Discussion - New NSG Rule Suggestion

[Shofercia]

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.

You claimed that the rules deal adequately with the scenario, and I disagree. TI even said that Master Baiting can cause quite a mess, and I'm most certain that he was referring to actual baiting, not the other variation, as this is a PG-13 forum. The OP shows a clear example where it didn't adequately address the situation.

Realizing that you have the unpopular opinion not backed up by factual evidence, you shift into panic mode, and utilize the Scare Tactic: this new rule would open up for everyone warned for flaming to turn around and argue that their "baiter" should also be warned

Everyone? So everyone who was ever warned for flaming on NSG has done so as a response to a bait that had nothing to do with the topic at hand? This is the core of your argument, right here, and that's why I'm not even going to bother with the rest of your post:

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.

Emphasis - mine. First we don't know if the baiter hasn't "baited enough" or was just not reported for baiting, because the baiter either baited a newbie, or the poster baited didn't give a shit, or didn't report it for some other reason. And yet, you mistakenly assume that it's simply "not baited enough to warrant a warning" even though other cases are so prevalent, that the mods even stated that they might miss something actionable simply because it wasn't reported. They're volunteers, and wasting their time looking for unreported baits isn't part of their job.

Second, as mentioned above, you delibetaly misinterpret the suggested rule to throw in "everyone" and that's a lie. The rule, when taken as a whole, clearly states that it's not everyone:

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

It had to be a bait that targeted a specific poster, was off topic, resulted in a flame, and the flame was warned. And yet, in order to scaremonger, you've ignored point two.

So why do you want to protect the privilege of baiting someone lightly, when it has nothing to do with the topic at hand?

[Attempted Socialism]

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

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.

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

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.

You claimed that the rules deal adequately with the scenario, and I disagree.

Which was why I requested that you answered my original questions, rather than argue semantics. So, please, do explain why the current rules are insufficient. And a single anecdote (Though I share your wonder of why it wasn't also warned) does not make your point for you.

TI even said that Master Baiting can cause quite a mess, and I'm most certain that he was referring to actual baiting, not the other variation, as this is a PG-13 forum.

You can't be that gullible.

The OP shows a clear example where it didn't adequately address the situation.

I don't know why the one example in the OP wasn't warned for baiting, but that is under the current rules, not your... whatver this is:

Realizing that you have the unpopular opinion not backed up by factual evidence, you shift into panic mode,

Your mindreader is faulty, you should adjust it.

and utilize the Scare Tactic: this new rule would open up for everyone warned for flaming to turn around and argue that their "baiter" should also be warned

Everyone? So everyone who was ever warned for flaming on NSG has done so as a response to a bait that had nothing to do with the topic at hand?

No, this is your strawman, which is why you won't find it in my argument. Rather, as I say, everyone will be able to argue they were warned because of some bait, which is where we get into the litigation -- my point is that since I don't see the need for a (change|addition) to the rules, the only result will be this kind of new rules-lawyering.

This is the core of your argument, right here, and that's why I'm not even going to bother with the rest of your post:

I like how blatant you make your bad faith posts.

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.

Emphasis - mine. First we don't know if the baiter hasn't "baited enough" or was just not reported for baiting, because the baiter either baited a newbie, or the poster baited didn't give a shit, or didn't report it for some other reason. And yet, you mistakenly assume that it's simply "not baited enough to warrant a warning" even though other cases are so prevalent, that the mods even stated that they might miss something actionable simply because it wasn't reported. They're volunteers, and wasting their time looking for unreported baits isn't part of their job.

This is an argument for applying the current rules, not your (change|addition). Where is the need for your (change|addition) in any of these scenarios?

Second, as mentioned above, you delibetaly misinterpret the suggested rule to throw in "everyone" and that's a lie. The rule, when taken as a whole, clearly states that it's not everyone:

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

It had to be a bait that targeted a specific poster, was off topic, resulted in a flame, and the flame was warned. And yet, in order to scaremonger, you've ignored point two.

I like this development, it gets more and more into the territory of specifically discussing the example in your OP. Instead of this discussion thread, why didn't you just report that specific baity post?

So why do you want to protect the privilege of baiting someone lightly, when it has nothing to do with the topic at hand?

Your mindreader is still malfunctioning.

[Shofercia]

You claimed that the rules deal adequately with the scenario, and I disagree.

Which was why I requested that you answered my original questions, rather than argue semantics. So, please, do explain why the current rules are insufficient. And a single anecdote (Though I share your wonder of why it wasn't also warned) does not make your point for you.

TI even said that Master Baiting can cause quite a mess, and I'm most certain that he was referring to actual baiting, not the other variation, as this is a PG-13 forum.

You can't be that gullible.

The OP shows a clear example where it didn't adequately address the situation.

I don't know why the one example in the OP wasn't warned for baiting, but that is under the current rules, not your... whatver this is:

Realizing that you have the unpopular opinion not backed up by factual evidence, you shift into panic mode,

Your mindreader is faulty, you should adjust it.

and utilize the Scare Tactic: this new rule would open up for everyone warned for flaming to turn around and argue that their "baiter" should also be warned

Everyone? So everyone who was ever warned for flaming on NSG has done so as a response to a bait that had nothing to do with the topic at hand?

No, this is your strawman, which is why you won't find it in my argument. Rather, as I say, everyone will be able to argue they were warned because of some bait, which is where we get into the litigation -- my point is that since I don't see the need for a (change|addition) to the rules, the only result will be this kind of new rules-lawyering.

This is the core of your argument, right here, and that's why I'm not even going to bother with the rest of your post:

I like how blatant you make your bad faith posts.

Emphasis - mine. First we don't know if the baiter hasn't "baited enough" or was just not reported for baiting, because the baiter either baited a newbie, or the poster baited didn't give a shit, or didn't report it for some other reason. And yet, you mistakenly assume that it's simply "not baited enough to warrant a warning" even though other cases are so prevalent, that the mods even stated that they might miss something actionable simply because it wasn't reported. They're volunteers, and wasting their time looking for unreported baits isn't part of their job.

This is an argument for applying the current rules, not your (change|addition). Where is the need for your (change|addition) in any of these scenarios?

Second, as mentioned above, you delibetaly misinterpret the suggested rule to throw in "everyone" and that's a lie. The rule, when taken as a whole, clearly states that it's not everyone:



It had to be a bait that targeted a specific poster, was off topic, resulted in a flame, and the flame was warned. And yet, in order to scaremonger, you've ignored point two.

I like this development, it gets more and more into the territory of specifically discussing the example in your OP. Instead of this discussion thread, why didn't you just report that specific baity post?

So why do you want to protect the privilege of baiting someone lightly, when it has nothing to do with the topic at hand?

Your mindreader is still malfunctioning.

Just because you choose not to respond to posts without chopping them up, doesn't mean that works for the rest of us. For the umpteenth time: the purpose of the rule is to deter baiting. This is what the rule does. The reason that the current rules are insufficient, is because, as stated earlier in the thread:

If you bait an opponent for da lulz or to get your opponent to flame you so that they're banhammered from NSG... you should be warned.

