A Question For The Mods

[St George of England]

Picked this up from The Archregimancy's second post here:

In terms of broader issues, I am reluctant to second-guess Ard (though we did discuss aspects of this issue together), but it's worth keeping in mind that "your record" can potentially refer to more than just formal redtext warnings, and that a wide variety of past issues may come into play when we do make decisions.

Shouldn't mod decisions with regards to banning be only based on redtext warnings and tempbans?

[Lunatic Goofballs]

Picked this up from The Archregimancy's second post here:

In terms of broader issues, I am reluctant to second-guess Ard (though we did discuss aspects of this issue together), but it's worth keeping in mind that "your record" can potentially refer to more than just formal redtext warnings, and that a wide variety of past issues may come into play when we do make decisions.

Shouldn't mod decisions with regards to banning be only based on redtext warnings and tempbans?

No. They shouldn't. First of all, not all rules violations are on forum-side or the game-side, but rule violations on the forum-side and game-side do influence eachother. Second, unofficial warnings are often noted as a record to be consulted in the case of future rule violations. Third, patterns of behavior are also actionable and not just specific individual instances. Moderators are kind of like judges and often have to sort through a number of ambiguous and subjective criteria. It's not a perfect system, which is why we have an escalating system of moderator action. A warning or two, whether you feel you deserve it happens. But repeated moderator action should make it clear that a change in behavior is needed.

[Katganistan]

Picked this up from The Archregimancy's second post here:

In terms of broader issues, I am reluctant to second-guess Ard (though we did discuss aspects of this issue together), but it's worth keeping in mind that "your record" can potentially refer to more than just formal redtext warnings, and that a wide variety of past issues may come into play when we do make decisions.

Shouldn't mod decisions with regards to banning be only based on redtext warnings and tempbans?

Shouldn't many many many knock-it-offs be taken into account, as they prove that the player has not necessarily learned how to post without minor infractions of either the rules or simple etiquette?

Or basically, what Lunatic Goofballs said.

[Senestrum]

Picked this up from The Archregimancy's second post here:


Shouldn't mod decisions with regards to banning be only based on redtext warnings and tempbans?

Shouldn't many many many knock-it-offs be taken into account, as they prove that the player has not necessarily learned how to post without minor infractions of either the rules or simple etiquette?

Or basically, what Lunatic Goofballs said.

Does the US (or most any country that isn't singapore) throw people in the slammer if you get a bunch of littering fines and parking tickets?

No.

[Novikov]

Does the US (or most any country that isn't singapore) throw people in the slammer if you get a bunch of littering fines and parking tickets?

No.

This isn't the US, nor any country at all. This is Nationstates. The Mods are here for a reason. Respect them and their decisions.
/notamod

[NERVUN]

Shouldn't many many many knock-it-offs be taken into account, as they prove that the player has not necessarily learned how to post without minor infractions of either the rules or simple etiquette?

Or basically, what Lunatic Goofballs said.

Does the US (or most any country that isn't singapore) throw people in the slammer if you get a bunch of littering fines and parking tickets?

No.

I wasn't aware that warning people that they need to adjust their behavor to continue posting on a free Internet forum is the equivlent to being thrown in jail...

[Lunatic Goofballs]

Shouldn't many many many knock-it-offs be taken into account, as they prove that the player has not necessarily learned how to post without minor infractions of either the rules or simple etiquette?

Or basically, what Lunatic Goofballs said.

Does the US (or most any country that isn't singapore) throw people in the slammer if you get a bunch of littering fines and parking tickets?

No.

Would Taco Bell ask you to leave if you dropped a taco? No. Would they ask you to leave if you 'dropped' twenty tacos all over the place every second tuesday? I think they would.

[Achaea-Graecia]

Does the US (or most any country that isn't singapore) throw people in the slammer if you get a bunch of littering fines and parking tickets?

No.

This isn't the US, nor any country at all. This is Nationstates. The Mods are here for a reason. Respect them and their decisions.
/notamod

Rule 8, Rule 9.
Yes, some of these rules are just ridiculous but some, like these two, have some truth behind them.

[Katganistan]

Oh. I don't know... this site has rules. You can find them at The One Stop Rules Shop, at the top of this very forum.

[South Lorenya]

Shouldn't many many many knock-it-offs be taken into account, as they prove that the player has not necessarily learned how to post without minor infractions of either the rules or simple etiquette?

Or basically, what Lunatic Goofballs said.

Does the US (or most any country that isn't singapore) throw people in the slammer if you get a bunch of littering fines and parking tickets?

No.

I apologize if this is somewhat offtopic, but please keep in mind that (under california's three strikes law) Leandro Andrade and Kevin Weber were sent to jail for 25-to life for stealing five video tapes and stealing four cookies, respectively.

