[Q] Question about Past Event Reporting, other questions

[Anagonia]

Hello,

Legitimate questions. After the resolution of the situation with Kraven, in which I believe was resolved with this post, I believe the community at large and in particular the movement in support of Kraven would like some clarification. I did not want to threadjack this thread due to the post linked, so I'm creating this separate thread.

Questions:

1.) Are we, as players, supposed to go back years and decades to ensure that all posts are in compliance with rules that are set in present day?
2.) Will the Moderation Staff be in consideration of future rules to protect players in times when such new rules were not in place? (i.e. grandfathered protections)
3.) Will the Moderation Staff be able to ensure they're not utilized as weapons against players for reporting against past threads? (Not accusing the Kraven situation as such, but asking in reference to it)
4.) Will the Moderation Staff work with players now instead of outright deleting them, or is the policy still to disregard the player and simply delete them?
5.) Will the Moderation Staff be able to accommodate the RPing community with more Mods that are specific to that community, rather than mods who know or care nothing about it?
6.) Will the Moderation Staff implement for future rulings a Standard Rules of Protocol and Procedures to ensure, moving forward, that all staff are on the same page? Will the process remain the same but with more safeguards to player protections?

Thank you very much for your time and considerations. I believe the community desires to work with you to make your volunteer work more easy and accessible. I know I do and adamantly desire to as well. I hope we can find some clarification for these key questions and, if they have already been addressed, can you please link the relevant threads for research? I appreciate your time and hospitality.

Sincerely,
Anagonia

[Sedgistan]

1) As per our guidance, "If players have historical posts of their own that they are concerned may cross the line in similar ways, they should take steps to remove that content, or contact us if they are unsure whether it does or are unable to remove it (e.g. if the thread has been locked)."

2) I'm not sure what relevance this has. The case this arose from saw a player punished for content that was illegal at the time it was posted, as set out in the response to the appeal.

3) Using Mods as a weapon has been against the rules since forever. Despite your disclaimer, you do seem to be suggesting that there was a Mods as a weapon attempt in the reporting of Kraven; to be clear, that is not accurate.

4) We cannot answer hypothetical questions, particularly on unspecified hypothetical situations. Of course Moderators will continue to delete nations when that is the appropriate punishment. This is with regard to the rules, the nature of the violation, the context, and the player's record -- as ever.

5) There are no Moderators on the team who "know or care nothing about it". While many Moderators have areas they tend to focus on that reflect their experience prior to joining the team, it is important they remain free to act across every area of the site. As we have advised players repeatedly; both recently and over the years, and indeed in permanently stickied guidance, if players wish to nominate someone for a Moderator position, there is a process to do so.

6) Moderators enforce the rules, as they always have and always will. The team, quite rightly, contains a diverse range of opinions and experiences, and is therefore not a hivemind; differences of opinion will exist within the team on cases. As they always have, Moderators will ask other team members for advice when unsure, and the Appeals Process exists for when a player disagrees with a Moderator action that they are subject to.

[Havl]

*snip*

I don’t think #4 is a hypothetical. Kraven was restored. How does this affect the precedent? What rule will moderation follow now?

[Anagonia]

Thank you for these responses. To clarify:

1) As per our guidance, "If players have historical posts of their own that they are concerned may cross the line in similar ways, they should take steps to remove that content, or contact us if they are unsure whether it does or are unable to remove it (e.g. if the thread has been locked)."

I do not wish to put words in your mouth, so if I may clarify this, is this stating it is therefore the players responsibility? This opens up further dialogue I wish to address in the future if so, but I wanted clarification and thank you for that.

2) I'm not sure what relevance this has. The case this arose from saw a player punished for content that was illegal at the time it was posted, as set out in the response to the appeal.

