[Discussion] Continued Issues with Moderator Transparency

[The Black Forrest]

Ok. Even I am in agreement Sedg’s comment could have been more professional. As mentioned by others I understand the frustration levels of the mods. It’s basically managing hundreds of children.

I dare say that this attitude, that we are children and being treated as such is how we got here.

Well as the parents would tell you; stop acting like one then.

[Grenartia]

From what I can tell there have been no new suggestions to add to my post, am I correct?

You missed this:

Also, I'd like to suggest a notification of report for most (except obvious DEAT/DOS worthy cases, such as pornspamming, frequent and blatant flaming, etc.) reports, including all reports made in moderation. And holding off on a decision until the reported party can make a defense (unless they ignore the notification or otherwise waive their defense).

Because as things stand right now, it seems like most of what makes the difference between getting reported and being warned/banned, and getting reported and not, is whether or not you happen to check to see if there are any moderation reports about you and posting a defense before a mod sees it. Which is particularly bad for cases where the report is faulty and the reported party didn't actually do anything actionable, but gets redtexted anyways.

[Grenartia]

People just want to know what Rojava was Dossed for.

Ask Rojava. They know why. There's been people saying that Rojava doesn't, but that just isn't true.

The full story is that he was completely unaware there was even a discussion about him potentially being made DOS (this is also part of the reason I made this suggestion), and was blindsided by someone on discord pinging him to let him know his main had been deleted. That led to him using a puppet to inquire as to why it was deleted, and that is when he got the snarky admin response that he was DOS. Only a few hours later did he get any sort of email announcing he was DOS.

Hello, I'm Mad Jack/St George and I'm most likely the only person active on the NS forums currently who was previously Delete on Sight and later had it overturned after I apologised and asked very nicely to come back several years after being made delete on sight.

When I was made Delete on Sight, I was sent an email by Nationstates that told me why - and in almost all cases of people being made Delete on Sight or even just being deleted, they generally have lots of warning that it's coming. Rojava had lost three nations, so they should've known they were on thin ice already. They were also in the World Assembly so they had an email associated with their account that would've - unless procedures have changed in the last few years - been used to send them the email that told them they were DOS.

Rojava also had quite a long stretch of good behavior, something that we've been told mitigates these things. Especially considering the straw that allegedly broke the camel's back (the incident with MaximumOverdrive) was extremely questionable in the first place.

The bolded part is my emphasis. So this is referring to telegrams, then? If so, I have a rough idea of what "attempts" you may be referring to. And if what I think you're referring to is based on what Rojava has stated in the past regarding his telegrams, then such "attempts" were not harassment at all, rather, they were good-faith pleas for people to stop responding to a certain poster due to their disability.

Based on the data I've personally seen, either we're talking about a completely separate sequence of events, or Rojava is not being entirely truthful with you.

I couldn't tell you which is more likely based on the information you've shared, and it would be unfair on you for me to speculate further on that front.

For the record, Rojava has been sharing screenshots to support his side. I realize Moderation can't (currently) share their evidence, I'm just stating that those of us who are in touch with him are getting something a bit more tangible than his word.

[...]

I imagine if this had simply been stated up-front, we wouldn't be in this situation. Rojava would still have had supporters, and some would still have been convinced that we're both incompetent and secretive, but by failing to offer this information at the beginning, we made things worse. There's a middle ground between 'we can't tell you anything for, well, reasons' and 'let's tell you absolutely everything, regardless of the consequences', and we need to think more carefully about where to find the balance in individual cases.

It's good to see that some Moderators are open to the idea of reforming the transparency aspect of moderating.

Writing now in a purely personal capacity rather than a general moderator capacity, I accept that we don't always communicate as well as we should. Similarly, I accept that we have a duty to communicate moderation decisions with a minimum of snark and hostility, especially when we're communicating a difficult decision. I also accept that because of our status as moderators, we should try and maintain a certain level of respect to other players when posting in the other forums in a personal non-moderator capacity. I know that I've personally slipped a bit on the latter front in recent months; I've allowed some of the stress from my personal life to boil over into frustration with a couple of posters in NSG. I regret this; a reputation for fairness is hard-earned, and can be lost far more quickly and easily than it's gained. This is why I've taken some time recently to step back and reflect on how I engage as a player as well as a moderator.

After reading a few snarky/snippy comments from Moderators (not you in particular Arch), it would be nice if there was some kind of code of conduct regarding communication from Moderators. There may well be such a thing in the Mod Cave or whatever, but if there is then the users have never seen such a thing. Obviously such a thing should just be guidelines, so that it doesn't turn into a stick by which users can beat the Mods with, but it could still be a set of basic targets that the Mods could aspire to.

I agree, and I appreciate Arch's candor on the subject.

Based on the data I've personally seen, either we're talking about a completely separate sequence of events, or Rojava is not being entirely truthful with you.

I couldn't tell you which is more likely based on the information you've shared, and it would be unfair on you for me to speculate further on that front.

I have since seen a clarification email that detailed the exact offenses for which Rojava was DoS'd, and I see that the harassment charges were pertaining to a puppet account. So it is indeed entirely separate from what I was thinking of.

If that incident is the one I'm thinking of, harrassment perhaps is a bit too strong of a term. It implies something more insidious than what was going on.