Posters can utilize a tactic where they viciously gang up on someone whom they don't like with baits, deliberately driving said poster to flame them, and then they get a slap on the wrist for one or two baits, while the baited poster is banhammered for a day or two. Rinse and repeat until the target leaves the forums, or is bannhammered. By providing the same degree of punishment to the baiters, as their target would receive, and ensuring that it's automatically applied, this scenario doesn't occur.

You're asking me to trawl through countless NSG threads to find that, which quite frankly you and I both know exists, so it seems that you're just trying to get me to back off or waste my time, in order to protect the privilege to bait someone into being banhammered. And since you're going to chop up this post as well, you're hoping that other readers won't be able to see the forest, but will focus on the proverbial strawman trees that you'll knock down.

That's essentially your tactic here, get me to waste my time by responding to frivolities, like "you cannot possibly be that gullible" instead of focusing on the real issue - it seems that you're trying to defend the baiters' rights to banhammer posters with whom they disagree through the tactic that I've described, repeatedly. When I quoted your, verbatim, and your response was "I like how blatant you make your bad faith posts."

Since you're so eager for me to do it, I'll clarify the tactic even further, so that even if I don't get the rule change, other NSGers will spot it and call it out:

1. Find someone whose viewpoints you revile
2. Bait them and get others to bait them
3. Wait for the eventual flame that will come, and report the flame
4. Be sure to thank the mods and tell the target that they really deserve the warning
5. Rinse and repeat

Since you've asked for an example, here you go:

Yes (looks at federal judge appointments)

*shakes head* Why did I bother to ask, I know from before you give little empathy to anyone other than children.

He doesn't even show empathy to children, it's more a freakish ownership-mentality. See current "discussion" about whether children could be allowed to see grandparents due to limiting the childrens exposure to different opinions.

It's symptomatic that what [Target] doesn't own or control is worth very little to him, and what he owns or controls better be his and only his; I don't think I've seen such a dysfunctional approach to relationships since I saw some interviews with people suffering from anti-social personality disorder, but they at least had some charisma, manipulation ability and competence at faking it. If it's any solace, [Target] doesn't have those, so all his disgusting fantasies will remain so.

Also based on his other posts, I believe he is showing symptoms of said Anti-social personality disorder.

I refer you to the Abortion forum. He was banned because of his disgusting remarks and conduct.

I wonder who the Second Baiter is in that scenario... wasn't that you? And here you are, working to preserve that very right to bait.

Edit: The reason that the bait demonstrated in the OP wasn't warned for baiting, was probably because no one reported the bait, which happens all the time on NSG, which is why I suggested automatic punishment. Had you not ignored the second point I made, you would've caught that.

Thing is, you're saying that the bait should be warned, but that didn't happen, under the current rules. I go by what actually happened, not what should've happened. I get it, you want to preserve the privilege that baits currently have over flames on NSG, and I don't want said privilege preserved, and that's the difference between our stances.

[United Republic Empire]

Which was why I requested that you answered my original questions, rather than argue semantics. So, please, do explain why the current rules are insufficient. And a single anecdote (Though I share your wonder of why it wasn't also warned) does not make your point for you.
You can't be that gullible.
I don't know why the one example in the OP wasn't warned for baiting, but that is under the current rules, not your... whatver this is:

Your mindreader is faulty, you should adjust it.
No, this is your strawman, which is why you won't find it in my argument. Rather, as I say, everyone will be able to argue they were warned because of some bait, which is where we get into the litigation -- my point is that since I don't see the need for a (change|addition) to the rules, the only result will be this kind of new rules-lawyering.
I like how blatant you make your bad faith posts.

This is an argument for applying the current rules, not your (change|addition). Where is the need for your (change|addition) in any of these scenarios?

I like this development, it gets more and more into the territory of specifically discussing the example in your OP. Instead of this discussion thread, why didn't you just report that specific baity post?

Your mindreader is still malfunctioning.

Just because you choose not to respond to posts without chopping them up, doesn't mean that works for the rest of us. For the umpteenth time: the purpose of the rule is to deter baiting. This is what the rule does. The reason that the current rules are insufficient, is because, as stated earlier in the thread:

If you bait an opponent for da lulz or to get your opponent to flame you so that they're banhammered from NSG... you should be warned.

Posters can utilize a tactic where they viciously gang up on someone whom they don't like with baits, deliberately driving said poster to flame them, and then they get a slap on the wrist for one or two baits, while the baited poster is banhammered for a day or two. Rinse and repeat until the target leaves the forums, or is bannhammered. By providing the same degree of punishment to the baiters, as their target would receive, and ensuring that it's automatically applied, this scenario doesn't occur.

You're asking me to trawl through countless NSG threads to find that, which quite frankly you and I both know exists, so it seems that you're just trying to get me to back off or waste my time, in order to protect the privilege to bait someone into being banhammered. And since you're going to chop up this post as well, you're hoping that other readers won't be able to see the forest, but will focus on the proverbial strawman trees that you'll knock down.

That's essentially your tactic here, get me to waste my time by responding to frivolities, like "you cannot possibly be that gullible" instead of focusing on the real issue - it seems that you're trying to defend the baiters' rights to banhammer posters with whom they disagree through the tactic that I've described, repeatedly. When I quoted your, verbatim, and your response was "I like how blatant you make your bad faith posts."

Since you're so eager for me to do it, I'll clarify the tactic even further, so that even if I don't get the rule change, other NSGers will spot it and call it out:

1. Find someone whose viewpoints you revile
2. Bait them and get others to bait them
3. Wait for the eventual flame that will come, and report the flame
4. Be sure to thank the mods and tell the target that they really deserve the warning
5. Rinse and repeat

Since you've asked for an example, here you go:

Yes (looks at federal judge appointments)

*shakes head* Why did I bother to ask, I know from before you give little empathy to anyone other than children.

He doesn't even show empathy to children, it's more a freakish ownership-mentality. See current "discussion" about whether children could be allowed to see grandparents due to limiting the childrens exposure to different opinions.

It's symptomatic that what [Target] doesn't own or control is worth very little to him, and what he owns or controls better be his and only his; I don't think I've seen such a dysfunctional approach to relationships since I saw some interviews with people suffering from anti-social personality disorder, but they at least had some charisma, manipulation ability and competence at faking it. If it's any solace, [Target] doesn't have those, so all his disgusting fantasies will remain so.

Also based on his other posts, I believe he is showing symptoms of said Anti-social personality disorder.

I refer you to the Abortion forum. He was banned because of his disgusting remarks and conduct.

I wonder who the Second Baiter is in that scenario... wasn't that you? And here you are, working to preserve that very right to bait.

Edit: The reason that the bait demonstrated in the OP wasn't warned for baiting, was probably because no one reported the bait, which happens all the time on NSG, which is why I suggested automatic punishment. Had you not ignored the second point I made, you would've caught that.

Thing is, you're saying that the bait should be warned, but that didn't happen, under the current rules. I go by what actually happened, not what should've happened. I get it, you want to preserve the privilege that baits currently have over flames on NSG, and I don't want said privilege preserved, and that's the difference between our stances.