As for NSG, if poster A had twelve mild infractions in two thousand posts and poster B has ten mild infractions in fifteen posts, poster B will almost certainly be closer to DEATness despite having fewer notes on his account.

[Dread Lady Nathicana]

I think the point that's being missed is that the vast majority of players manage to spend time actively playing without ever picking up a warning at all. Meaning, one would think, that its entirely possible to figure out how to behave well enough to avoid any moderator action that would result in an actual warning.

It isn't as though we don't let people know what it is they're doing wrong enough to invoke modly wrath, after all. The problem some times is that some people's learning curves, unfortunately for all of us ... don't. that can be problematic.

The rules are out there in easily-readable format, and are linked in many people's sigs to boot. It falls on the players to be responsible for their words and actions, just as it falls to us to responsibly deal with any problems that come up when they don't.

[Daistallia 2104]

Does the US (or most any country that isn't singapore) throw people in the slammer if you get a bunch of littering fines and parking tickets?

No. Yes indeed.

Fixed. See also.
http://articles.lancasteronline.com/local/4/293390

Rule 8, Rule 9.
Yes, some of these rules are just ridiculous but some, like these two, have some truth behind them.

/b/ ≠ NSG, or most of the internet for that matter.

[Mondoth]

If a user is accruing a notable amount of unofficial warnings, or has become noted for a particular pattern of behavior that may contribute to future official actions, wouldn't it be beneficial to make that player aware that their record is likely to lead to more serious consequences if the pattern continues?

If nothing else, notifying a player about their outstanding record could serve as a 'final warning' as it were to shape up or face the consequences. This at least provides the potential of preventing future actionable incidents.

At the least though, some enumeration of what goes into the record and how that can affect players would be nice to have written into the rules.

[Linux and the X]

Would Taco Bell ask you to leave if you dropped a taco? No. Would they ask you to leave if you 'dropped' twenty tacos all over the place every second tuesday? I think they would.

You "think" they would? LIES! You're clearly speaking from experience.

As to the matter at hand, I'd say that someone with a large number of unofficial warnings, but without official warnings, should not face a ban. If unofficial warnings count as having a history, then the only difference between unofficial and official warnings (from a user perspective) are that unofficial are red text instead of red background, and one can see how many official warnings one has. Therefore, unofficial warnings would actually be worse, as one cannot (easily) check how many unofficial warnings one has.

[Katganistan]

If a user is accruing a notable amount of unofficial warnings, or has become noted for a particular pattern of behavior that may contribute to future official actions, wouldn't it be beneficial to make that player aware that their record is likely to lead to more serious consequences if the pattern continues?

If nothing else, notifying a player about their outstanding record could serve as a 'final warning' as it were to shape up or face the consequences. This at least provides the potential of preventing future actionable incidents.

At the least though, some enumeration of what goes into the record and how that can affect players would be nice to have written into the rules.

Are you honestly suggesting that a user would be incapable of keeping track of how many times he has been warned, officially or unofficially? Or are you suggesting that these consequences come out of the blue? Because funny enough. we DO do exactly what you suggest...

A sampler:

"...this is not the first time you've been reported for flaming -- there are two separate incidents today, with two separate posters. Nor is this the first time you've been reported for flaming and trolling. You may be no angel, but you are subject to the same rules as everyone else."

"To clarify: this is not about [player] except in a tangential way. This is about the numerous warnings you have earned from your pattern of behavior on the forums. To remind you... Eleven entries in your record over a space of three months, of which flaming and spamming are the clear problem behaviors, demonstrates that an elevated moderation response did not, in fact, come out of the blue or without prior warning.

We are now at the point where another infraction of the rules will gain you a three day ban. An additional infraction after that will incur a seven day ban. And an infraction after that will incur deletion.

Please modify your behavior accordingly."

"Katganistan gave you all ample opportunity to stop the threadjacking, harassment and griefing, and unnecessary ‘me too’ posts that went on here. None of you received warnings at the time. None of you were delivered anything more than a sound ‘knock it off’ and a reminder that you were on thin ice. Nothing in her behavior warranted the backlash she received on account."

"There is a very simple and open set of consequences for rulebreaking: one is first unofficially warned, as you have been. We hope that by pointing out unacceptable behavior, reasonable people will then take pains to avoid it. The next step is to get an official warning, which you have not yet earned. Depending on the severity of the further infractions, a poster may get several warnings before a short ban of one to three days. After that, further rulebreaking or worse rulebreaking may get a week's ban. Finally, nations that continue to break the site rules are banned from posting on the forum.

I'm sure this will be completely unnecessary; since you seem unaware of how things work around here, an explanation was in order."