Question 2 is relevant since rules have updated significantly since a decade ago. At the time of Kraven posting the content, it was story related and entirely cosmetic to the themes (I'm stating our perspective vice versa as the movement stands). While we understand the ruling you have made, the rules at the time did not cover the complexity of role playing and the context therein. So the question was ensuring protections against future instances where such statements couldn't be utilized by the moderation team as actionable. I base this relevance on the fact that the player (Kraven) was around for 18 years before Moderation action was taken, and as you stated without consulting the player. This is a major fear for players on the website that we, too, could be victim to a similar instance utilizing new, more clarified rules that did not exist as clarified in past times. This is why it references a "grandfathered clause".

3) Using Mods as a weapon has been against the rules since forever. Despite your disclaimer, you do seem to be suggesting that there was a Mods as a weapon attempt in the reporting of Kraven; to be clear, that is not accurate.

To be clear, I am not suggesting it. The possibility is open to it, however, but I did not suggest it. What I was trying to press is a reassurance that such instances wouldn't happen because the situation as it transpired could open the doorway for individuals researching the past of players they don't like and using their past content (again referencing Question 2 here) as weapons against them. The Moderation staff, whose behavior was displayed in the beginning phases of the Kraven situation, chose deletion rather than investigation due to work overload (if I'm correct in my recollection). This, again, is a very huge fear of the player base right now.

4) We cannot answer hypothetical questions, particularly on unspecified hypothetical situations. Of course Moderators will continue to delete nations when that is the appropriate punishment. This is with regard to the rules, the nature of the violation, the context, and the player's record -- as ever.

With all due and utmost respect, you stated in a reply that the procedure was to delete the nation rather than investigate. You stated such in response to questions about the situation and thus Question 4 was trying to ascertain if your action, in particular, was the natural and dominant procedure. And, if not, asking what the policy was as to the situation and procedure. It is not a hypothetical. The Kraven situation started due to the decision a member of your staff used (i.e. delete rather than prune) due to time constraints and thus this action cannot be hypothetical. Question 4 is asking if such decisions are procedures or if they're one-off occurrences, with all due respect.

5) There are no Moderators on the team who "know or care nothing about it". While many Moderators have areas they tend to focus on that reflect their experience prior to joining the team, it is important they remain free to act across every area of the site. As we have advised players repeatedly; both recently and over the years, and indeed in permanently stickied guidance, if players wish to nominate someone for a Moderator position, there is a process to do so.

If I may be respectful in saying such and in no way wishing to convey any blame, the behavior of some in the moderation staff during the Kraven situation makes Question 5 all the more relevant. I reference it because it left the community feeling completely disenfranchised and violated. Question 5 is trying to pinpoint if the staff will move on from the lessons learned (i.e. "... rather than mods who know or care nothing about it?") and address the community more respectfully and with the concern they warrant and have earned. The Kraven situation exposed a lot of division and misunderstandings that all root from a lack of comprehension of role playing, how to role play, what writing is, how writers attain source material, how said source material is utilized in writing, and the processes thereof. Question 5 basically asks if the Moderation Staff will allow the voices of individuals with that experience and professionalism to take more precedence over the ones who may not understand those processes.

I believe the other questions were adequately addressed.

[The Ice States]

1) As per our guidance, "If players have historical posts of their own that they are concerned may cross the line in similar ways, they should take steps to remove that content, or contact us if they are unsure whether it does or are unable to remove it (e.g. if the thread has been locked)."

If a player makes such a query, resulting in Moderation finding out about rulebreaking content, will Moderation take punitive action against that player, before said player can take the content down?

[Sedgistan]

A Bad Faith post by Juansonia has been removed.

Will respond to other posts in due course.

[Sedgistan]

*snip*

I don’t think #4 is a hypothetical. Kraven was restored. How does this affect the precedent? What rule will moderation follow now?

It is a hypothetical, since it is not referring to a specific case. I don't see how we can give you any guidance on your "What rule will moderation follow now?" question other than that we enforce the site rules, and judge each case individually based on content, context, record etc.