Okay and how would you go about this "automatic punishment" if nobody reports it ?? - If someone reports it, then it gets punished accordingly or not based on full context. You're argument doesn't make a lick of sense. Are you saying that you want Moderators to spend countless sleepless nights trawling through every thread and making notes of which posts to automatically punish ??

Also, you're coming off as implying that the player Attempted Socialism supports flamebaiting and that they do it to other people without getting in trouble for it. You may not be intentionally doing it, but that is what it looked like when I read it,

[Shofercia]

Okay and how would you go about this "automatic punishment" if nobody reports it ?? - If someone reports it, then it gets punished accordingly or not based on full context. You're argument doesn't make a lick of sense. Are you saying that you want Moderators to spend countless sleepless nights trawling through every thread and making notes of which posts to automatically punish ??

Also, you're coming off as implying that the player Attempted Socialism supports flamebaiting and that they do it to other people without getting in trouble for it. You may not be intentionally doing it, but that is what it looked like when I read it,

My experience is that if someone knows that the warning's automatic, it'll be reported more frequently. I'll give you an example: Political Nicknaming was hardly ever reported, until it became warnable, and then the reports massively increased in frequency. Political Nicknaming is usually an automatic punishment, and yet it still has to be reported.

Furthermore, I specifically stated that I don't want moderators to trawl threads looking for baiting. If the moderators wants to, voluntarily, see if the flame was a result of a bait, the way this would work, is that a moderator, after issuing a warning, clicks once on whom the flame was a response to, takes all of 15 seconds to assess the post, (because baits like these are blatantly obvious,) and warns the bait as well. Hence the four requirements. The total time spent would be less than one minute per warning, and mods spend more time than that handling appeals.

The full context that you speak of, is typically one or more off topic baity posts, specifically targeting the user. I can assess 99% of them in less than a minute, and the mods are more experienced than me in this regard, so talking about sleepless nights seems a tad desperate.

Attempted Socialism asked for yet another example of someone blatantly baiting a user, and getting off scot free. I provide an example of Attempted Socialism doing that very thing. If either you or Attempted Socialism don't support flamebaiting, why are you both arguing against a rule that would clearly reduce it? I'm just curious.

You stated that it would cause mods sleepless nights - not true. Attempted Socialism talked about gullibility. I've yet to see the rule, when taken as a whole, successfully challenged. If you only take part one, or part four, independently, sure, they can be challenged, but I fail to see how the rule, when taken as a whole, would cause any of the effects that you're claiming, like sleepless nights... So I'll add a Rule 0 to placate that nonexistent concern.

0. Was it reported to Moderation, or did a mod volunteer to single-click investigate it? If not, then stop, otherwise proceed.
1. Did the bait target a specific poster? If yes, continue. If you're unsure, stop.
2. Did the bait address anything about the topic? If no, continue. If it responded to something in the OP, stop.
3. Did the bait result in a flame from its target? If yes, continue. If no flame, stop.
4. Was the target warned as a result? If yes, warn the baiter. If not, stop.

[United Republic Empire]

Okay and how would you go about this "automatic punishment" if nobody reports it ?? - If someone reports it, then it gets punished accordingly or not based on full context. You're argument doesn't make a lick of sense. Are you saying that you want Moderators to spend countless sleepless nights trawling through every thread and making notes of which posts to automatically punish ??

Also, you're coming off as implying that the player Attempted Socialism supports flamebaiting and that they do it to other people without getting in trouble for it. You may not be intentionally doing it, but that is what it looked like when I read it,

My experience is that if someone knows that the warning's automatic, it'll be reported more frequently. I'll give you an example: Political Nicknaming was hardly ever reported, until it became warnable, and then the reports massively increased in frequency. Political Nicknaming is usually an automatic punishment, and yet it still has to be reported.

Furthermore, I specifically stated that I don't want moderators to trawl threads looking for baiting. If the moderators wants to, voluntarily, see if the flame was a result of a bait, the way this would work, is that a moderator, after issuing a warning, clicks once on whom the flame was a response to, takes all of 15 seconds to assess the post, (because baits like these are blatantly obvious,) and warns the bait as well. Hence the four requirements. The total time spent would be less than one minute per warning, and mods spend more time than that handling appeals.

The full context that you speak of, is typically one or more off topic baity posts, specifically targeting the user. I can assess 99% of them in less than a minute, and the mods are more experienced than me in this regard, so talking about sleepless nights seems a tad desperate.

Attempted Socialism asked for yet another example of someone blatantly baiting a user, and getting off scot free. I provide an example of Attempted Socialism doing that very thing. If either you or Attempted Socialism don't support flamebaiting, why are you both arguing against a rule that would clearly reduce it? I'm just curious.

You stated that it would cause mods sleepless nights - not true. Attempted Socialism talked about gullibility. I've yet to see the rule, when taken as a whole, successfully challenged. If you only take part one, or part four, independently, sure, they can be challenged, but I fail to see how the rule, when taken as a whole, would cause any of the effects that you're claiming, like sleepless nights... So I'll add a Rule 0 to placate that nonexistent concern.

0. Was it reported to Moderation, or did a mod volunteer to single-click investigate it? If not, then stop, otherwise proceed.
1. Did the bait target a specific poster? If yes, continue. If you're unsure, stop.
2. Did the bait address anything about the topic? If no, continue. If it responded to something in the OP, stop.
3. Did the bait result in a flame from its target? If yes, continue. If no flame, stop.
4. Was the target warned as a result? If yes, warn the baiter. If not, stop.

Nobody is arguing against the rule - they're debating against the logic and feasibility of it. Also wouldn't point 0 be in bad faith since it says "then stop" instead of "report it" - This is where the logic is not adding up. There is no such thing as automatic punishments. It is reported and then punished based on the context and the rules. At this point it only looks as if this argument is to set a precedent to get people in trouble that disagree with them by means of saying "that person triggered me" when in actuality, they disagreed and debated the topic within the limits of the rules. Maybe the suggestion should be "Don't feed the Fire" - same case in point of "Don't feed the Trolls" - The current rules in place already do what you are suggesting. The logic of "this person flamebaited me, they get automatically punished" doesn't make sense because that would still up to the mods to decide if the person broke the rules or not. This is literally the current process - report it, wait, receive the warning or not, appeal or not.

You say automatic but the only way they are going to possibly get in trouble is if you report it like your supposed to.

[Shofercia]

My experience is that if someone knows that the warning's automatic, it'll be reported more frequently. I'll give you an example: Political Nicknaming was hardly ever reported, until it became warnable, and then the reports massively increased in frequency. Political Nicknaming is usually an automatic punishment, and yet it still has to be reported.

Furthermore, I specifically stated that I don't want moderators to trawl threads looking for baiting. If the moderators wants to, voluntarily, see if the flame was a result of a bait, the way this would work, is that a moderator, after issuing a warning, clicks once on whom the flame was a response to, takes all of 15 seconds to assess the post, (because baits like these are blatantly obvious,) and warns the bait as well. Hence the four requirements. The total time spent would be less than one minute per warning, and mods spend more time than that handling appeals.