---

EDIT: [removed a response to Thoricia]

---

Long-serving Mods can get a bit burnt-out by the amount of crap with which they have to deal, day in & day out, and might become "a bit quicker on the trigger finger" & defensive because of this?

Get more Mods. Turn off that silly "don't refer yourself" rule for becoming a Mod. What is that, a humility test?

In other news today, "dog bites man". Is anybody really surprised? The same thing happens with some RL law-enforcement personnel*, after all... or even with some GA forum regulars & their response to noobishness there...
The real solution is for players to clean up their act so that there's less pressure on the Mods or, failing that, for more players to prove themselves capable & worthy of appointment as Mods

My perception of the induction process is that a few mods unofficially retire, and others slack off, and rather than admitting that the scarcity of mods is burning them all out, the high command thinks there is increasing need of Moderation across the site. So they induct two or three, basically getting up to "full" strength and never considering that another two or three, then again a few weeks later, would greatly reduce the workload while also reducing the burden of inducting the next few.

I must mention too, that most Mods leave peacefully. Retiring as far as I know. But fear of inducting any more new Mods is only made worse by the evident difficulty of ever ""firing"" a Mod. One of them should be set separately and apart, with either sole discretion or a super-vote in relieving all lesser Mods of their duties. As the heirarchy stands now, that would be Reploid Productions, who I am neutral about. But to clearly delineated this "Chief" of all mods, they would be payed a salary.

-- & willing to accept this without demanding changes in the rules first -- and to be appointed as Mods, so that those people can do more of the everyday drudgery while the veterans take more of an advisory role to them... which would probably help to heal at least some of those veterans' souls, too.

(* or even to fictional ones... I've been re-reading Jim Butcher's 'Dresden Files' recently: How many of you remember, from those works, the 'Warden' character 'Donald Morgan'?)

Nope. I like the slant that NS needs more mods. Allowing players to nominate themselves probably wouldn't do anything to advance the best candidates. But it would give the current Mods an idea of how much talent is available.

I get that more mods held to a higher standard is the ideal case, but "get rid of the no-self-nom rule" is an absolutely pants-on-head idea. It doesn't widen the pool, it just makes the staff have to dig through even more shit to find a few nuggets of gold. Something which will only increase the burnout that you admit is part of the problem.

For total clarity, Rojava was DOS'd for a combination of the following:

• Persistent rule-breaking across multiple accounts.
• Multiple use of deliberate troll accounts.
• Past behind the scenes (but, I stress, on-site) attempts to coordinate harassment of a disabled player.

That last point is disappointing to read if its true.

I don't think the Greater Sundiata Shores thing meets the criteria for harassment. Yes, it wasn't something to be encouraged, but it probably better fits trolling than the "impersonation/harassment" account the screenshot that was posted in the discord said it was.

I'll have to agree with Gio here. Moderators do need their own, private space in order to make decisions like this, independently from the common userbase - this is normal, not only on NS, and rightfully so. Gio perfectly points out why everything else would be problematic six ways from Sunday - it would become a popularity contest. Had the public had a say in how Rojava should be dealt with, he would most certainly still be around, but I can immediately think of a handful of people who would be "voted out" in no time. It might be a tempting imagination for some, but it won't help fairness in any way.

What I'm thinking of in terms of transparency, would be, as pointed out in my previous post, some kind of announcement. That doesn't have to be in any case some new, minor troll account, of course, but in case where an active and well-known part of the community is concerned (which the mods are usually aware of), it might make sense. It could easily be some new thread in the Moderation subforum, where a mod clarify the reasons for the decision to make that particular player DOS, just like Arch did in this thread. It can even be closed immediately, so there is no discussion over that. It would be presented as a fait accompli. This way, mods can make their decision in piece without the public getting in (and delaying the process unnecessarily), and when frequent questions pop out, they can respond with "The explanation will follow shortly, please be patient." instead of having to tell them to move on. And the DOS'd player can immediately check out why they got banned from the site in case they genuinely don't know (and file a GHR, if they feel in a need). Fair for everyone, no bias from the community, not significantly more work for the mods beyond having to make one post more once every blue moon. Any opinions on that?

The reason we don't want to do public announcements, even ones closed right away, is because we don't want some nice shiny link for the DOS to utilize as a badge of honor. You gotta understand, a lot of bad actors crave attention and relish in infamy, so such announcement posts would effectively be giving them what they want and providing them motivation to make their reputation as "interesting" for others to look at as possible.

We could, perhaps, make it a policy that people can file a GHR to ask why, if they're curious. That way anyone could get an answer and deliver that answer to whoever is interested as needed without there being any kind of public spotlight for a trouble maker to feel smug about. That, however, would likely require us to summarize the issues rather than providing full logs, purely due to technical issues (can't exactly fit three puppets' worth of violations into a TG). I wouldn't have a problem saying something along the lines of, "Player X was declared DOS for an extensive history of mainly violations A, B, C, and D," if players would be satisfied with that (as well as understanding that their opinion isn't going to be factored into any kind of overruling.) Some probably would never be satisfied until they see the full logs and/or discussion behind the decision, but at that point I think they need just take the L and move on, they've already gotten the gist of the answer they would have gotten from said logs and there's nothing having direct access to them would change about the outcome regardless.