"You've had multiple warnings regarding your conduct on the forum, and clearly reminders to read and follow the site's rules have not worked. Therefore we're smacking harder. I urge you to correct your behavior if you wish to remain on this site."

What more are we supposed to do, I wonder? Singing telegrams are too expensive and inefficient.

[Reploid Productions]

To add to what Kat's commented already:

Unofficial warnings may count as part of a user's history, but only in the context of "Is this a one-time event or does this user make a habit of tapdancing on the line?" Unofficial warnings may be noted on a user's history, but a ban or a DEAT doesn't typically come from them (Now if someone with a history of unofficial warnings flips out and does something particularly serious, sure, then we may go straight from unofficial warning to a ban or a DEAT, but that's the exception, not the rule)- they serve mostly as a way for us to decide whether or not somebody needs to be whacked with the redtext formal warning.

For example, three nations, about the same length of time playing the game, no official warnings on record; and all make a similar trolling remark.
-User A has no notes on his profile of unofficial warnings.
-User B has one or two previous unofficial warnings for spam.
-User C has several unofficial warnings for trolling.

User A would most likely get an unofficial warning, because s/he has no established history. User B would most likely also get an unofficial warning, as the note on them is regarding a different behavior. User C would get the official warning, because the notations clearly indicate that they have a trend of trolling and that the gentle "knock it offs" haven't made an impression, thus beginning the escalation in moderator response.

Hope that clarifies somewhat on the subject of unofficial vs official warnings.

[Pak Lemoc]

Off Topic: To Lunatic Goofballs for Taco reference.

On Topic: I think that, if the person keeps doing whatever after repeated warnings, then they deserve what they get.

[Dyakovo]

To add to what Kat's commented already:

Unofficial warnings may count as part of a user's history, but only in the context of "Is this a one-time event or does this user make a habit of tapdancing on the line?" Unofficial warnings may be noted on a user's history, but a ban or a DEAT doesn't typically come from them (Now if someone with a history of unofficial warnings flips out and does something particularly serious, sure, then we may go straight from unofficial warning to a ban or a DEAT, but that's the exception, not the rule)- they serve mostly as a way for us to decide whether or not somebody needs to be whacked with the redtext formal warning.

For example, three nations, about the same length of time playing the game, no official warnings on record; and all make a similar trolling remark.
-User A has no notes on his profile of unofficial warnings.
-User B has one or two previous unofficial warnings for spam.
-User C has several unofficial warnings for trolling.

User A would most likely get an unofficial warning, because s/he has no established history. User B would most likely also get an unofficial warning, as the note on them is regarding a different behavior. User C would get the official warning, because the notations clearly indicate that they have a trend of trolling and that the gentle "knock it offs" haven't made an impression, thus beginning the escalation in moderator response.

Hope that clarifies somewhat on the subject of unofficial vs official warnings.

Exactly!
My one warning is because I tap-danced on the line one to many times.
You keep doing the same thing which is against the rules/borderline you will eventually get warned for it.

The incident where I got warned, if it had been an isolated incident most likely would not have warranted anything more than a "knock it off", however since it was something which I did fairly frequently I got red-text for it.
If you can't handle the fact that that is how it works here, then maybe the NS forums aren't the place for you. *shrugs*

[Mondoth]

If a user is accruing a notable amount of unofficial warnings, or has become noted for a particular pattern of behavior that may contribute to future official actions, wouldn't it be beneficial to make that player aware that their record is likely to lead to more serious consequences if the pattern continues?

If nothing else, notifying a player about their outstanding record could serve as a 'final warning' as it were to shape up or face the consequences. This at least provides the potential of preventing future actionable incidents.

At the least though, some enumeration of what goes into the record and how that can affect players would be nice to have written into the rules.

Are you honestly suggesting that a user would be incapable of keeping track of how many times he has been warned, officially or unofficially? Or are you suggesting that these consequences come out of the blue? Because funny enough. we DO do exactly what you suggest...

I have recently seen a couple of instances of people who were surprised by bans that apparently stemmed mostly from their record, and the fact that this thread even exists indicates that perhaps the warnings you mention either aren't actually sufficient, or as I believe is far more likely, are not being given in any consistent manner.

A clear, consistent and publicly viewable set of guidelines and information regarding these records (such as an addition to the rules thread which I suggested earlier) would be a step towards both reducing confusion and encouraging more consistent warnings, while requiring only minimal one time effort to actually add this information to the existing rules thread.

[NERVUN]

Are you honestly suggesting that a user would be incapable of keeping track of how many times he has been warned, officially or unofficially? Or are you suggesting that these consequences come out of the blue? Because funny enough. we DO do exactly what you suggest...

I have recently seen a couple of instances of people who were surprised by bans that apparently stemmed mostly from their record, and the fact that this thread even exists indicates that perhaps the warnings you mention either aren't actually sufficient, or as I believe is far more likely, are not being given in any consistent manner.

