[R] Ignore gloating in American politics

[Glorious Hong Kong]

just for today, people
ignore Freihart Reich
please

Ignore gloating.

just for today, people
ignore Freihart Reich
please

Who?

Dogpiling.

just for today, people
ignore Freihart Reich
please

Seconded.

More dogpiling.

[Tranzoria]

just for today, people
ignore Freihart Reich
please

I do not know who you are talking about.

Dogpiling

[Farnhamia]

Kowani: viewtopic.php?p=38240699#p38240699
Celritannia: viewtopic.php?p=38240712#p38240712
Black Forrest: viewtopic.php?p=38240725#p38240725
-Astoria-: viewtopic.php?p=38240732#p38240732

[Celritannia]

I wish to appeal this.

Firstly, yes it was an attempt at a joke.
But secondly, it was ignoring Freihart Reich due to his continuous threadjacking and straw manning the thread.

So how can it be dogpiling or even flaming when it is agreeing (crudely on my part) to ensure the thread did not diverge into threadjacking and be, primarily, a debating ground for Freihart Reich?

I'd also like to ask, where in the rules it states ignore gloating is wrong, especially when there have been countless times people have stated "I have put X on my ignore list just now".

[Farnhamia]

I wish to appeal this.

Firstly, yes it was an attempt at a joke.
But secondly, it was ignoring Freihart Reich due to his continues threadjacking and straw manning the thread.

So how can it be dogpiling or even flaming when it is agreeing (crudely on my part) to ensure the thread did not diverge into threadjacking and be, primarily, a debating ground for Freihart Reich?

I'd also like to ask, where in the rules it states ignore gloating is wrong, especially when there have been countless times people have stated "I have put X on my ignore list just now".

I'll get you a second opinion but hear me out: jokes in an all-text interface are very tricky. If someone is thread-jacking, report them, don't go around tell people to ignore them. You can do a one-off "I put X on ignore" but piling on to a flame doesn't wash.

[The Black Forrest]

I wish to appeal this.

Firstly, yes it was an attempt at a joke.
But secondly, it was ignoring Freihart Reich due to his continues threadjacking and straw manning the thread.

So how can it be dogpiling or even flaming when it is agreeing (crudely on my part) to ensure the thread did not diverge into threadjacking and be, primarily, a debating ground for Freihart Reich?

I'd also like to ask, where in the rules it states ignore gloating is wrong, especially when there have been countless times people have stated "I have put X on my ignore list just now".

I'll get you a second opinion but hear me out: jokes in an all-text interface are very tricky. If someone is thread-jacking, report them, don't go around tell people to ignore them. You can do a one-off "I put X on ignore" but piling on to a flame doesn't wash.

Ok. how is agreeing one should ignore FR’s repeated attempts of threadjacks for a day a flame?

[New Visayan Islands]

Celritannia, The Black Forrest: Farn took your respective histories into account when deciding on an appropriate response. FR's attempts at threadjacking are no license to gang up on him, and you can expect us to maintain the same standard should the situation be reversed.

Your respective warnings stand.

Thanks!
NVI

[Kowani]

Yeah, I'm also gonna have to appeal this.

Posters have told people to ignore others, or things to a similar effect for-a while now, really, examples of it abound across multiple posters and threads. In several cases, mods were participating in those very threads-literally just pages away. And not even an informal "knock it off" was levied, much less any sort of formal action. There's absolutely no precedent of any kind to indicate that telling people not to respond to others-at least within appropriate situational context and tone-was actionable in the slightest.
In fact, searching "ignore" as a topic title within the moderation forum finds that this report is quite literally the first time this offense has been reported by anyone in all of NS history.
There's just literally nothing to suggest that this has ever been found an offense or actionable.


For that matter, none of what anyone did actually constitutes a violation of Ignore Gloating as listed in the OSRS: "IGNORE gloating, is typically seen in the roleplay forums, though it can appear elsewhere. Politely informing another nation that you are henceforth using the "ignore" feature is acceptable, but repeating it in different threads or over long periods is considered gloating and will be dealt with appropriately."

And a look at precedent shows that this is held. A simple search through the moderation forum of the term "ignore gloating" finds every case to have complied with either that definition, or repeatedly responding to a poster one has on ignore. (With one exception, which was part of a larger trend of flaming, in which the poster called another one "insane" in the very post.

[The Archregimancy]

Following Kowani's appeal, I'm going to broaden this to a broader internal moderation discussion of the appeals given the number of posters involved, and the appeal that's come in after a second opinion was offered.

This will, I regret, mean a delay to responding to the appeals, but I think it's the fairest way forward.

This should not be seen as establishing a precedent; it's an ad hoc response to an individual case.

[Kowani]

Okay!
Thanks, Arch

[The Archregimancy]

Just a quick note that we haven't forgotten this; I hope we can offer a final ruling tomorrow (the 23rd).

[The Black Forrest]

Just a quick note that we haven't forgotten this; I hope we can offer a final ruling tomorrow (the 23rd).

No worries Arch. Take as much time as needed......

thanks

[The Archregimancy]

We are granting the formal appeal from Kowani.

Kowani, Celritannia, the Black Forrest, and -Astoria- will have the warnings removed from their records.

Two quick points here, one from the moderation team relating to this specific case and one from me personally addressing a broader point.

1) From the moderation team: Just because we're granting this appeal doesn't mean we think that everyone has behaved appropriately here. It only recognises that, on review, we don't think the original reported post constituted flaming, nor do we think the subsequent activity constituted dogpiling as usually constituted. That said, if you think someone is threadjacking, and don't want others to contribute to the threadjack, the appropriate course of action is to report it in moderation rather than to take moderation into your own hands and tell people to ignore someone for the day and/or agree with doing so with a side order of minor snark thrown in.

2) From a personal perspective: Posters in Moderation, both players and moderators, are increasingly muddying the grounds between informally asking for a second opinion and formally appealing a ruling. I would stress that we're under no formal obligation to offer a second opinion; we are under a formal obligation to review an appeal. This can inadvertently complicate moderation. I would advise all players and my fellow moderators to stress 'appeal' rather than 'second opinion' when either requesting a review or handing out a decision. This will help clarity on both sides.

[Odreria]

So is telling people to put somebody on ignore allowed, or is it not allowed

[The Archregimancy]

So is telling people to put somebody on ignore allowed, or is it not allowed

It's the type of situation that will be examined on its individual merits on a case by case basis.

This specific case, however, while not unproblematic, did not involve flaming. As such, the warnings for flaming have been overturned on appeal.

[Kowani]

eiiiiiiiiii

thanks, mods

um
what exactly is the difference between a second opinion and an appeal?

[The Archregimancy]

what exactly is the difference between a second opinion and an appeal?

Clarity of language.

I would advise always using the word 'appeal' rather than the phrase 'second opinion'.

This helps to make it abundantly clear what's being asked for and/or given.

This applies equally to my fellow moderators as to the player base.

[Kowani]

what exactly is the difference between a second opinion and an appeal?

Clarity of language.

I would advise always using the word 'appeal' rather than the phrase 'second opinion'.

This helps to make it abundantly clear what's being asked for and/or given.

This applies equally to my fellow moderators as to the player base.

okay!

[Glorious Hong Kong]

Thanks for taking a look Arch!

[Hakinda Herseyi Duymak istiyorum]

the legitimate leader of Syria is Asad.

Tyrants are illegitimate by default. They belong at the gallows, not in office.

Death advocacy.

[Farnhamia]

Tyrants are illegitimate by default. They belong at the gallows, not in office.

Death advocacy.

No.

Thread locked.