and render your argument useless" I have, in fact, considered your argument, found a major fallacy in it, and rendered it moot.

Your claim that if all that's needed for online bullying to stop is to ignore and report it, is utter nonsense. Your repeated implication that if a baiter is put in the proper place that contributes to more baiting, is utter nonsense. That's why I made the claim that you bolded and boldly took out of the context that it was in.

In conclusion, my rule doesn't change any existing rules. The only thing it does, is adds an automatic warning system designed to discourage future intentional baiting. That's it. There's no other way that it can be applied. I fail to understand why you are so hell bent against it - do you think that intentional baiting is a good thing? Maybe that's the case in Gameplay, maybe not, but when you go out to NSG, you need the proverbial helmet - the rule against unintentional baiting.

With this rule in place, posters can still ignore baiters, they can still report baiters, and mods can still review those reports. That doesn't change. The only thing that changes is that baits that are blatant and intentional, won't be allowed to skate anymore. That's it. Judging from my experience on NSG, with thousands of posts over a decade plus timespan, NSG needs this rule.

[Sophisticated horrors]

And if newbies leave forums like NSG for partisan forums, then America simply grows even more divided, and a House Divided Cannot Stand.

Do I really have to remind you, that this is not an "American forum", but an international; so there are many other views of this topic, based on posters origin, culture and personality.
I have to agree to Big Jim P, that people maybe have to (obviously to me) learn to grow a "thicker skin" again.
Second point is, that this (NSG), as someone mentioned, is a forum for discussion and debate, and therefore rhetorical tricks like luring the opponent into trap by "baiting" him/her is and should be legal as in every real-life debate. It´s the "victims" concern and duty not to fall for a "bait trap", not the "baiters", and also shouldn´t be the moderators concern.

[United Republic Empire]

You're contradicting your argument there. "Sometimes baits happen by accident, and sometimes they don't." - so you want a rule in place to punish people that flamebait but on the other hand not punish them if it was on accident. This would be non-feasible due to the fact that it is solely based on whether it was intentional or not. You argument provides room for people to get away with flame-baiting by doing so in an "unintentional" way. Whereas my explanation denies the person that is flamebaiting/trolling the pleasure of angering others, it shutters them out by everyone simply choosing to self control themselves and disengage into an argument, and gets reported for mods to intervene appropriately.

"let online bullying thrive" - yeah no, I clearly stated to report it, by continuing to engage with them, you are actually allowing it to thrive by giving them the attention that they seek.

that said behavior won't be tolerated. - okay so by engaging with them rather than report it, you're tolerating the behavior by given it attention. It enable the person by telling them that if they break the rules then someone is going give them attention that they are seeking. When you simply report it and simple allow a mod to take action - that is how you show it won't be tolerated.

I had rephrased my explanation because after reading your comment that came afterwards, it had occurred to me that you may have misunderstood. I would also like to explain to you that when you outright disregard opposing views with "And no matter how many times you rephrase it, that interpretation will remain, and render your argument useless." - You're doing the same to the moderation team by proposing your opposing views to them as I did to you by giving you an opposing explanation. What is the expectation for others to consider your argument when you have a complete disregard for opposing ones, such as your opposing argument towards the current policy in place. Would if be satisfactory for the mods to disregard your argument

It seems that you've completely misread my argument, so let me reiterate the key point: I want a rule in place that punishes intentional flamebait, which is really easy to deduce. I even offered a very simple approach:

Did the bait target a specific poster? If yes, continue. If you're unsure, stop.
Did the bait address anything about the topic? If no, continue. If it responded to something in the OP, stop.
Did the bait result in a flame from its target? If yes, continue. If no flame, stop.
Was the target warned as a result? If yes, warn the baiter. If not, stop.

There's no contradiction in my argument. If you bait an opponent for da lulz or to get your opponent to flame you so that they're banhammered from NSG, (again, talking about NSG, not Gameplay,) you should be warned. If two people go at each other on NSG, and accidental baiting on both sides results, that's a point that's not covered by the addition to the rule. I am adding a rule, not changing it. As thus, I fail to see the contradiction here. The sole purpose of the rule is to lessen baiting, as I'm a realist, and I understand that it cannot be eliminated.

Let me hammer this point home: on Gameplay, you lose a region, or an RP. Big whoop. On NSG I've seen a poster whose relatives were brutally murdered, simply informed that they're lying in a very baity manner, and the baiter got away. It's two very different forums. When I RP in NS Sports, I have no issues "just ignoring bait" since it's extremely mild and in the cases I've encountered on NS Sports, a forum similar to Gameplay, it's always extremely mild. That's not the case on NSG. In one of the rulings, you were even told: Not actionable; clear and unambiguous sarcasm used to counter an opposing argument is not inherently against the rules. And that's something that any NSGer would've easily been able to spot. Gameplay and NSG are two very different forums.