I do not wish to put words in your mouth, so if I may clarify this, is this stating it is therefore the players responsibility? This opens up further dialogue I wish to address in the future if so, but I wanted clarification and thank you for that.

If players have content on the site that violates the site rules, it's their responsibility to resolve that, absolutely.

Question 2 is relevant since rules have updated significantly since a decade ago. At the time of Kraven posting the content, it was story related and entirely cosmetic to the themes (I'm stating our perspective vice versa as the movement stands). While we understand the ruling you have made, the rules at the time did not cover the complexity of role playing and the context therein. So the question was ensuring protections against future instances where such statements couldn't be utilized by the moderation team as actionable. I base this relevance on the fact that the player (Kraven) was around for 18 years before Moderation action was taken, and as you stated without consulting the player. This is a major fear for players on the website that we, too, could be victim to a similar instance utilizing new, more clarified rules that did not exist as clarified in past times. This is why it references a "grandfathered clause".

I must be clear on this: much of the offensive content submitted by The Kraven Corporation was illegal at the time it was submitted. There have been tens of millions of "bits" of content submitted to the site over the 20+ years it has been running; Moderators are not aware of all of it, or of every player. It would obviously have been preferable for all if the content had been brought to our attention and addressed at a much earlier stage.

To be clear, I am not suggesting it. The possibility is open to it, however, but I did not suggest it. What I was trying to press is a reassurance that such instances wouldn't happen because the situation as it transpired could open the doorway for individuals researching the past of players they don't like and using their past content (again referencing Question 2 here) as weapons against them.

If people have posted illegal content, we want it reported so it can be addressed. That is, and always will be the case.

The Moderation staff, whose behavior was displayed in the beginning phases of the Kraven situation, chose deletion rather than investigation due to work overload (if I'm correct in my recollection). This, again, is a very huge fear of the player base right now.
<snip>
With all due and utmost respect, you stated in a reply that the procedure was to delete the nation rather than investigate. You stated such in response to questions about the situation and thus Question 4 was trying to ascertain if your action, in particular, was the natural and dominant procedure. And, if not, asking what the policy was as to the situation and procedure. It is not a hypothetical. The Kraven situation started due to the decision a member of your staff used (i.e. delete rather than prune) due to time constraints and thus this action cannot be hypothetical. Question 4 is asking if such decisions are procedures or if they're one-off occurrences, with all due respect.

That is wholly incorrect. As was explained repeatedly before, Moderators investigate reports; they are not assumed to be taken at face value. The report on Kraven cited a single dispatch, and it was investigation by the team that uncovered the much wider-ranging problem. You seem to be confusing that with Moderation removing all the content rather than sifting through each bit individually to only remove those that definitively violated the rules. In cases where a significant proportion of a player's submitted content violates the rules, it is policy to remove it all. That is both for the sake of efficiency, and as a punishment to the player.

If I may be respectful in saying such and in no way wishing to convey any blame, the behavior of some in the moderation staff during the Kraven situation makes Question 5 all the more relevant. I reference it because it left the community feeling completely disenfranchised and violated. Question 5 is trying to pinpoint if the staff will move on from the lessons learned (i.e. "... rather than mods who know or care nothing about it?") and address the community more respectfully and with the concern they warrant and have earned. The Kraven situation exposed a lot of division and misunderstandings that all root from a lack of comprehension of role playing, how to role play, what writing is, how writers attain source material, how said source material is utilized in writing, and the processes thereof. Question 5 basically asks if the Moderation Staff will allow the voices of individuals with that experience and professionalism to take more precedence over the ones who may not understand those processes.

I believe the ruling on Kraven - that their content was a persistent and significant violation of the rules over a period of many years - indicates the opposite. Given the protests from many players that no such violation took place, it is clear that there are players amongst the roleplay community whose idea of what is acceptable within the Malicious and Obscene Content rules, is incorrect and needs to be adjusted.