Personally, I don't think a GHR system would work. Aside from my concerns about the information being publicly available, doing it through GHRs would lead to things like multiple people requesting the info simultaneously, and then multiple follow-on GHRs from other people who don't believe the people that filed the first GHRs. From a simply pragmatic view, it seems like it would clog the system.

As for the concerns about public listing being a clout generator, that's a foregone conclusion. If someone who is DOS wants to exploit it for clout, all they have to do is take a screenshot of the email (once they receive it).

The reason we don't want to do public announcements, even ones closed right away, is because we don't want some nice shiny link for the DOS to utilize as a badge of honor. You gotta understand, a lot of bad actors crave attention and relish in infamy, so such announcement posts would effectively be giving them what they want and providing them motivation to make their reputation as "interesting" for others to look at as possible.

We could, perhaps, make it a policy that people can file a GHR to ask why, if they're curious. That way anyone could get an answer and deliver that answer to whoever is interested as needed without there being any kind of public spotlight for a trouble maker to feel smug about. That, however, would likely require us to summarize the issues rather than providing full logs, purely due to technical issues (can't exactly fit three puppets' worth of violations into a TG). I wouldn't have a problem saying something along the lines of, "Player X was declared DOS for an extensive history of mainly violations A, B, C, and D," if players would be satisfied with that (as well as understanding that their opinion isn't going to be factored into any kind of overruling.) Some probably would never be satisfied until they see the full logs and/or discussion behind the decision, but at that point I think they need just take the L and move on, they've already gotten the gist of the answer they would have gotten from said logs and there's nothing having direct access to them would change about the outcome regardless.

Here's an idea taken from another, albeit much smaller, forum I'm a regular on.

Rather than having an announcement for every person who's made DoS, you could have a list of them in one central stickied thread in moderation. No special shiny thread all of their own, but rather just a plain entry in a longer one. That way people can find out their friend is DoS and find out why without giving the player in question a trophy. I believe ghost land had a similar suggestion at the start of the last thread, but it might have been overlooked given how fast the posting was then.

I believe that suggestion has also been echoed in this thread more than once.

Here's an idea taken from another, albeit much smaller, forum I'm a regular on.

Rather than having an announcement for every person who's made DoS, you could have a list of them in one central stickied thread in moderation. No special shiny thread all of their own, but rather just a plain entry in a longer one. That way people can find out their friend is DoS and find out why without giving the player in question a trophy. I believe ghost land had a similar suggestion at the start of the last thread, but it might have been overlooked given how fast the posting was then.

This carries the same issues as the announcement threads, just to a lesser degree. A public link is still a public link, and DOS users and other problematic users would likely see and refer to such a thread as a "Hall of Fame" or a shrine to martyrs.

If the question is really that important to a user, it shouldn't be too much of an inconvenience to just file a GHR. You get your answers, and there's no visible acknowledgement, badges, martyrdom, or Hall of Fame for unwelcome former users.

Even if my prior point about clout is ignored, would it be possible to create a thread that's only viewable to people who are logged on, similar to how you can only search the forums while logged in?

Well, harassment and satire are very difficult to differentiate online. Rojava's intentions were not to harass as far as I am aware.

If we are talking about the puppet usage shown in the other thread, thats 39 posts of class A trolling, tbh some of it is pretty funny, but if funny were a defense half my warnings would not have been given.

I'd say its very questionable, and moderation should clarify the distinction between trolling and satire (and I have previously posted in this thread how that can be done, using a method that moderation has already implemented on another issue).

[Shazbotdom]

I'm not sure what you are reading, but everything that I have read from Arch has not shown any signs of "snark".

I do think they are talking about this one, to be specific.

As for why Austreylia has problems with Arch (no offense to other mods, but Arch is possibly the very last person I would think of when it comes to snark), that's his problem.

All that seemed was rather "matter of factly" than snark. But maybe my skin is thick.

[Cannot think of a name]

I dare say that this attitude, that we are children and being treated as such is how we got here.

Well as the parents would tell you; stop acting like one then.

No, stop this right now. This isn’t cute. It is in fact the fucking problem. We are not children. I am not a fucking child. If moderation is going to adopt that position, or if people are going to supplicate that way, that is deteriorating. Talking down to the user base is not acceptable. Pretending we are children is not acceptable or a ‘cute’ way to empathize with moderation. If it’s that troublesome that you can’t be bothered to see another adult on the other end of this conversation, fucking quit. No one is holding them to that job, they’re not getting paid. Fucking quit we do not need you. If you’re happy being treated like a child take out an ad on Craigslist. I do not find that an acceptable way to be addressed and it will lead to exactly this kind of Shit over and over again.

Have some fucking self respect.

[Ethel mermania]

Ask Rojava. They know why. There's been people saying that Rojava doesn't, but that just isn't true.

The full story is that he was completely unaware there was even a discussion about him potentially being made DOS (this is also part of the reason I made this suggestion), and was blindsided by someone on discord pinging him to let him know his main had been deleted. That led to him using a puppet to inquire as to why it was deleted, and that is when he got the snarky admin response that he was DOS. Only a few hours later did he get any sort of email announcing he was DOS.

Hello, I'm Mad Jack/St George and I'm most likely the only person active on the NS forums currently who was previously Delete on Sight and later had it overturned after I apologised and asked very nicely to come back several years after being made delete on sight.