The full context that you speak of, is typically one or more off topic baity posts, specifically targeting the user. I can assess 99% of them in less than a minute, and the mods are more experienced than me in this regard, so talking about sleepless nights seems a tad desperate.

Attempted Socialism asked for yet another example of someone blatantly baiting a user, and getting off scot free. I provide an example of Attempted Socialism doing that very thing. If either you or Attempted Socialism don't support flamebaiting, why are you both arguing against a rule that would clearly reduce it? I'm just curious.

You stated that it would cause mods sleepless nights - not true. Attempted Socialism talked about gullibility. I've yet to see the rule, when taken as a whole, successfully challenged. If you only take part one, or part four, independently, sure, they can be challenged, but I fail to see how the rule, when taken as a whole, would cause any of the effects that you're claiming, like sleepless nights... So I'll add a Rule 0 to placate that nonexistent concern.

Nobody is arguing against the rule - they're debating against the logic and feasibility of it. Also wouldn't point 0 be in bad faith since it says "then stop" instead of "report it" - This is where the logic is not adding up. There is no such thing as automatic punishments. It is reported and then punished based on the context and the rules. At this point it only looks as if this argument is to set a precedent to get people in trouble that disagree with them by means of saying "that person triggered me" when in actuality, they disagreed and debated the topic within the limits of the rules. Maybe the suggestion should be "Don't feed the Fire" - same case in point of "Don't feed the Trolls" - The current rules in place already do what you are suggesting. The logic of "this person flamebaited me, they get automatically punished" doesn't make sense because that would still up to the mods to decide if the person broke the rules or not. This is literally the current process - report it, wait, receive the warning or not, appeal or not.

You say automatic but the only way they are going to possibly get in trouble is if you report it like your supposed to.

The guide is for Moderators, and you just said that you didn't want moderators spending sleepless nights trawling the forums. But now you expect them to trawl the forums and report it? Make up your mind please. And again, I don't really care if 0 is in there or not. You say that there's no such thing as automatic punishments, and yet, I even gave you an example - political nicknaming.

I further explained that if the warning is automatic, or nearly automatic, the reports go up, and again, gave a specific example - political nicknaming. Instead of responding to my argument or my example, you decided to focus on the wording of rule 0 - even though it won't affect the core parts of the rule, one through four. Yes, I agree that it should be reported, and you know what would encourage NSGers to report it? The very rule that you're fighting tooth and nail against implementing!

The current rules do not do what I am suggesting, because if they did, I wouldn't be suggesting it. You keep on saying, "Have thicker skin, don't flame, report it" - how about this: "don't bait!" What's wrong with that?

Like baiting today, political nicknaming used to be a problem, until the mods added the automatic warn rule to political nicknaming, and guess what? It started to be widely reported, and it stopped being a problem. We have a working example, one that you deliberately chose to ignore, an example that clearly demonstrates the logic and feasibility of the rule. My rule was inspired by the political nicknaming rule and how well it worked. So:

1. Did the bait target a specific poster? If yes, continue.
2. Did the bait address anything about the topic? If no, continue.
3. Did the bait result in a flame from its target? If yes, continue.
4. Was the target warned as a result? If yes, warn the baiter.
Note: Moderators aren't required to spend sleepless nights trawling forums to look for baits, a point that I thought was obvious, but apparently wasn't.

[United Republic Empire]

Nobody is arguing against the rule - they're debating against the logic and feasibility of it. Also wouldn't point 0 be in bad faith since it says "then stop" instead of "report it" - This is where the logic is not adding up. There is no such thing as automatic punishments. It is reported and then punished based on the context and the rules. At this point it only looks as if this argument is to set a precedent to get people in trouble that disagree with them by means of saying "that person triggered me" when in actuality, they disagreed and debated the topic within the limits of the rules. Maybe the suggestion should be "Don't feed the Fire" - same case in point of "Don't feed the Trolls" - The current rules in place already do what you are suggesting. The logic of "this person flamebaited me, they get automatically punished" doesn't make sense because that would still up to the mods to decide if the person broke the rules or not. This is literally the current process - report it, wait, receive the warning or not, appeal or not.

You say automatic but the only way they are going to possibly get in trouble is if you report it like your supposed to.

The guide is for Moderators, and you just said that you didn't want moderators spending sleepless nights trawling the forums. But now you expect them to trawl the forums and report it? Make up your mind please. And again, I don't really care if 0 is in there or not. You say that there's no such thing as automatic punishments, and yet, I even gave you an example - political nicknaming.

I further explained that if the warning is automatic, or nearly automatic, the reports go up, and again, gave a specific example - political nicknaming. Instead of responding to my argument or my example, you decided to focus on the wording of rule 0 - even though it won't affect the core parts of the rule, one through four. Yes, I agree that it should be reported, and you know what would encourage NSGers to report it? The very rule that you're fighting tooth and nail against implementing!

The current rules do not do what I am suggesting, because if they did, I wouldn't be suggesting it. You keep on saying, "Have thicker skin, don't flame, report it" - how about this: "don't bait!" What's wrong with that?

Like baiting today, political nicknaming used to be a problem, until the mods added the automatic warn rule to political nicknaming, and guess what? It started to be widely reported, and it stopped being a problem. We have a working example, one that you deliberately chose to ignore, an example that clearly demonstrates the logic and feasibility of the rule. My rule was inspired by the political nicknaming rule and how well it worked. So:

1. Did the bait target a specific poster? If yes, continue.
2. Did the bait address anything about the topic? If no, continue.
3. Did the bait result in a flame from its target? If yes, continue.
4. Was the target warned as a result? If yes, warn the baiter.
Note: Moderators aren't required to spend sleepless nights trawling forums to look for baits, a point that I thought was obvious, but apparently wasn't.

......

Just because you choose not to respond to posts without chopping them up, doesn't mean that works for the rest of us. For the umpteenth time: the purpose of the rule is to deter baiting. This is what the rule does. The reason that the current rules are insufficient, is because, as stated earlier in the thread:



Posters can utilize a tactic where they viciously gang up on someone whom they don't like with baits, deliberately driving said poster to flame them, and then they get a slap on the wrist for one or two baits, while the baited poster is banhammered for a day or two. Rinse and repeat until the target leaves the forums, or is bannhammered. By providing the same degree of punishment to the baiters, as their target would receive, and ensuring that it's automatically applied, this scenario doesn't occur.

You're asking me to trawl through countless NSG threads to find that, which quite frankly you and I both know exists, so it seems that you're just trying to get me to back off or waste my time, in order to protect the privilege to bait someone into being banhammered. And since you're going to chop up this post as well, you're hoping that other readers won't be able to see the forest, but will focus on the proverbial strawman trees that you'll knock down.

That's essentially your tactic here, get me to waste my time by responding to frivolities, like "you cannot possibly be that gullible" instead of focusing on the real issue - it seems that you're trying to defend the baiters' rights to banhammer posters with whom they disagree through the tactic that I've described, repeatedly. When I quoted your, verbatim, and your response was "I like how blatant you make your bad faith posts."