1) As per our guidance, "If players have historical posts of their own that they are concerned may cross the line in similar ways, they should take steps to remove that content, or contact us if they are unsure whether it does or are unable to remove it (e.g. if the thread has been locked)."

If a player makes such a query, resulting in Moderation finding out about rulebreaking content, will Moderation take punitive action against that player, before said player can take the content down?

That absolutely depends on content and context. If someone has repeated posts gorily detailing Nazi clowns violating babies with scissors, and sends in an "aw, shucks, you got me" GHR, we're going to purge it immediately and they're going to get kerb-stomped regardless. I hope that this is only a hypothetical, so yes - in general if a player brings some of their content to our attention with a genuine concern it's illegal or contrition that it is, they are treated more favourably. That happens occasionally in other contexts, e.g. someone accidentally sends out a mass recruitment TG that they forgot to tag as recruitment; if they come to us with that they're treated much more leniently than if they don't.

[Anagonia]

Thanks for the replies. Here are mine:

If players have content on the site that violates the site rules, it's their responsibility to resolve that, absolutely.

Alright thanks, I wanted to make sure I understood it correctly. I'll branch this off later in time down the road to another dialogue of questions after this Kraven situation has settled. I believe it in and of itself deserves its own attention.

I must be clear on this: much of the offensive content submitted by The Kraven Corporation was illegal at the time it was submitted. There have been tens of millions of "bits" of content submitted to the site over the 20+ years it has been running; Moderators are not aware of all of it, or of every player. It would obviously have been preferable for all if the content had been brought to our attention and addressed at a much earlier stage.

Thank you for the reply, as it is helpful to see the Moderation perspective.

If people have posted illegal content, we want it reported so it can be addressed. That is, and always will be the case.

Your reply again harkens back to concerns raised in my original Questions 1, 2, 3, and 4. Most specifically Question 3.

That is wholly incorrect. As was explained repeatedly before, Moderators investigate reports; they are not assumed to be taken at face value. The report on Kraven cited a single dispatch, and it was investigation by the team that uncovered the much wider-ranging problem. You seem to be confusing that with Moderation removing all the content rather than sifting through each bit individually to only remove those that definitively violated the rules. In cases where a significant proportion of a player's submitted content violates the rules, it is policy to remove it all. That is both for the sake of efficiency, and as a punishment to the player.

The above spoiler is a screenshot of a critical point during the community disagreement. We have several of these, but this one in particular references an end discussion with your opinion of the topic. I'm referencing this image not as proof but to reference. I'll elaborate with further links:

viewtopic.php?p=40552354#p40552354

The type of responses seem to be a pattern through the entire Kraven situation and, with multiple screenshots of deleted and current posts, show a level of responses that concerned the community. I'm linking and showing them for context purposes that reinforce my previous, replied to statements.

I believe the ruling on Kraven - that their content was a persistent and significant violation of the rules over a period of many years - indicates the opposite. Given the protests from many players that no such violation took place, it is clear that there are players amongst the roleplay community whose idea of what is acceptable within the Malicious and Obscene Content rules, is incorrect and needs to be adjusted.

I will be openly honest here. The entire purpose of the community response to the Kraven situation was to showcase the injustice of retroactive enforcement. I am positive some small number of users did exactly as you stated and acted as if nothing happened, but I believe myself and many others have - along with Kravens input - understood the situation but rather than protest that, protested the injustice of utilizing old evidence for current rulings. That was the entire point of this movement which, I argue, shall not die away easily. I further state with respect that responses like the one in bold are the primary reason why they won't. Not because no one disagrees with you (we all want safe and compliant communities, none moreso than RP so we can tell stories in peace!), but because of the way we have been treated by staff. I need not, as I stated before and above, link those posts. You already know. It is again harkening back to my primary concerns, with due respects.