When I was made Delete on Sight, I was sent an email by Nationstates that told me why - and in almost all cases of people being made Delete on Sight or even just being deleted, they generally have lots of warning that it's coming. Rojava had lost three nations, so they should've known they were on thin ice already. They were also in the World Assembly so they had an email associated with their account that would've - unless procedures have changed in the last few years - been used to send them the email that told them they were DOS.

Rojava also had quite a long stretch of good behavior, something that we've been told mitigates these things. Especially considering the straw that allegedly broke the camel's back (the incident with MaximumOverdrive) was extremely questionable in the first place.

Based on the data I've personally seen, either we're talking about a completely separate sequence of events, or Rojava is not being entirely truthful with you.

I couldn't tell you which is more likely based on the information you've shared, and it would be unfair on you for me to speculate further on that front.

For the record, Rojava has been sharing screenshots to support his side. I realize Moderation can't (currently) share their evidence, I'm just stating that those of us who are in touch with him are getting something a bit more tangible than his word.

It's good to see that some Moderators are open to the idea of reforming the transparency aspect of moderating.


After reading a few snarky/snippy comments from Moderators (not you in particular Arch), it would be nice if there was some kind of code of conduct regarding communication from Moderators. There may well be such a thing in the Mod Cave or whatever, but if there is then the users have never seen such a thing. Obviously such a thing should just be guidelines, so that it doesn't turn into a stick by which users can beat the Mods with, but it could still be a set of basic targets that the Mods could aspire to.

I agree, and I appreciate Arch's candor on the subject.

I have since seen a clarification email that detailed the exact offenses for which Rojava was DoS'd, and I see that the harassment charges were pertaining to a puppet account. So it is indeed entirely separate from what I was thinking of.

If that incident is the one I'm thinking of, harrassment perhaps is a bit too strong of a term. It implies something more insidious than what was going on.

Just looked it up, my mistake.

"RIP Vakolic, 08/08/2009-29/12/2013, unjustly deleted.
Population: 9.6 billion (to be added to current population of this"

Regardless most "communities" of players on this site have off-site gatherings. You've been here long enough that you're well aware of this. So no a DoS does not just end up in the sudden loss of the player.

Also I just realized you've had two accounts deleted when I went digging for your original. So it seems there's another agenda here that's obviously not transparency.

Kinda ironic.

"hahaha yuo have redtext history therfor yuor argument invalid" is not very productive.

Get more Mods. Turn off that silly "don't refer yourself" rule for becoming a Mod. What is that, a humility test?



My perception of the induction process is that a few mods unofficially retire, and others slack off, and rather than admitting that the scarcity of mods is burning them all out, the high command thinks there is increasing need of Moderation across the site. So they induct two or three, basically getting up to "full" strength and never considering that another two or three, then again a few weeks later, would greatly reduce the workload while also reducing the burden of inducting the next few.

I must mention too, that most Mods leave peacefully. Retiring as far as I know. But fear of inducting any more new Mods is only made worse by the evident difficulty of ever ""firing"" a Mod. One of them should be set separately and apart, with either sole discretion or a super-vote in relieving all lesser Mods of their duties. As the heirarchy stands now, that would be Reploid Productions, who I am neutral about. But to clearly delineated this "Chief" of all mods, they would be payed a salary.



Nope. I like the slant that NS needs more mods. Allowing players to nominate themselves probably wouldn't do anything to advance the best candidates. But it would give the current Mods an idea of how much talent is available.

I get that more mods held to a higher standard is the ideal case, but "get rid of the no-self-nom rule" is an absolutely pants-on-head idea. It doesn't widen the pool, it just makes the staff have to dig through even more shit to find a few nuggets of gold. Something which will only increase the burnout that you admit is part of the problem.

That last point is disappointing to read if its true.

I don't think the Greater Sundiata Shores thing meets the criteria for harassment. Yes, it wasn't something to be encouraged, but it probably better fits trolling than the "impersonation/harassment" account the screenshot that was posted in the discord said it was.

The reason we don't want to do public announcements, even ones closed right away, is because we don't want some nice shiny link for the DOS to utilize as a badge of honor. You gotta understand, a lot of bad actors crave attention and relish in infamy, so such announcement posts would effectively be giving them what they want and providing them motivation to make their reputation as "interesting" for others to look at as possible.

We could, perhaps, make it a policy that people can file a GHR to ask why, if they're curious. That way anyone could get an answer and deliver that answer to whoever is interested as needed without there being any kind of public spotlight for a trouble maker to feel smug about. That, however, would likely require us to summarize the issues rather than providing full logs, purely due to technical issues (can't exactly fit three puppets' worth of violations into a TG). I wouldn't have a problem saying something along the lines of, "Player X was declared DOS for an extensive history of mainly violations A, B, C, and D," if players would be satisfied with that (as well as understanding that their opinion isn't going to be factored into any kind of overruling.) Some probably would never be satisfied until they see the full logs and/or discussion behind the decision, but at that point I think they need just take the L and move on, they've already gotten the gist of the answer they would have gotten from said logs and there's nothing having direct access to them would change about the outcome regardless.

Personally, I don't think a GHR system would work. Aside from my concerns about the information being publicly available, doing it through GHRs would lead to things like multiple people requesting the info simultaneously, and then multiple follow-on GHRs from other people who don't believe the people that filed the first GHRs. From a simply pragmatic view, it seems like it would clog the system.