Since you're so eager for me to do it, I'll clarify the tactic even further, so that even if I don't get the rule change, other NSGers will spot it and call it out:

1. Find someone whose viewpoints you revile
2. Bait them and get others to bait them
3. Wait for the eventual flame that will come, and report the flame
4. Be sure to thank the mods and tell the target that they really deserve the warning
5. Rinse and repeat

Since you've asked for an example, here you go:

I wonder who the Second Baiter is in that scenario... wasn't that you? And here you are, working to preserve that very right to bait.

Edit: The reason that the bait demonstrated in the OP wasn't warned for baiting, was probably because no one reported the bait, which happens all the time on NSG, which is why I suggested automatic punishment. Had you not ignored the second point I made, you would've caught that.

Thing is, you're saying that the bait should be warned, but that didn't happen, under the current rules. I go by what actually happened, not what should've happened. I get it, you want to preserve the privilege that baits currently have over flames on NSG, and I don't want said privilege preserved, and that's the difference between our stances.

Okay and how would you go about this "automatic punishment" if nobody reports it ?? - If someone reports it, then it gets punished accordingly or not based on full context. You're argument doesn't make a lick of sense. Are you saying that you want Moderators to spend countless sleepless nights trawling through every thread and making notes of which posts to automatically punish ??

Also, you're coming off as implying that the player Attempted Socialism supports flamebaiting and that they do it to other people without getting in trouble for it. You may not be intentionally doing it, but that is what it looked like when I read it,

[Shofercia]

The guide is for Moderators, and you just said that you didn't want moderators spending sleepless nights trawling the forums. But now you expect them to trawl the forums and report it? Make up your mind please. And again, I don't really care if 0 is in there or not. You say that there's no such thing as automatic punishments, and yet, I even gave you an example - political nicknaming.

I further explained that if the warning is automatic, or nearly automatic, the reports go up, and again, gave a specific example - political nicknaming. Instead of responding to my argument or my example, you decided to focus on the wording of rule 0 - even though it won't affect the core parts of the rule, one through four. Yes, I agree that it should be reported, and you know what would encourage NSGers to report it? The very rule that you're fighting tooth and nail against implementing!

The current rules do not do what I am suggesting, because if they did, I wouldn't be suggesting it. You keep on saying, "Have thicker skin, don't flame, report it" - how about this: "don't bait!" What's wrong with that?

Like baiting today, political nicknaming used to be a problem, until the mods added the automatic warn rule to political nicknaming, and guess what? It started to be widely reported, and it stopped being a problem. We have a working example, one that you deliberately chose to ignore, an example that clearly demonstrates the logic and feasibility of the rule. My rule was inspired by the political nicknaming rule and how well it worked. So:

......

[spoiler=Wall of Text]

Okay and how would you go about this "automatic punishment" if nobody reports it ?? - If someone reports it, then it gets punished accordingly or not based on full context. You're argument doesn't make a lick of sense. Are you saying that you want Moderators to spend countless sleepless nights trawling through every thread and making notes of which posts to automatically punish ??

Also, you're coming off as implying that the player Attempted Socialism supports flamebaiting and that they do it to other people without getting in trouble for it. You may not be intentionally doing it, but that is what it looked like when I read it,

Since there is clear confusion, I highlighted the parts for you. You are constantly contradicting your arguments. Everyone can see that this "suggestion" is literally no more than a means to get others in trouble when they disagree with your arguments. By your own logic, if they trigger you and you decide to in turn flame them, the other person automatically gets punished even if they didn't break the rules. If someone reports you for flaming and the person you claimed baited you doesn't get in trouble for flamebait then obviously they didn't break the rules or they would of got in trouble for it too. Why would the mods not warn them if they blatantly broke the rules. This is another flaw in your reasoning. Quite frankly, I think this entire discussion is done in bad faith because it seems that you just want to get people in trouble the disagree with you or out debate you. For the entire post you have been trying to misquote what we say to you. It is clear that mods already do their jobs just fine as is, it is up to the players to report rule violations and not engage so maybe for those that engage should be held to higher standards knowing full well that they "Feed the Fire" instead of just reporting it.

You asked a question: Are you saying that you want Moderators to spend countless sleepless nights trawling through every thread and making notes of which posts to automatically punish ??

From you asking said question I inferred that you didn't want moderators spending sleepless nights trawling the forums

Where's the contradiction? You've yet to respond to the rule when it's read in full, you claimed that I'm constantly contradicting myself, but failed to show a single example of it, and yet you've somehow managed to deduce that Everyone can see that this "suggestion" is literally no more than a means to get others in trouble when they disagree with your arguments which is a bold faced lie. The reason is that the second part of the rule points out that the bait is off topic, whereas disagreeing with my arguments would require posters to post on topic. You do understand that on topic and off topic are two different things, right? Apparently I'm not getting through to you, so I'll take your post apart, sentence by sentence. I don't usually do this, but you left me no choice.

By your own logic, if they trigger you and you decide to in turn flame them, the other person automatically gets punished even if they didn't break the rules.

Actually, they would've had to make a direct attack against a poster, not an argument and ensured that said attack do nothing with the topic at hand, which is, actually, against the rules. My rule addition provides an enforcement mechanism to further deter baiting, and is based on the political nicknaming example, which was, and remains, extremely successful.

If someone reports you for flaming and the person you claimed baited you doesn't get in trouble for flamebait then obviously they didn't break the rules or they would of got in trouble for it too.

According to that "logic" - if a thief doesn't get caught, he obviously didn't commit the crime. I've already explained the numerous ways that someone can bait and get away with it, and provided five examples, but you've boldly chosen to ignore all of them, much like you've repeatedly chosen to ignore the second point of the rule. My argument is that 2+3+4+5=14, whereas you're saying that 2+5 does not equal 14, but that's not what I'm arguing. You've repeatedly ignored a major point of the rule, and proceeded to pretend that it didn't work.

Why would the mods not warn them if they blatantly broke the rules.

Because the mods are human beings who make mistakes and can disagree with each other. If the mods were perfect, why would we need a second opinion? The mods make the best efforts to moderate for their volunteer status, but human volunteers mess up - since humans are not perfect and volunteers don't get paid.

This is another flaw in your reasoning.

Treating human nature as human nature is now a flaw? You sure about that one, United Republic Empire?

Quite frankly, I think this entire discussion is done in bad faith because it seems that you just want to get people in trouble the disagree with you or out debate you.

In order to outdebate me, you have to make posts that are on topic. The rule primarily applies to off topic baits. You do realize that on topic and off topic are two different things, right United Republic Empire?

For the entire post you have been trying to misquote what we say to you.

Actually, I quoted you verbatim, but I'm also one to never doubt the power of projection.

It is clear that mods already do their jobs just fine as is, it is up to the players to report rule violations and not engage so maybe for those that engage should be held to higher standards knowing full well that they "Feed the Fire" instead of just reporting it.

And the rule that you've been vehemently arguing against, will encourage more reports of those violations, as was clearly demonstrated with the political nicknaming example, which is yet another key point that I've made that you've ignored, while accusing me of bad faith posting.