Thank you for your reply. I again state it is good to see the Moderation perspective. I hope I have successfully and politely corrected the perspective of the overall movement on behalf of Kraven.

[Picairn]

I must be clear on this: much of the offensive content submitted by The Kraven Corporation was illegal at the time it was submitted. There have been tens of millions of "bits" of content submitted to the site over the 20+ years it has been running; Moderators are not aware of all of it, or of every player. It would obviously have been preferable for all if the content had been brought to our attention and addressed at a much earlier stage.

If people have posted illegal content, we want it reported so it can be addressed. That is, and always will be the case.

I am concerned about this, so I'll ask directly: Are you authorizing, abetting or allowing future accusers to scour up decade-old offending posts of people they dislike to invite punishment on said people?

You are correct that in this decision, it is not retroactive or ex post facto punishment to enforce a rule which Kraven patently violated at the time i.e. the Obscene Content rule.

But punishing him for decade-old posts and seemingly inviting future accusers to report illegal content, including decade-old posts is still highly problematic, since it enables accusers with a long-standing grudge towards someone to scour his/her old posts and report ancient violations when the accused him/herself has forgotten about them.

The statute of limitations was created in ancient Athens to prevent this exact scenario, wherein "sycophants" (the original Greek meaning denoting vexatious litigants), whose goal is to inflict cruelty than justice, would bring up old charges against people they didn't like in courts to punish or to extract bribes out of the defendants to drop the case. Don't you think that punishing players for ancient content, long after they have forgotten about it, is rather cruel and unjust?

[United Calanworie]

I must be clear on this: much of the offensive content submitted by The Kraven Corporation was illegal at the time it was submitted. There have been tens of millions of "bits" of content submitted to the site over the 20+ years it has been running; Moderators are not aware of all of it, or of every player. It would obviously have been preferable for all if the content had been brought to our attention and addressed at a much earlier stage.

If people have posted illegal content, we want it reported so it can be addressed. That is, and always will be the case.

I am concerned about this, so I'll ask directly: Are you authorizing, abetting or allowing future accusers to scour up decade-old offending posts of people they dislike to invite punishment on said people?

No. If they're doing it to target people for punishment because they don't like them, that's mods-as-weapons. Suffice it to say that we are discussing internally how we want these reports to be handled going on into the future and we are taking lessons from this saga (for lack of a better word) on how to improve.

[Picairn]

No. If they're doing it to target people for punishment because they don't like them, that's mods-as-weapons. Suffice it to say that we are discussing internally how we want these reports to be handled going on into the future and we are taking lessons from this saga (for lack of a better word) on how to improve.

That's good to hear, thank you. So if I understand it correctly, frivolous reporting of decade-old posts, displaying a clear intent to intentionally harm a player, is a punishable Mods-as-Weapons offense?

Edit: Sorry if these questions come off as incessant to you. As an active NSGer, I have made many enemies in my 3 years on this site and I don't want to be DEATed/banned one day because someone scoured my old posts for offending material and reported it. So you'll understand why I (and probably many others as well) need reassurance.

[United Calanworie]

No. If they're doing it to target people for punishment because they don't like them, that's mods-as-weapons. Suffice it to say that we are discussing internally how we want these reports to be handled going on into the future and we are taking lessons from this saga (for lack of a better word) on how to improve.

That's good to hear, thank you. So if I understand it correctly, frivolous reporting of decade-old posts, displaying a clear intent to intentionally harm a player, is a punishable Mods-as-Weapons offense?

There is no timeframe attached to mods-as-weapons. Frivolous reporting of another player with the intent to have moderation action taken against them because of a disagreement between the two players is mods-as-weapons and will be handled according to a offense by offense basis.

[Sedgistan]

I am concerned about this, so I'll ask directly: Are you authorizing, abetting or allowing future accusers to scour up decade-old offending posts

I've deliberately snipped your post there. Yes, we want rule-breaking content reported; that includes if someone has a record of to-date unspotted obscene or malicious content from years ago, as was the case with Kraven. That allows us to remove content that is prohibited on the site, and where appropriate punish the player responsible for it.