As for the concerns about public listing being a clout generator, that's a foregone conclusion. If someone who is DOS wants to exploit it for clout, all they have to do is take a screenshot of the email (once they receive it).

Here's an idea taken from another, albeit much smaller, forum I'm a regular on.

Rather than having an announcement for every person who's made DoS, you could have a list of them in one central stickied thread in moderation. No special shiny thread all of their own, but rather just a plain entry in a longer one. That way people can find out their friend is DoS and find out why without giving the player in question a trophy. I believe ghost land had a similar suggestion at the start of the last thread, but it might have been overlooked given how fast the posting was then.

I believe that suggestion has also been echoed in this thread more than once.

This carries the same issues as the announcement threads, just to a lesser degree. A public link is still a public link, and DOS users and other problematic users would likely see and refer to such a thread as a "Hall of Fame" or a shrine to martyrs.

If the question is really that important to a user, it shouldn't be too much of an inconvenience to just file a GHR. You get your answers, and there's no visible acknowledgement, badges, martyrdom, or Hall of Fame for unwelcome former users.

Even if my prior point about clout is ignored, would it be possible to create a thread that's only viewable to people who are logged on, similar to how you can only search the forums while logged in?

If we are talking about the puppet usage shown in the other thread, thats 39 posts of class A trolling, tbh some of it is pretty funny, but if funny were a defense half my warnings would not have been given.

I'd say its very questionable, and moderation should clarify the distinction between trolling and satire (and I have previously posted in this thread how that can be done, using a method that moderation has already implemented on another issue).

He had three Deats on him, for him to say he had no idea is disingenuous. The user base had no idea, but he knew.

[Esalia]

Nobody has asked for an explanation why everyone was deated or made dos. They have asked for explanations when well recognised players who people would miss have been made Dos. Nobody is interested in reading that 'old dr. shitlord' was deated because of an inappropriate name.

They were made DOS because they broke rules. Explanation given. It's not that hard to figure out. Hell, one can just use the search feature to find the rule-breaking activity (assuming it was forumside).

Shit happens. Not everyone on the internet is always as they seem.

"They broke the rules" tells everyone nothing they didn't already know. This whole fiasco began in part not because nobody knows that a person who got DOS'd probably broke the rules at some point in their time, but because nobody knew why (as in, actual reasons, not a vague "they broke the rules") a particularly notable individual got DOS'd unless you either had out-of-forum contact with them or were one of the moderation team.

"They broke the rules" is not an explanation, and certainly not one that would've solved or stopped this situation from happening. It would've ended up at the exact same position it is now, with a thread on moderator transparency and people talking about changes to increase transparency (good changes or not), instead of most likely a complete non-issue if an answer like what Arch gave was given initially.

Frankly, any explanation that comes off as patronising (such as "they broke the rules") would've kicked off this situation in the exact same way, given how a point of contention has been moderator tone and conduct.

[The Black Forrest]

Well as the parents would tell you; stop acting like one then.

No, stop this right now. This isn’t cute. It is in fact the fucking problem. We are not children. I am not a fucking child. If moderation is going to adopt that position, or if people are going to supplicate that way, that is deteriorating. Talking down to the user base is not acceptable. Pretending we are children is not acceptable or a ‘cute’ way to empathize with moderation. If it’s that troublesome that you can’t be bothered to see another adult on the other end of this conversation, fucking quit. No one is holding them to that job, they’re not getting paid. Fucking quit we do not need you. If you’re happy being treated like a child take out an ad on Craigslist. I do not find that an acceptable way to be addressed and it will lead to exactly this kind of Shit over and over again.

Have some fucking self respect.

*checks the color of the text on his name* Ok. Not red.Now if I said all users where children or acted like children; you would be right in all that. The problem? It happens.

Are you going to tell me puppet trolling is an adult thing? How about coordinating group harassment? Is that an adult thing?

Hiding behind the wall of anonymity; many adults can be rather childish at times.

[CoraSpia]

No, stop this right now. This isn’t cute. It is in fact the fucking problem. We are not children. I am not a fucking child. If moderation is going to adopt that position, or if people are going to supplicate that way, that is deteriorating. Talking down to the user base is not acceptable. Pretending we are children is not acceptable or a ‘cute’ way to empathize with moderation. If it’s that troublesome that you can’t be bothered to see another adult on the other end of this conversation, fucking quit. No one is holding them to that job, they’re not getting paid. Fucking quit we do not need you. If you’re happy being treated like a child take out an ad on Craigslist. I do not find that an acceptable way to be addressed and it will lead to exactly this kind of Shit over and over again.

Have some fucking self respect.

*checks the color of the text on his name* Ok. Not red.Now if I said all users where children or acted like children; you would be right in all that. The problem? It happens.

Are you going to tell me puppet trolling is an adult thing? How about coordinating group harassment? Is that an adult thing?

Hiding behind the wall of anonymity; many adults can be rather childish at times.

The mods appear to have forgotten to include the coordinated harassment on his moderation record, or at least the version they emailed to him. I was curious so I asked him to send it to me. Unless the moderators purposefully left out the information from the warning record they sent him, or he's produced a lot of doctored screenshots that have fooled a lot of people, as well as perfectly editing it all out, I can't help but feel he's entitled to feel a little aggrieved about that particular claim.