The only reason that I wrote the above written paragraph is to show that the arguments you're making might apply in a sheltered environment, but won't apply in either reality, or on NSG. You might not need a helmet, or an additional rule against baiting, if you're just riding your bike on the playground. But when you're on the road, a helmet might be useful. If you're on a forum like NSG, where shit gets real rather quickly, an additional anti-baiting rule is useful.

Furthermore, you claim that my rule allows people to get away with unintentional baiting, which is a lie. I clearly stated, earlier, that:

The rules aren't being changed. There's a suggestion to add a very simple type of enforcement to the rules.

So to claim that my rule allows someone to dodge unintentional baiting is simply wrong, as it has no bearing on unintentional baiting one way or another.

I am suggesting an additional rule designed specifically to discourage baiting, and yet you've somehow managed to deduce that it actually encourages baiting. All my rule does is that it prevents the baiters from escaping a warning if the bait was clearly intentional. That's all it does. It doesn't let unintentional baiters get away, as you've mistakenly alleged, since it has no effect on unintentional baiting.

You've argued the "ignore & report" point numerous times, and yet, each time you failed to rebut anything I've said, so I see no point engaging with you further on that claim, since you'll just ignore what I say, claim that you've addressed it, and pretend that you've done just that.

Now to address that strawman at the very end. If your argument is based on pigs flying across the Pacific, and I respond with "And no matter how many times you rephrase it, that interpretation the fact that pigs do not fly across the Pacific will remain, and render your argument useless" I have, in fact, considered your argument, found a major fallacy in it, and rendered it moot.

Your claim that if all that's needed for online bullying to stop is to ignore and report it, is utter nonsense. Your repeated implication that if a baiter is put in the proper place that contributes to more baiting, is utter nonsense. That's why I made the claim that you bolded and boldly took out of the context that it was in.

In conclusion, my rule doesn't change any existing rules. The only thing it does, is adds an automatic warning system designed to discourage future intentional baiting. That's it. There's no other way that it can be applied. I fail to understand why you are so hell bent against it - do you think that intentional baiting is a good thing? Maybe that's the case in Gameplay, maybe not, but when you go out to NSG, you need the proverbial helmet - the rule against unintentional baiting.

With this rule in place, posters can still ignore baiters, they can still report baiters, and mods can still review those reports. That doesn't change. The only thing that changes is that baits that are blatant and intentional, won't be allowed to skate anymore. That's it. Judging from my experience on NSG, with thousands of posts over a decade plus timespan, NSG needs this rule.

Let's put the brakes on that train there. Firstly, let's attack the argument and not the player. Also I'm going to demonstrate my explanation. I feel that you're drawing closer to unintentionally flamebaiting me by beginning to attack the player instead of the argument. Instead of being reactive, I'm choosing to be proactive by disengaging before it gets out of hand. Lastly, Can you provide us all with some examples ( at least 2 or 3 links) to what you consider to be intentional flamebait in which the person absolutely 100% broke the rules and was not given a warning for it when reported as flamebait to moderation ?

[Nepleslia]

Why are yet more rules required when thicker skin is already sufficient? If you see bait... Just. Don’t. Respond. Be the bigger man (or woman), keep calm, carry on, and take pride in the knowledge that you’re probably living rent-free in their heads.

[Shofercia]

And if newbies leave forums like NSG for partisan forums, then America simply grows even more divided, and a House Divided Cannot Stand.

Do I really have to remind you, that this is not an "American forum", but an international; so there are many other views of this topic, based on posters origin, culture and personality.
I have to agree to Big Jim P, that people maybe have to (obviously to me) learn to grow a "thicker skin" again.
Second point is, that this (NSG), as someone mentioned, is a forum for discussion and debate, and therefore rhetorical tricks like luring the opponent into trap by "baiting" him/her is and should be legal as in every real-life debate. It´s the "victims" concern and duty not to fall for a "bait trap", not the "baiters", and also shouldn´t be the moderators concern.

I feel that people are trying to tell me to grow thicker skin, although not sure if that's the case in your post, so I'll just point out that after a decade of NSG experience I have enough wit to destroy any bait geared toward me personally, so this isn't something that I'm doing for the Republic of Myselfia; I'm doing it to preserve NSG's vibrant character as a genuine debate forum that's somewhat welcoming to newbies. These types of forums are becoming rarer and rarer, and so they matter more and more.

To address your first point, yeah, it's not just an American forum, but I've yet to see any decent leadership go "darn, I wish my country was even more divided!" so I think that it'll benefit posters from all countries, not just the US. I know that divisiveness is a major issue here, but not sure about other countries, so didn't comment on that.