[Attempted Socialism]

I wondered if this thread warranted another reply, because this is getting tiresome and frankly, as Lamoni already shot down this suggestion on the first page, I only posted my second response because I wanted to clarify Shofercias ill-conceived response to my initial post (And then got dragged in -- my mistake). However, there are some things I do wish to comment on, just to set the record straight for posterity.

Which was why I requested that you answered my original questions, rather than argue semantics. So, please, do explain why the current rules are insufficient. And a single anecdote (Though I share your wonder of why it wasn't also warned) does not make your point for you.
You can't be that gullible.
I don't know why the one example in the OP wasn't warned for baiting, but that is under the current rules, not your... whatver this is:

Your mindreader is faulty, you should adjust it.
No, this is your strawman, which is why you won't find it in my argument. Rather, as I say, everyone will be able to argue they were warned because of some bait, which is where we get into the litigation -- my point is that since I don't see the need for a (change|addition) to the rules, the only result will be this kind of new rules-lawyering.
I like how blatant you make your bad faith posts.

This is an argument for applying the current rules, not your (change|addition). Where is the need for your (change|addition) in any of these scenarios?

I like this development, it gets more and more into the territory of specifically discussing the example in your OP. Instead of this discussion thread, why didn't you just report that specific baity post?

Your mindreader is still malfunctioning.

Just because you choose not to respond to posts without chopping them up, doesn't mean that works for the rest of us.

I often like to respond point-by-point, yes. As we shall see in just a bit, this is not just for the sake of clarity -- which argument fits where -- but also a restraint on myself to actually respond to points in context, which makes my arguments more coherent and less prone to strawmen.

For the umpteenth time: the purpose of the rule is to deter baiting. This is what the rule does. The reason that the current rules are insufficient, is because, as stated earlier in the thread:

If you bait an opponent for da lulz or to get your opponent to flame you so that they're banhammered from NSG... you should be warned.

And you're making a very persuasive case for the rules not needing any revision. I know it's repetitive, but I'm asking what the current rules are unable to do; what you want fixed. And you point out that unreported posts go unwarned... Well, the clear solution to your problem would be to report what you think is baiting.

Posters can utilize a tactic where they viciously gang up on someone whom they don't like with baits, deliberately driving said poster to flame them, and then they get a slap on the wrist for one or two baits, while the baited poster is banhammered for a day or two. Rinse and repeat until the target leaves the forums, or is bannhammered. By providing the same degree of punishment to the baiters, as their target would receive, and ensuring that it's automatically applied, this scenario doesn't occur.

In the scenario you describe, the baiter gets one or two warnings while the baitee gets one (While apparently having quite a history to warrant a day ban). You'll have to forgive me for not seeing your grand persecution, but if people baited like you suggest, they'd be banned at the same speed their target was banned for flaming. What's the issue that the current rules can't fix?

You're asking me to trawl through countless NSG threads to find that, which quite frankly you and I both know exists, so it seems that you're just trying to get me to back off or waste my time, in order to protect the privilege to bait someone into being banhammered.

No, I am asking you to back up your point by providing examples of where the current rules are insufficient but your rule would solve your perceived problem; no I don't know it exists, which is why I ask for a convincing argument; no I am trying to get you to justify your suggestion; no I don't want to protect the "privilege" to bait someone. Your mindreader is really shitty, I think you should replace it.

And since you're going to chop up this post as well, you're hoping that other readers won't be able to see the forest, but will focus on the proverbial strawman trees that you'll knock down.

I actually like this analogy, except I think you meant the tone to be facetious.

That's essentially your tactic here, get me to waste my time by responding to frivolities, like "you cannot possibly be that gullible" instead of focusing on the real issue

See, this is where point-by-point responses are a help. That line was to a specific statement of yours, namely the line about master baiting. You're the one bringing up frivolities, I reject their validity because I think it's a waste of time. It's the same with your weird focus on semantics; if you have a better argument, why are you discussing frivolities?

it seems that you're trying to defend the baiters' rights to banhammer posters with whom they disagree through the tactic that I've described, repeatedly. When I quoted your, verbatim, and your response was "I like how blatant you make your bad faith posts."

Again, I think you need a new mindreader. Also, again, a point-by-point response here would show the context:

This is the core of your argument, right here, and that's why I'm not even going to bother with the rest of your post:

This was specifically what I called out, since 1) it wasn't the core of my argument but rather your strawman version and 2) you actually did bother with responses to the rest of my post. If you don't bother with my post, don't bother; this coy BS isn't convincing anyone. Your verbatim quotes do not defend you here, rather they show how the figurative sausage is made.

Since you're so eager for me to do it, I'll clarify the tactic even further, so that even if I don't get the rule change, other NSGers will spot it and call it out:

1. Find someone whose viewpoints you revile
2. Bait them and get others to bait them
3. Wait for the eventual flame that will come, and report the flame
4. Be sure to thank the mods and tell the target that they really deserve the warning
5. Rinse and repeat

Since you've asked for an example, here you go:

Yes (looks at federal judge appointments)

*shakes head* Why did I bother to ask, I know from before you give little empathy to anyone other than children.

He doesn't even show empathy to children, it's more a freakish ownership-mentality. See current "discussion" about whether children could be allowed to see grandparents due to limiting the childrens exposure to different opinions.

It's symptomatic that what [Target] doesn't own or control is worth very little to him, and what he owns or controls better be his and only his; I don't think I've seen such a dysfunctional approach to relationships since I saw some interviews with people suffering from anti-social personality disorder, but they at least had some charisma, manipulation ability and competence at faking it. If it's any solace, [Target] doesn't have those, so all his disgusting fantasies will remain so.

Also based on his other posts, I believe he is showing symptoms of said Anti-social personality disorder.

I refer you to the Abortion forum. He was banned because of his disgusting remarks and conduct.

I wonder who the Second Baiter is in that scenario... wasn't that you? And here you are, working to preserve that very right to bait.

These examples aren't of baiting, though. If you disagree, feel free to report me. I also made a search for posts in Moderation about Keshiland, and apart from an appeal I made when I was warned for flaming them (I had totally forgotten about that), this is the only post I could find. I was surprised to see how many of their warnings stemmed from some bonkers and off-topic baiting comment in the gun threads, though. If anything, Keshiland shows that the system is working fine as-is.

Edit: The reason that the bait demonstrated in the OP wasn't warned for baiting, was probably because no one reported the bait, which happens all the time on NSG, which is why I suggested automatic punishment. Had you not ignored the second point I made, you would've caught that.

... automatic punishment still requires mods to either spot it themselves and act upon it, or for it to be reported as a breach. This isn't a solution, it's pushing the issue of applying the current rules one step further away.

Thing is, you're saying that the bait should be warned, but that didn't happen, under the current rules. I go by what actually happened, not what should've happened. I get it, you want to preserve the privilege that baits currently have over flames on NSG, and I don't want said privilege preserved, and that's the difference between our stances.

I don't think you have adequately read my posts if you think this is my stance.

Okay and how would you go about this "automatic punishment" if nobody reports it ?? - If someone reports it, then it gets punished accordingly or not based on full context. You're argument doesn't make a lick of sense. Are you saying that you want Moderators to spend countless sleepless nights trawling through every thread and making notes of which posts to automatically punish ??