A clear, consistent and publicly viewable set of guidelines and information regarding these records (such as an addition to the rules thread which I suggested earlier) would be a step towards both reducing confusion and encouraging more consistent warnings, while requiring only minimal one time effort to actually add this information to the existing rules thread.

I'm sorry, but what exactly is not clear about the OSRS?

[Dread Lady Nathicana]

Players not breaking the rules would go a lot farther, as it would result in warnings no longer being required.

A simple ego search would clear up any confusion for most folks, as we do tend to address players by name in our corrective posts - the ones with the bright red text that you can't miss? We do tend to be rather consistent with that, due to the fact that a player ought to be shown why they're receiving a warning.

The fact that some seem intent on never reading back in a thread and simply doggedly pressing on, not paying attention to any posts , is not our fault. It's a big site, with a lot of players - the majority of which tend to get along just fine without requiring moderator intervention. I'd think there's only so much hand-holding that can be expected when the rules are clearly posted, expectations clearly defined, and infractions brightly noted.

EDIT: Sorry Nerv - I seem to be running into other mods a lot the past couple days.

[Hamilay]

I have recently seen a couple of instances of people who were surprised by bans that apparently stemmed mostly from their record, and the fact that this thread even exists indicates that perhaps the warnings you mention either aren't actually sufficient, or as I believe is far more likely, are not being given in any consistent manner.

A clear, consistent and publicly viewable set of guidelines and information regarding these records (such as an addition to the rules thread which I suggested earlier) would be a step towards both reducing confusion and encouraging more consistent warnings, while requiring only minimal one time effort to actually add this information to the existing rules thread.

I'm sorry, but what exactly is not clear about the OSRS?

I'm not sure if this is what Mondoth has in mind, but there is (almost) no information on the potential punishments for offences.

Also I've just noticed the FAQ (which the OSRS claims to be based on) is demonstrably wrong.

What can't I post?

Any content that is:

* obscene
* illegal
* threatening
* malicious
* defamatory
* spam

This applies to your nation's name, motto, and other customizable fields, any messages you write, images you post, or any other content you upload or link to NationStates. If you do, your nation will be deleted. See the site's Terms & Conditions for details.

Somehow I don't think every nation who ever spams has been deleted for it. This is pretty unclear.

[NERVUN]

I'm sorry, but what exactly is not clear about the OSRS?

I'm not sure if this is what Mondoth has in mind, but there is (almost) no information on the potential punishments for offences.

Well, I know there is mentions of both warnings, bans, and DEAT's... what kind of information is needed?

Er, to clarify, as has been stated over and over again, we don't have, nor ever will, publish a kind of table of content of X actions will equal Y punishment and after n infractions, you will be deleted.

Also I've just noticed the FAQ (which the OSRS claims to be based on) is demonstrably wrong.

What can't I post?

Any content that is:

* obscene
* illegal
* threatening
* malicious
* defamatory
* spam

This applies to your nation's name, motto, and other customizable fields, any messages you write, images you post, or any other content you upload or link to NationStates. If you do, your nation will be deleted. See the site's Terms & Conditions for details.

Somehow I don't think every nation who ever spams has been deleted for it. This is pretty unclear.

This could be expanded a bit I would agree.

[Vault 1]

Are you honestly suggesting that a user would be incapable of keeping track of how many times he has been warned, officially or unofficially? Or are you suggesting that these consequences come out of the blue?

At times.

I was recently caught entirely by surprise by having my nation deleted for a simple post that, according to most players I've shown it to, didn't look offensive or even inappropriate for the context. Upon contacting the moderator, it turned out that I had five warnings I had no idea were on my record, which went as far in time as 2007 temporary forumbans on jolt from my earliest days on the forums, and that record was the reason I had been deleted, not my post.

Even in California with its widely criticized three-strike policies, you can't be "third-striked" for a parking ticket, and you at least get to know how far from "three strikes" you stand.
It would help both the players and the orderliness of the forums if the players knew where they stand and when they are considered undesirables waiting for a parking ticket to be kicked out.

[Sarzonia]

Picked this up from The Archregimancy's second post here:

In terms of broader issues, I am reluctant to second-guess Ard (though we did discuss aspects of this issue together), but it's worth keeping in mind that "your record" can potentially refer to more than just formal redtext warnings, and that a wide variety of past issues may come into play when we do make decisions.

Shouldn't mod decisions with regards to banning be only based on redtext warnings and tempbans?

I'm inclined to say no. Getting informal warnings or enough "knock it offs" have to factor into a decision like that.

If someone's record is truly clean, they won't get banned for something when someone else has several "knock it offs". That's just the way it is.