To address your second point, baiting is illegal on NSG. To quote Violet:

Forbidden Actions...
Flamebaiting: Posts that are made with the aim of angering someone indirectly. Not outright flame, but still liable to bring angry replies. Flame baiting is a far more subtle and covert action; it is an underhanded tactic that is designed to provoke a response from another player. It's in the same context of trolling but with flamebaiting it's just the one person. Also included under flamebaiting is malicious quote editing, changing the contents of a quoted post without showing the original text, either through color changes or strike-out.

All my rule suggestion does, is that it tells posters who bait either for da lulz or to get someone to flame them, so that they can get posters with opposing viewpoints banhammered, that there will be no escape from a warning. That's it. This isn't a major change.

Let's put the brakes on that train there. Firstly, let's attack the argument and not the player. Also I'm going to demonstrate my explanation. I feel that you're drawing closer to unintentionally flamebaiting me by beginning to attack the player instead of the argument. Instead of being reactive, I'm choosing to be proactive by disengaging before it gets out of hand. Lastly, Can you provide us all with some examples ( at least 2 or 3 links) to what you consider to be intentional flamebait in which the person absolutely 100% broke the rules and was not given a warning for it when reported as flamebait to moderation ?

My response to you, and the same goes for most responses in Moderation, was extremely mild by NSG standards. In no way did it even remotely approach flamebaiting. It pointed to your lack of experience in a specific area, and that was it. As for the examples, if you think that there are so few of them, why oppose the rule? If it's something that will hardly ever be enforced, what's the issue? If someone proposed a rule that I didn't think would affect me or the forum in anything but an extremely minor way, I certainly wouldn't be in moderation vociferously opposing it.

Why are yet more rules required when thicker skin is already sufficient? If you see bait... Just. Don’t. Respond. Be the bigger man (or woman), keep calm, carry on, and take pride in the knowledge that you’re probably living rent-free in their heads.

Don't feed the troll but take pride in living in the troll's head... uh what? Look, with my suggestion, you can still ignore the bait. You can still report the bait. All my rule does, is that lessens the amount of bait on NSG. That's it. Heck, this discussion thread probably did that already, albeit on a much smaller level than a rule addition would have.

[Risottia]

I think Shof is quite right and this proposal should be accepted.

[Sedgistan]

I've removed a Bad Faith post that encouraged players not to report rules violations.

[Twilight Imperium]

Agreed, we should have a rule against this blatant public master baiting. Left unchecked, it could end up causing a real mess!

[Attempted Socialism]

I would fear that a general rule like that turned many warnings for flaming into counterlitigation for flamebait. Is there anything to be won from a change in rules, that isn't possible within the current ruleset?

The rules aren't being changed. There's a suggestion to add a very simple type of enforcement to the rules. Something either blatantly obvious, or it's not. For instance:

Did the bait target a specific poster? If yes, continue. If you're unsure, stop.

If it's yes, then "continue" here means goto flamebaiting rules. That's why you're suggesting a new rule, as one can read in your OP:

I'd like to suggest a rule: if an obviously unprovoked bait results in a flame, the bait and the flame should both get the equivalent warnings, provided that both participants have an equal warning level; otherwise an adjustment based on warning levels can be made.

I just don't get why, which is why I am asking why you want a change in the rules.

Did the bait address anything about the topic? If no, continue. If it responded to something in the OP, stop.
Did the bait result in a flame from its target? If yes, continue. If no flame, stop.
Was the target warned as a result? If yes, warn the baiter. If not, stop.

This isn't needed.

What, exactly, is so unclear that it'd be subject to litigation?

Well, your step #1 invites litigation when we come to step #4. If the rules are changed to suit your suggestion, subsequent warnings for flaming can be turned around and result in claims of baiting; effectively endorsing mods-as-weapons (And, since mods probably won't act on most reports, claims of moderator bias).

[Shofercia]

The rules aren't being changed. There's a suggestion to add a very simple type of enforcement to the rules. Something either blatantly obvious, or it's not. For instance:

Did the bait target a specific poster? If yes, continue. If you're unsure, stop.

If it's yes, then "continue" here means goto flamebaiting rules. That's why you're suggesting a new rule, as one can read in your OP:

I'd like to suggest a rule: if an obviously unprovoked bait results in a flame, the bait and the flame should both get the equivalent warnings, provided that both participants have an equal warning level; otherwise an adjustment based on warning levels can be made.

I just don't get why, which is why I am asking why you want a change in the rules.

Did the bait address anything about the topic? If no, continue. If it responded to something in the OP, stop.
Did the bait result in a flame from its target? If yes, continue. If no flame, stop.
Was the target warned as a result? If yes, warn the baiter. If not, stop.

This isn't needed.

What, exactly, is so unclear that it'd be subject to litigation?