Also, you're coming off as implying that the player Attempted Socialism supports flamebaiting and that they do it to other people without getting in trouble for it. You may not be intentionally doing it, but that is what it looked like when I read it,

My experience is that if someone knows that the warning's automatic, it'll be reported more frequently. I'll give you an example: Political Nicknaming was hardly ever reported, until it became warnable, and then the reports massively increased in frequency. Political Nicknaming is usually an automatic punishment, and yet it still has to be reported.

So it's... not automatic? It still has to be reported? Again, what's the (change|addition) doing over simply applying the current rules? Apart from my point about warnings for flaming suddenly giving rise to requests for "baiters" to get warned "automatically"?

Attempted Socialism asked for yet another example of someone blatantly baiting a user, and getting off scot free. I provide an example of Attempted Socialism doing that very thing. If either you or Attempted Socialism don't support flamebaiting, why are you both arguing against a rule that would clearly reduce it? I'm just curious.

Because your suggested rule change is bad and you have a hard time explaining what it would do. Though, come to think of it, since the post you dug up of mine was 1) not baiting; 2) on topic; 3) Keshiland didn't get warned for flaming; which means according to your suggested rule, your step 4 is actually out of the question in this instance. Even if your rule had been in place, I wouldn't be warned for baiting. Your example is even worse than I thought.

Also, you're coming off as implying that the player Attempted Socialism supports flamebaiting and that they do it to other people without getting in trouble for it. You may not be intentionally doing it, but that is what it looked like when I read it

I think it was pretty explicit, but not deserving of an in-depth answer, hence me repeating that Shofercias mindreader is on the blink. Given how much of this discussion has been dedicated to Shofercia arguing semantics and researching my motives (And now yours too) rather than arguing the merits of their case, I think I'll bow out. In hindsight I realise that any reply after Lamonis was a waste of time.

[Shofercia]

I wondered if this thread warranted another reply, because this is getting tiresome and frankly, as Lamoni already shot down this suggestion on the first page, I only posted my second response because I wanted to clarify Shofercias ill-conceived response to my initial post (And then got dragged in -- my mistake). However, there are some things I do wish to comment on, just to set the record straight for posterity.

Setting the record straight, would that set a few things straight, like the fact that you haven't addressed the second point of the rule at all, or the fact that you didn't address the extremely successful example of political nicknaming, and won't be doing so in this post? You've also made three replies, excluding this one, after Lamoni's post, so why bring Lamoni in now?

Also, I think that not responding to the bait is wrong. Here's my proposal of how to respond to the bait:

"That's a rather mediocre bait, but, more importantly, would you care to comment on my argument, or do you feel the need to bait and run away from the argument at hand, thus conducting a bait and run from the argument? Attack the argument, not the poster making it!"

Anyways, I do hope, Attempted Socialism, that the theme of your post won't be the repeated claims that my mind reader is broken, as that wouldn't apply to the crystal clear rule that I've shown, and the fact that reports will go up if the warnings are automatic, as the example with political nicknamed clearly demonstrated.

Just because you choose not to respond to posts without chopping them up, doesn't mean that works for the rest of us.

I often like to respond point-by-point, yes. As we shall see in just a bit, this is not just for the sake of clarity -- which argument fits where -- but also a restraint on myself to actually respond to points in context, which makes my arguments more coherent and less prone to strawmen.

The problem is that when you respond point by point all the time, as you've been doing in this thread, you miss the forest for the trees. For instance, you've stated that it'll increase Rules Lawyering, but when taken as a whole the rule is explicitly clear, and won't result in rules lawyering. The only way you'd miss that, is through a point by point response, i.e. missing the forest for the trees.

For the umpteenth time: the purpose of the rule is to deter baiting. This is what the rule does. The reason that the current rules are insufficient, is because, as stated earlier in the thread:

If you bait an opponent for da lulz or to get your opponent to flame you so that they're banhammered from NSG... you should be warned.

And you're making a very persuasive case for the rules not needing any revision. I know it's repetitive, but I'm asking what the current rules are unable to do; what you want fixed. And you point out that unreported posts go unwarned... Well, the clear solution to your problem would be to report what you think is baiting.

The very same "logic" could be applied to political nicknaming, and yet the mods felt the need to apply the political nicknaming rule. As a result, reports of political nicknaming shot up. I'm asking that the same be done for deliberate, off topic, baits, that are a clear attack on the poster.

Posters can utilize a tactic where they viciously gang up on someone whom they don't like with baits, deliberately driving said poster to flame them, and then they get a slap on the wrist for one or two baits, while the baited poster is banhammered for a day or two. Rinse and repeat until the target leaves the forums, or is bannhammered. By providing the same degree of punishment to the baiters, as their target would receive, and ensuring that it's automatically applied, this scenario doesn't occur.

In the scenario you describe, the baiter gets one or two warnings while the baitee gets one (While apparently having quite a history to warrant a day ban). You'll have to forgive me for not seeing your grand persecution, but if people baited like you suggest, they'd be banned at the same speed their target was banned for flaming. What's the issue that the current rules can't fix?

In the scenario that I described, and in the example that was provided, which included your bait that wasn't warned, had four baiters gang up on one baitee. Each baiter would get the same, single warning as the baitee, rather than two warnings. Not even sure where you got that one from, and you seem to be rehashing old arguments rather than clarifying anything for posterity.

You're asking me to trawl through countless NSG threads to find that, which quite frankly you and I both know exists, so it seems that you're just trying to get me to back off or waste my time, in order to protect the privilege to bait someone into being banhammered.

No, I am asking you to back up your point by providing examples of where the current rules are insufficient but your rule would solve your perceived problem; no I don't know it exists, which is why I ask for a convincing argument; no I am trying to get you to justify your suggestion; no I don't want to protect the "privilege" to bait someone. Your mindreader is really shitty, I think you should replace it.

I provided an example in the OP, and four examples subsequently, one of which was your very own. Instead of accepting the additional examples, you proceeded to claim something else entirely, a tactic known as moving the goal posts.

And since you're going to chop up this post as well, you're hoping that other readers won't be able to see the forest, but will focus on the proverbial strawman trees that you'll knock down.

I actually like this analogy, except I think you meant the tone to be facetious.

Nope.

That's essentially your tactic here, get me to waste my time by responding to frivolities, like "you cannot possibly be that gullible" instead of focusing on the real issue

See, this is where point-by-point responses are a help. That line was to a specific statement of yours, namely the line about master baiting. You're the one bringing up frivolities, I reject their validity because I think it's a waste of time. It's the same with your weird focus on semantics; if you have a better argument, why are you discussing frivolities?

Trawling the forums looking for baits takes several minutes, and might take even longer. Responding to imply that I don't mind puns, takes a few seconds. I can waste a few seconds, and run, instead of walk down/up the stairs to get those seconds back. Wasting ten minutes is a bigger issue.

it seems that you're trying to defend the baiters' rights to banhammer posters with whom they disagree through the tactic that I've described, repeatedly. When I quoted your, verbatim, and your response was "I like how blatant you make your bad faith posts."