[Cannot think of a name]

No, stop this right now. This isn’t cute. It is in fact the fucking problem. We are not children. I am not a fucking child. If moderation is going to adopt that position, or if people are going to supplicate that way, that is deteriorating. Talking down to the user base is not acceptable. Pretending we are children is not acceptable or a ‘cute’ way to empathize with moderation. If it’s that troublesome that you can’t be bothered to see another adult on the other end of this conversation, fucking quit. No one is holding them to that job, they’re not getting paid. Fucking quit we do not need you. If you’re happy being treated like a child take out an ad on Craigslist. I do not find that an acceptable way to be addressed and it will lead to exactly this kind of Shit over and over again.

Have some fucking self respect.

*checks the color of the text on his name* Ok. Not red.Now if I said all users where children or acted like children; you would be right in all that. The problem? It happens.

Are you going to tell me puppet trolling is an adult thing? How about coordinating group harassment? Is that an adult thing?

Hiding behind the wall of anonymity; many adults can be rather childish at times.

I wasn't confused about your position, just that this attitude is toxic to the entire forum.

Once you start making the conceit that the use base is 'children' when having to deal with something it is a short step to 'we are all children' and, as you clearly just did, excusing their treating us like children because sometimes someone on the internet is shitty.

No. Fuck that. Stop it. It isn't cute. Find some other way to kiss their ass that doesn't denigrate the user base and yourself. It's entirely possible to empathize with their job without making it worse.

[Mallorea and Riva]

*checks the color of the text on his name* Ok. Not red.Now if I said all users where children or acted like children; you would be right in all that. The problem? It happens.

Are you going to tell me puppet trolling is an adult thing? How about coordinating group harassment? Is that an adult thing?

Hiding behind the wall of anonymity; many adults can be rather childish at times.

I wasn't confused about your position, just that this attitude is toxic to the entire forum.

Once you start making the conceit that the use base is 'children' when having to deal with something it is a short step to 'we are all children' and, as you clearly just did, excusing their treating us like children because sometimes someone on the internet is shitty.

No. Fuck that. Stop it. It isn't cute. Find some other way to kiss their ass that doesn't denigrate the user base and yourself. It's entirely possible to empathize with their job without making it worse.

Cool it. Seriously, you can disagree with their position without heating up the thread.

*checks the color of the text on his name* Ok. Not red.Now if I said all users where children or acted like children; you would be right in all that. The problem? It happens.

Are you going to tell me puppet trolling is an adult thing? How about coordinating group harassment? Is that an adult thing?

Hiding behind the wall of anonymity; many adults can be rather childish at times.

The mods appear to have forgotten to include the coordinated harassment on his moderation record, or at least the version they emailed to him. I was curious so I asked him to send it to me. Unless the moderators purposefully left out the information from the warning record they sent him, or he's produced a lot of doctored screenshots that have fooled a lot of people, as well as perfectly editing it all out, I can't help but feel he's entitled to feel a little aggrieved about that particular claim.

It's starting to sound more and more like you're serving as a proxy for the DOS player in their efforts to argue against the DOS decision. Don't. We're not accepting a third party appeal on their behalf, we aren't going to comment on whatever is circulating around off-site by DOS players in attempts to garner sympathy on-site.

I'm going to leave this locked for a few minutes so that it catches everyone's attention so let's be clear: posts that continue in the vein of CoraSpia's above will be split out. If we're getting the sense that this thread is going to turn into a soapbox for a DOS player, it will be shut down.

-unlocked

[Diarcesia]

I'm going to leave this locked for a few minutes so that it catches everyone's attention so let's be clear: posts that continue in the vein of CoraSpia's above will be split out. If we're getting the sense that this thread is going to turn into a soapbox for a DOS player, it will be shut down.

For a start, what do you think of not removing bad faith posts at first and make a mod edit that they are such instead?

[Lamoni]

I'm going to leave this locked for a few minutes so that it catches everyone's attention so let's be clear: posts that continue in the vein of CoraSpia's above will be split out. If we're getting the sense that this thread is going to turn into a soapbox for a DOS player, it will be shut down.

For a start, what do you think of not removing bad faith posts at first and make a mod edit that they are such instead?

We have been directed by Max Barry to remove bad faith posts, so we can't follow that suggestion, sorry.

[Mallorea and Riva]

For a start, what do you think of not removing bad faith posts at first and make a mod edit that they are such instead?

We have been directed by Max Barry to remove bad faith posts, so we can't follow that suggestion, sorry.

To build on this - bad faith posts also inspire further bad faith posts. Or good faith posts fighting them, dragging the thread to the depths.

[Diarcesia]

For a start, what do you think of not removing bad faith posts at first and make a mod edit that they are such instead?

We have been directed by Max Barry to remove bad faith posts, so we can't follow that suggestion, sorry.

Even putting a summary in the mod's own words why they are bad faith? Posts being gone for no reason doesn't do wonders in the transparency department.

We have been directed by Max Barry to remove bad faith posts, so we can't follow that suggestion, sorry.

To build on this - bad faith posts also inspire further bad faith posts. Or good faith posts fighting them, dragging the thread to the depths.

Not sure about it, but fair.