Well, your step #1 invites litigation when we come to step #4. If the rules are changed to suit your suggestion, subsequent warnings for flaming can be turned around and result in claims of baiting; effectively endorsing mods-as-weapons (And, since mods probably won't act on most reports, claims of moderator bias).

It seems that I needed to explain the difference between an addition and a change in the OP, since you're effectively missing that point. Here's a summary of the OP's actual example: A intentionally flamebaits B, which causes B to flame A, and B receives a warning.

Addition: As a result of the addition, A also, automatically, receives a warning. B's warning stays.
Change: As a result of the change, A also, automatically receives a warning, and B relitigates their warning.

I am not suggesting a change. I'm suggesting an addition. I have stated this multiple times, which is why "change" is crossed out. If you flame, you still get warned, but the baiter receives an automatic warning. This is designed to discourage flamebaiting. That's all it does. There will also be slightly less flaming as a result, but the current set of flaming warnings aren't going anywhere, and aren't going to be relitigated through this rule without quite a bit of embarrassment. Had you not chopped up a post in a Moderation thread, you would've probably picked up on this.

Your claim that this isn't needed, is a faulty opinion based on a critical misinterpretation of the proposal, i.e. thinking that it's a change, not an addition. Also, I fail to see how anyone would use mods-as-weapons on this, and wouldn't be instantly humiliated as a result. You either intentionally flamebaited a poster, or you didn't. You cannot intentionally-unintentionally flamebait someone.

I think Shof is quite right and this proposal should be accepted.

Thank you Ris!

I've removed a Bad Faith post that encouraged players not to report rules violations.

Thank you! If baiting is discouraged, all of the other rules still apply, including the current set of flaming rules and baiting rules.

Agreed, we should have a rule against this blatant public master baiting. Left unchecked, it could end up causing a real mess!

Thank you TI!

[Attempted Socialism]

If it's yes, then "continue" here means goto flamebaiting rules. That's why you're suggesting a new rule, as one can read in your OP:
I just don't get why, which is why I am asking why you want a change in the rules.
This isn't needed.

Well, your step #1 invites litigation when we come to step #4. If the rules are changed to suit your suggestion, subsequent warnings for flaming can be turned around and result in claims of baiting; effectively endorsing mods-as-weapons (And, since mods probably won't act on most reports, claims of moderator bias).

It seems that I needed to explain the difference between an addition and a change in the OP, since you're effectively missing that point.

No, you're just highlighting that you have no answer, since "change of" and "addition to" the rules are here exactly identical. Rather than answer my question you're arguing semantics.

Here's a summary of the OP's actual example: A intentionally flamebaits B, which causes B to flame A, and B receives a warning.

And the rules, as I linked, deal adequately with this scenario. What is it we need apart from the rules as they currently stand?

Addition: As a result of the addition, A also, automatically, receives a warning. B's warning stays.
Change: As a result of the change, A also, automatically receives a warning, and B relitigates their warning.

Again, semantics. You're misapprehending your own argument, apparently, and you either don't want to or can't answer my question. Here you're also either misunderstanding my point (Despite it being clearly articulated in the section you quote) or you're trying to make a strawman out of it.

I am not suggesting a change. I'm suggesting an addition.

You want to change the existing ruleset to add a new rule. Is your case so weak that your time is better spent arguing semantics than about the suggestion itself?

I have stated this multiple times, which is why "change" is crossed out. If you flame, you still get warned, but the baiter receives an automatic warning. This is designed to discourage flamebaiting. That's all it does. There will also be slightly less flaming as a result, but the current set of flaming warnings aren't going anywhere, and aren't going to be relitigated through this rule without quite a bit of embarrassment. Had you not chopped up a post in a Moderation thread, you would've probably picked up on this.

Had you taken the effort to understand the posts involved, I wouldn't need to repeat myself:

warnings for flaming can be turned around and result in claims of baiting

What's difficult about this? In your step #4, the "baiter" gets a warning automatically, despite not having baited enough to warrant a warning according to the current rules (As that would have been solved in step #1). This is your (change|addition). However, this new rule would open up for everyone warned for flaming to turn around and argue that their "baiter" should also be warned -- automatically. I haven't said that the warnings for flaming would be removed, this is some weird strawman you're trying to argue against.

Your claim that this isn't needed, is a faulty opinion based on a critical misinterpretation of the proposal, i.e. thinking that it's a change, not an addition. Also, I fail to see how anyone would use mods-as-weapons on this, and wouldn't be instantly humiliated as a result. You either intentionally flamebaited a poster, or you didn't. You cannot intentionally-unintentionally flamebait someone.

Well, we're dealing with cases that were not baiting here, since a clear bait post would be warned in your step #1, as a breach of the current rules. All your (change|addition) opens up for is for posters to claim their warning for flaming should result in an automatic warning for their "baiter" and have a better claim than they have today.