Again, I think you need a new mindreader.

Ah yes, the repetition tactic.

Also, again, a point-by-point response here would show the context:

This is the core of your argument, right here, and that's why I'm not even going to bother with the rest of your post:

This was specifically what I called out, since 1) it wasn't the core of my argument but rather your strawman version and 2) you actually did bother with responses to the rest of my post. If you don't bother with my post, don't bother;

So you're admitting that addressing the rule wasn't the core of your post, but pretending that I don't know what puns are, and other similar stuff, was? Thank you for the admission. Because the part that I quoted was addressing the core of my argument about the rule.

this coy BS isn't convincing anyone. Your verbatim quotes do not defend you here, rather they show how the figurative sausage is made.

You: "you quoted me out of context"
Me: "I quoted you verbatim"
You: "this coy BS isn't convincing anyone. Your verbatim quotes do not defend you here, rather they show how the figurative sausage is made."

Uh, ok...

Since you're so eager for me to do it, I'll clarify the tactic even further, so that even if I don't get the rule change, other NSGers will spot it and call it out:

1. Find someone whose viewpoints you revile
2. Bait them and get others to bait them
3. Wait for the eventual flame that will come, and report the flame
4. Be sure to thank the mods and tell the target that they really deserve the warning
5. Rinse and repeat

Since you've asked for an example, here you go:

I wonder who the Second Baiter is in that scenario... wasn't that you? And here you are, working to preserve that very right to bait.

These examples aren't of baiting, though.

Uh, yeah, they are. That's the crystal clear definition of a flamebait.

If you disagree, feel free to report me.

Considering that those posts were from 2017, we both know they won't be warned.

I also made a search for posts in Moderation about Keshiland, and apart from an appeal I made when I was warned for flaming them (I had totally forgotten about that), this is the only post I could find. I was surprised to see how many of their warnings stemmed from some bonkers and off-topic baiting comment in the gun threads, though. If anything, Keshiland shows that the system is working fine as-is.

As you said, you were warned for flaming, not baiting.

Edit: The reason that the bait demonstrated in the OP wasn't warned for baiting, was probably because no one reported the bait, which happens all the time on NSG, which is why I suggested automatic punishment. Had you not ignored the second point I made, you would've caught that.

... automatic punishment still requires mods to either spot it themselves and act upon it, or for it to be reported as a breach. This isn't a solution, it's pushing the issue of applying the current rules one step further away.

And as the example of political nicknaming clearly showed, reports pick up if the punishment is automatic.

Thing is, you're saying that the bait should be warned, but that didn't happen, under the current rules. I go by what actually happened, not what should've happened. I get it, you want to preserve the privilege that baits currently have over flames on NSG, and I don't want said privilege preserved, and that's the difference between our stances.

I don't think you have adequately read my posts if you think this is my stance.

My experience is that if someone knows that the warning's automatic, it'll be reported more frequently. I'll give you an example: Political Nicknaming was hardly ever reported, until it became warnable, and then the reports massively increased in frequency. Political Nicknaming is usually an automatic punishment, and yet it still has to be reported.

So it's... not automatic? It still has to be reported? Again, what's the (change|addition) doing over simply applying the current rules? Apart from my point about warnings for flaming suddenly giving rise to requests for "baiters" to get warned "automatically"?

Again, the example I gave was political nicknaming. In order to usually get political nicknaming warned, it has to be reported. You knew what I meant by automatic, don't play semantic games here, you cannot possibly be that gullible.

Attempted Socialism asked for yet another example of someone blatantly baiting a user, and getting off scot free. I provide an example of Attempted Socialism doing that very thing. If either you or Attempted Socialism don't support flamebaiting, why are you both arguing against a rule that would clearly reduce it? I'm just curious.

Because your suggested rule change is bad and you have a hard time explaining what it would do.

Some posters think it's bad, others don't, but the explanation was, and remains, crystal clear. What is unclear here?

1. Did the bait target a specific poster? If yes, proceed.
2. Did the bait address anything about the topic? If no, proceed.
3. Did the bait result in a flame from its target? If yes, proceed.
4. Was the target warned as a result? If all four steps are met, it was reported, the warning is automatic.

I think the words "did" & "the" do not require explanation. "Target" is the poster that's targeted by the bait. The words "specific" & "anything" & "about" & "topic" & "in" & "a" & so on, also have universally recognized usages. What is unclear about the rule, when taken as a whole?

Though, come to think of it, since the post you dug up of mine was 1) not baiting; 2) on topic; 3) Keshiland didn't get warned for flaming; which means according to your suggested rule, your step 4 is actually out of the question in this instance. Even if your rule had been in place, I wouldn't be warned for baiting. Your example is even worse than I thought.

Let's take a look at that post:

He doesn't even show empathy to children, it's more a freakish ownership-mentality. See current "discussion" about whether children could be allowed to see grandparents due to limiting the childrens exposure to different opinions.

It's symptomatic that what [Target] doesn't own or control is worth very little to him, and what he owns or controls better be his and only his; I don't think I've seen such a dysfunctional approach to relationships since I saw some interviews with people suffering from anti-social personality disorder, but they at least had some charisma, manipulation ability and competence at faking it. If it's any solace, [Target] doesn't have those, so all his disgusting fantasies will remain so.

The topic was: What is your thought on marriage? You claimed that your post was on topic. Where does your post talk about marriage? The first paragraph talks about kids and grandparents, I hope that's not who you're marrying. The second talks about the Target's approach to relationships and lack of charisma, and, quite frankly, claiming that the Target is a dysfunctional uncharismatic, anti-social poster with disgusting fantasy, who cannot even fake it, is the very definition of baiting rather than posting on topic. Also, the target wasn't warned for flaming, because the target was already banned by the time mods got around to it.

Also, you're coming off as implying that the player Attempted Socialism supports flamebaiting and that they do it to other people without getting in trouble for it. You may not be intentionally doing it, but that is what it looked like when I read it

I think it was pretty explicit, but not deserving of an in-depth answer, hence me repeating that Shofercias mindreader is on the blink. Given how much of this discussion has been dedicated to Shofercia arguing semantics and researching my motives (And now yours too) rather than arguing the merits of their case, I think I'll bow out. In hindsight I realise that any reply after Lamonis was a waste of time.

Ah, yes, the mindreader crap again. You know the saying, "if you repeat it enough times, it will become truth in the weak minds of some" - yeah, that applies here. Let's recap:

Your mindreader is faulty, you should adjust it.

Your mindreader is still malfunctioning.

Your mindreader is really shitty, I think you should replace it.

I think you need a new mindreader

hence me repeating that Shofercias mindreader is on the blink

And that's just the recent ones. What does the claim about my mindreader have in common with the rule that I proposed? Absolutely nothing. And Attempted Socialism knows this, so why is Attempted Socialism posting about my mindreader ad nauseum? Is this an attempt to attack the poster making the argument, rather than the argument itself?

[The Archregimancy]

At this point this clearly isn't leading to further constructive discussion.

Lamoni's post earlier in the thread adequately summarises the moderation team's position.