You seem to be suggesting that we should turn a blind eye to illegal content still hosted on the site, simply because it's been around a while. We do not want that content on the site, and we therefore want it reported.

If there are a dozen more players with Kraven-esque posting behaviour in their history, we need to know about them. We were grateful for the report on Kraven, and the last thing we want to do is go and warn players who are helpfully bringing illegal content to our attention.

[Velstrania]

I am concerned about this, so I'll ask directly: Are you authorizing, abetting or allowing future accusers to scour up decade-old offending posts

I've deliberately snipped your post there. Yes, we want rule-breaking content reported; that includes if someone has a record of to-date unspotted obscene or malicious content from years ago, as was the case with Kraven. That allows us to remove content that is prohibited on the site, and where appropriate punish the player responsible for it.

You seem to be suggesting that we should turn a blind eye to illegal content still hosted on the site, simply because it's been around a while. We do not want that content on the site, and we therefore want it reported.

If there are a dozen more players with Kraven-esque posting behaviour in their history, we need to know about them. We were grateful for the report on Kraven, and the last thing we want to do is go and warn players who are helpfully bringing illegal content to our attention.

Sorry, but you're actually encouraging people to go through peoples old posts and report them now? Posts from 10 years ago, and people could end up losing their nation or getting banned as a result?
The lack of foresight here would shock me if it hadn't become all too common.
My question is therefore this: how will moderation respond when people start reporting users for 10 year old posts after falling out with them? Will anything be done to nip this sort of behaviour in the bud?

[The Rio Grande River Basin]

I’m now just confused. Cala says that they will deal with them differently, and the reporter will be weaponising mods, but Sedgistan is saying that they won’t? Which is it?

[Sedgistan]

We want rules-violating content reported, so we can investigate and address it. We do not want people making frivolous reports made solely with the intent of getting someone in trouble because of a dispute with them.

It should be crystal clear to players from the team's decision to delete Kraven's content that we want reports of such rule-breaking content so we can address it. Given the surprised reaction from players to the action taken, it seems highly likely that there is more such content that needs to be dealt with.

[Havl]

It should be crystal clear to players from the team's decision to delete Kraven's content that we want reports of such rule-breaking content so we can address it. Given the surprised reaction from players to the action taken, it seems highly likely that there is more such content that needs to be dealt with.

That’s a leap in logic.

Reading these posts, it looks like the explanation for the backlash is that some players believe Kraven’s content was legal until the rule change, while you maintain that the content was illegal even at the time. I’m not familiar with Kraven or their content, but this misunderstanding about when the content became illegal explains it for me. (Again, I’m not arguing your point, just trying to pinpoint the crux of the argument.)

Your logic—which I would summarize as “they’re mad, so they must be guilty”—assumes bad faith and is disappointing to see from a mod.

[Sedgistan]

our logic—which I would summarize as “they’re mad, so they must be guilty”—assumes bad faith and is disappointing to see from a mod.

I would put it otherwise: that some players who were familiar with the content expressed surprise that it was against the rules, which strongly suggests they've seen plenty of similar content elsewhere to the extent that they had assumed it was acceptable, which I do not think is an unfair or unreasonable conclusion to make (I would be happy to be wrong). It also does not assume that those who expressed surprise have themselves posted similar content.

[Picairn]

We want rules-violating content reported, so we can investigate and address it. We do not want people making frivolous reports made solely with the intent of getting someone in trouble because of a dispute with them.

To clear up the confusion: Do you consider reporting decade-old posts to be Mods-as-Weapons or normal procedure? I was given the impression from United Calanworie that scouring ancient content for possible violations and displaying a clear intent to harm a player through reporting them qualified as Mods-as-Weapons.