[The Black Forrest]

I wasn't confused about your position, just that this attitude is toxic to the entire forum.

Once you start making the conceit that the use base is 'children' when having to deal with something it is a short step to 'we are all children' and, as you clearly just did, excusing their treating us like children because sometimes someone on the internet is shitty.

No. Fuck that. Stop it. It isn't cute. Find some other way to kiss their ass that doesn't denigrate the user base and yourself. It's entirely possible to empathize with their job without making it worse.

Cool it. Seriously, you can disagree with their position without heating up the thread.

As the receiver of the message; it’s ok. CTOAN talks that way as he knows I am not bothered by it.

Now as to ass kissing? Not my thing. Being CTOAN works in media in LA; I am sure he could explain the proper technique.

All in all; might be time to close this one off as we are drifting into the philosophies of what is a proper mod...

[Lamoni]

We have been directed by Max Barry to remove bad faith posts, so we can't follow that suggestion, sorry.

Even putting a summary in the mod's own words why they are bad faith? Posts being gone for no reason doesn't do wonders in the transparency department.

To build on this - bad faith posts also inspire further bad faith posts. Or good faith posts fighting them, dragging the thread to the depths.

Not sure about it, but fair.

Max makes the rules, we do what he tells us. It is his site, after all.

[Dresderstan]

Even putting a summary in the mod's own words why they are bad faith? Posts being gone for no reason doesn't do wonders in the transparency department.


Not sure about it, but fair.

Max makes the rules, we do what he tells us. It is his site, after all.

And how do you interpret what is and is not bad faith, on a whim of your opinion or does Max tell you exactly what bad faith is?

[Mallorea and Riva]

Max makes the rules, we do what he tells us. It is his site, after all.

And how do you interpret what is and is not bad faith, on a whim of your opinion or does Max tell you exactly what bad faith is?

viewtopic.php?f=16&t=260044#bad_faith

Bad Faith: It is expected that players post with the intent of making the site a better, more enjoyable place to be - this is good faith posting. Bad faith posting is when a person is no longer interested in this goal, and instead seeks to score points, contributes nothing useful, or is deceitful.

This standard is enforced in the Moderation forum by default as well as Got Issues, and may be declared as applicable by the Moderation Team in other threads elsewhere when said threads involve policy discussions, mechanics discussions, discussions of potential additions/modifications to the game or forum, or other pertinent announcements. These threads, like Moderation "discussion threads," are meant to gauge the opinions of the community and otherwise help better player experience; posting in bad faith in such is detrimental to this process. Please note, in the instance a post is removed for being in bad faith, it is not deleted, but instead moved to the "Evidence Locker" where it may be reviewed if necessary.

[Washington Resistance Army]

And how do you interpret what is and is not bad faith, on a whim of your opinion or does Max tell you exactly what bad faith is?

viewtopic.php?f=16&t=260044#bad_faith

Bad Faith: It is expected that players post with the intent of making the site a better, more enjoyable place to be - this is good faith posting. Bad faith posting is when a person is no longer interested in this goal, and instead seeks to score points, contributes nothing useful, or is deceitful.

This standard is enforced in the Moderation forum by default as well as Got Issues, and may be declared as applicable by the Moderation Team in other threads elsewhere when said threads involve policy discussions, mechanics discussions, discussions of potential additions/modifications to the game or forum, or other pertinent announcements. These threads, like Moderation "discussion threads," are meant to gauge the opinions of the community and otherwise help better player experience; posting in bad faith in such is detrimental to this process. Please note, in the instance a post is removed for being in bad faith, it is not deleted, but instead moved to the "Evidence Locker" where it may be reviewed if necessary.

That doesn't say how you interpret it, that's a baseline of what it should be in theory. Tons of posts I've seen made in these threads that get removed as bad faith are clearly made in effort to make the site a more enjoyable and better place. Which does bring into question how exactly it's interpreted, because it seems to be used to simply remove things critical of the mod team.

[Diarcesia]

We have been directed by Max Barry to remove bad faith posts, so we can't follow that suggestion, sorry.

Even putting a summary in the mod's own words why they are bad faith?

I understand if Max says bad faith posts need to be removed. However, I think giving a reason like "two bad faith reports are removed because they are off-topic borderline flaming" does not fall to that purview. Can I please have an answer to the question?

[The Nihilistic view]

For total clarity, Rojava was DOS'd for a combination of the following:

• Persistent rule-breaking across multiple accounts.
• Multiple use of deliberate troll accounts.
• Past behind the scenes (but, I stress, on-site) attempts to coordinate harassment of a disabled player.

I imagine if this had simply been stated up-front, we wouldn't be in this situation. Rojava would still have had supporters, and some would still have been convinced that we're both incompetent and secretive, but by failing to offer this information at the beginning, we made things worse. There's a middle ground between 'we can't tell you anything for, well, reasons' and 'let's tell you absolutely everything, regardless of the consequences', and we need to think more carefully about where to find the balance in individual cases.


But I'll make two further points.

1) We can't treat someone differently just because they're popular with a specific set of the player base.

2) This might be a slightly controversial statement, but as others have pointed out, if Rojava has tried to claim to some of you that he doesn't know really know why he was DOS'd, I don't think he's necessarily being entirely truthful with you.



Writing now in a purely personal capacity rather than a general moderator capacity, I accept that we don't always communicate as well as we should. Similarly, I accept that we have a duty to communicate moderation decisions with a minimum of snark and hostility, especially when we're communicating a difficult decision. I also accept that because of our status as moderators, we should try and maintain a certain level of respect to other players when posting in the other forums in a personal non-moderator capacity. I know that I've personally slipped a bit on the latter front in recent months; I've allowed some of the stress from my personal life to boil over into frustration with a couple of posters in NSG. I regret this; a reputation for fairness is hard-earned, and can be lost far more quickly and easily than it's gained. This is why I've taken some time recently to step back and reflect on how I engage as a player as well as a moderator.

I'd seriously suggest you should run a workshop for new mods about how to treat people in the job but you're a busy person and you do need some time off for the day job and Mrs Arch also probably deserves the odd evening of your company. I'm not sure what incidents you might be referring to but I think perhaps you might be being too hard on yourself, people can have an off day without it tarnishing their reputable reputation

Also sometimes people are just rude arrogant arses when they demand answers or argue why they think they shouldn't be banned or whatever, trying to stay professional is one thing but when you are providing a service for free understandably patience can wear thin.

[North Washington Republic]

For total clarity, Rojava was DOS'd for a combination of the following:

• Persistent rule-breaking across multiple accounts.
• Multiple use of deliberate troll accounts.
• Past behind the scenes (but, I stress, on-site) attempts to coordinate harassment of a disabled player.

I imagine if this had simply been stated up-front, we wouldn't be in this situation. Rojava would still have had supporters, and some would still have been convinced that we're both incompetent and secretive, but by failing to offer this information at the beginning, we made things worse. There's a middle ground between 'we can't tell you anything for, well, reasons' and 'let's tell you absolutely everything, regardless of the consequences', and we need to think more carefully about where to find the balance in individual cases.


But I'll make two further points.

1) We can't treat someone differently just because they're popular with a specific set of the player base.

2) This might be a slightly controversial statement, but as others have pointed out, if Rojava has tried to claim to some of you that he doesn't know really know why he was DOS'd, I don't think he's necessarily being entirely truthful with you.



Writing now in a purely personal capacity rather than a general moderator capacity, I accept that we don't always communicate as well as we should. Similarly, I accept that we have a duty to communicate moderation decisions with a minimum of snark and hostility, especially when we're communicating a difficult decision. I also accept that because of our status as moderators, we should try and maintain a certain level of respect to other players when posting in the other forums in a personal non-moderator capacity. I know that I've personally slipped a bit on the latter front in recent months; I've allowed some of the stress from my personal life to boil over into frustration with a couple of posters in NSG. I regret this; a reputation for fairness is hard-earned, and can be lost far more quickly and easily than it's gained. This is why I've taken some time recently to step back and reflect on how I engage as a player as well as a moderator.

Thank you for that information.

[Nanatsu no Tsuki]

For total clarity, Rojava was DOS'd for a combination of the following:

• Persistent rule-breaking across multiple accounts.
• Multiple use of deliberate troll accounts.
• Past behind the scenes (but, I stress, on-site) attempts to coordinate harassment of a disabled player.

I imagine if this had simply been stated up-front, we wouldn't be in this situation. Rojava would still have had supporters, and some would still have been convinced that we're both incompetent and secretive, but by failing to offer this information at the beginning, we made things worse. There's a middle ground between 'we can't tell you anything for, well, reasons' and 'let's tell you absolutely everything, regardless of the consequences', and we need to think more carefully about where to find the balance in individual cases.


But I'll make two further points.

1) We can't treat someone differently just because they're popular with a specific set of the player base.

2) This might be a slightly controversial statement, but as others have pointed out, if Rojava has tried to claim to some of you that he doesn't know really know why he was DOS'd, I don't think he's necessarily being entirely truthful with you.



Writing now in a purely personal capacity rather than a general moderator capacity, I accept that we don't always communicate as well as we should. Similarly, I accept that we have a duty to communicate moderation decisions with a minimum of snark and hostility, especially when we're communicating a difficult decision. I also accept that because of our status as moderators, we should try and maintain a certain level of respect to other players when posting in the other forums in a personal non-moderator capacity. I know that I've personally slipped a bit on the latter front in recent months; I've allowed some of the stress from my personal life to boil over into frustration with a couple of posters in NSG. I regret this; a reputation for fairness is hard-earned, and can be lost far more quickly and easily than it's gained. This is why I've taken some time recently to step back and reflect on how I engage as a player as well as a moderator.

Thank you for that info, Arch. Also, we all have bad days. No biggie.

[WayNeacTia]

-Snippereeny-

That's all I need to hear Arch. You guys do a decent job in my opinion, and from my guess, pretty much all DoS's are justified. First it is Max's site. You are agents of said site owner. If you want someone gone, it really doesn't require an explanation in my opinion. Just because someone happens to be popular, all of a sudden it is now an issue? You really shouldn't have had to go out of your way to explain this.

Would more transparency be nice? Sure. If it doesn't happen, will the site decline? Doubtful. From what I can gather, ALOT of work goes into maintaining this site, which is of little benefit to anyone other than the users. As for NVI's actions in Discord that seems to have become an issue? They were made a moderator of that channel were they not? If so, it seems they were well within their rights to take said action, as long it was in good faith at the time.