[Twilight Imperium]

Sorry, but you're actually encouraging people to go through peoples old posts and report them now? Posts from 10 years ago, and people could end up losing their nation or getting banned as a result?

It seems to me they're encouraging people to go through their own old posts if they're that worried about it, no?

Can't get smacked if you get there first.

[Sedgistan]

To clear up the confusion: Do you consider reporting decade-old posts to be Mods-as-Weapons or normal procedure?

It's rare, so I can't say it's "normal procedure"; if someone reported a single ten year old flame we'd probably tell them it's far too old to be worth dealing with. But a multitude of obscene or malicious posts is different, both in quantity and, er "quality"; notably obscene posts are also far more harmful to the site than than someone calling another player an idiot, or whatever. It is unusual for old content to be reported, but it is not inherently "Mods-as-a-Weapon" to do so (it depends on context and intent) and in situations like Kraven's case it is desirable for such content to be reported.

I was given the impression from United Calanworie that scouring ancient content for possible violations and displaying a clear intent to harm a player through reporting them qualified as Mods-as-Weapons.

Any report of another player is going to potentially get that other player into trouble, so I don't the the "intent to harm a player through reporting" part should be emphasised so much. However, there is a world of difference between reporting someone with hundreds of clearly obscene and malicious posts, and someone dredging through through the posts of another player they have a record of negative interactions with to report a load of borderline ones with the hope that throwing enough mud might get something to stick. And yes, there are grey areas in between which would require investigation, discussion and judgement.

Sorry, but you're actually encouraging people to go through peoples old posts and report them now? Posts from 10 years ago, and people could end up losing their nation or getting banned as a result?

It seems to me they're encouraging people to go through their own old posts if they're that worried about it, no?

Can't get smacked if you get there first.

Yes, this is obviously the ideal solution if someone does have illegal content in their post history.

[The Macabees]

It should be crystal clear to players from the team's decision to delete Kraven's content that we want reports of such rule-breaking content so we can address it. Given the surprised reaction from players to the action taken, it seems highly likely that there is more such content that needs to be dealt with.

Knowing the ambiguity of the line, whether as a result of policy, the fact that mods themselves have sometimes flirted with the line, or a change in culture, I have to imagine that the cost of not taking the more careful approach of just spot deleting offending posts (as long as the player has a history of good faith with the community-at-large) has to be large. Is that the case? If so, could we get some insight on this?

Or was Kraven’s case less about risk to the site and more about an assumption on the player’s nature?

[Picairn]

It seems to me they're encouraging people to go through their own old posts if they're that worried about it, no?

Can't get smacked if you get there first.

How can players do that if there is such an enormous amount of posts spanning back years (e.g. anywhere above 1000) that they can't possibly check and amend all of them? At best you can only expect slow, patchwork fixes, and if they miss some or a lot of posts that are later judged to still be substantial violations by the mods, are they going to be DEATed like Kraven?

Putting all of the responsibility on players, and punish them if they fail is lazy and, I dare say, idiotic enforcement.

[Deamonopolis]

We want rules-violating content reported, so we can investigate and address it. We do not want people making frivolous reports made solely with the intent of getting someone in trouble because of a dispute with them.

Isn't this likely to happen anyway? Suppose someone wants to piss me off and digs up 10 year old dirt on me, then you are obliged to act... Knowing quite well the report is not made in good faith?

[Jar Wattinree]

Isn't this likely to happen anyway? Suppose someone wants to piss me off and digs up 10 year old dirt on me, then you are obliged to act... Knowing quite well the report is not made in good faith?

However, there is a world of difference between reporting someone with hundreds of clearly obscene and malicious posts, and someone dredging through through the posts of another player they have a record of negative interactions with to report a load of borderline ones with the hope that throwing enough mud might get something to stick.

Seems clear cut enough to me.

I trust that the mods can do their jobs with the tools they have their disposal, which is more than you and I have at any rate.