Kleptonis
03-01-2005, 00:02
Recently a set of emails have come to my attention written by former moderator- Stephistan. Which can be found here:
http://s6.invisionfree.com/PCRA_Central/index.php?showtopic=19
Max,
I'm sorry if I messed up your protocols with my hasty exit, and perhaps I did do it the way I did in a moment of high emotion, so let me explain my position.
First off, I have really enjoyed my time on Nationstates. It is something I love doing very much, both as a player and in my official duties. That is - until recently.
When I started Modding I made my share of mistakes. Indeed, like all of us, I still do. However, up until recently at least it seemed that there was a level playing field. That we were all working from the same basic playbook.
This has seemed less and less the case lately as the rules bounce around according to the personal viewpoints of some of the team. It has sometimes seemed like offending the sensibilities of some people takes precedence over those of others. And also that the unified front has crumbled.
Two of the recent incidents that contributed to my decision are well known, so I don't have to detail them too much. Scolo locking my thread - embarrassing me publicly - without foundation and without even doing me the courtesy of asking me privately to delete it first. We were both in IRC at the time, but he just locked me out. His reasoning was that emotions were running high, and that Mods shouldn't be seen as taking sides in the outcome of the election. Well, my position on Bush has been very well known since day one on NationStates. Nobody was expecting neutrality from me as a player that day. But I was requested to step aside.
Frankly, I fail to see why American sensitivities required me to excuse myself as a player for the most critical moment in an electoral process that I was heavily involved in, but I did so to avoid more friction within the group. Instead of playing I stood by for a day and watched as the other mods locked many threads were locked at the first hint of impropriety. This was done as a pre-emptive strategy.
So, when Arafat died I applied that same new standard - locking threads at the first sign of inappropriate comments. Because this was a critical moment in Israeli-Palestinian relations I knew that emotions were similarly high for those parties for whom this directly impacted. What did I get? A public rebuke by Melkor.
And in both cases these actions were glossed over when discussed in Mod Admin with neither Melkor nor Scolo being specifically called out for their actions that embarrassed me in front of the players.
The final straw came when I tried to point out a judgment error by Kat. We had both been participating in a thread where clearly another player was rubbing her the wrong way, and she got frustrated and responded by warning him for something we would never normally warn another player for. I was just trying to help her out in her new job because General is such a tough board to handle and I wanted to help her to ensure that we all maintained a consistent application of the rules.
And, after not specifically calling out Scolo or Melkor for their public humiliations of me, you DID specifically call me out for my trying to work with Kat - and I was operating where these things are supposed to be done: in Mod Admin.
Frankly, that hurt. Especially since it seemed to be done cavalierly when you stated that " you seem to be taking an unnecessarily strong interest in this thread, since I don't think you were involved in it", when I WAS involved.
Honestly Max, I felt like a second-grade member of the team. Third grade actually given that I was being rebuked for trying to help out a newer mod.
I just don't know how to mod in this atmosphere right now. Where the united front of secrecy gets violated to the detriment of some of the Mods with impunity. And where it seems that preferential treatment is given to some groups over others.
I mean, really - how can I enforce on the boards the idea that someone using the phrase "fat Americans" is going to get struck down while those using the term "cheese-eating surrender monkeys" to apply to the French can continue to do so without comment?
Am I to be required to apply all ruling from a pro-American sentiment from here on and only consider their delicate egos?
I can't do that. It's too hard when there are separate rulebooks for different circumstances, especially when I am the one who winds up taking the heat for such inequities on the board by other players who feel slighted by such biases.
It's harder still when I get slammed on these things publicly.
I still love NationStates, and yes I miss being there. And I'm sorry that I exited in such an abrupt manner that it wound up leaving you flat-footed.
But I can't go back if the atmosphere and interactions between the team members is going to stay the way it has been lately. It is just frustrating. And the fact that consistency in application of the rules seems to have been tossed out the window is another frustration. Between these two issues, the job just isn't a whole lot of fun anymore for me.
If you have some suggestions on how things can be managed to limit these problems, then I'd be happy to discuss them with you. But if this is going to be the new status quo, then I'll happily work out a more formal farewell statement with you for publication.
I DO miss NS, and would love to return, but I can't do that without a few assurances that things are going to return to a more stable environment than they have been lately.
Max,
Sorry that it took a bit to get back to you. It was a hectic pre-holiday weekend.
Now, a couple of things to respond to:
First, I had not been aware that you had spoken to Melkor and Scolo. Yes, I had read the "Be nice" thread, and understood whom it had been addressed to, but it was written in a non-specific way and I guess it bothered me that they weren't addressed by name. And also, perhaps, the fact that Melkor had never apologized to me left me with a bad feeling from it. But knowing now that you had indeed spoken to them makes that a non-issue now. It would have been nice to know that :-).
Second, I should have started a new thread for my issue with Kat in that thread in M/A. I had no stake whatsoever in whether Tac's thread was locked. Please don't confuse my issues with Kat's actions and the thread that it happened in itself. Kat was in the thread on General as a player and somebody pushed her buttons, at which point she used her Mod powers to respond, and I just didn't feel that the term 'dolt' was something worth a flaming warning for. It looked like Kat was letting her Mod duties be coloured by her interaction as a player. When have we ever tagged a player with a warning for the term "dolt"? In the dictionary that means "foolish". Things get heated, and perhaps we might ask somebody in a thread to calm down, but I don't think that any of us would have tagged a nation with a warning if somebody had complained about that term being used in Moderation. We both got argumentative about this, but I think that the argument was from both parties not just from me. And I still feel that Kat was wrong in her action. It came across as an abuse of mod power for a minor infraction.
Indeed, I have been less than impressed with Kat's actions as a Mod. Here is another example that happened a couple of days after that issue between us:
A player complains about somebody "flaming" his thread: http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=377663
Kat goes and warns the person as asked, which to me seemed totally uncalled for. The thread itself is total flamebait with the title: "Curious About Communism (Closed to All Flamers, Spammers, and Idiots) ". The person who was complained about never did flame, and Kat even deleted a comment by him on page 1 (post 7) for flaming, when all the post said was "and rightfully fucking so" in response to another player's comment.
THAT is a flame????
And meanwhile Kat totally ignored the thread author's screaming in huge bold caps further down on page one of that thread. The thread is here: http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=377663. That was another bad call. It seems like she is trying to treat General like a group of six year olds, and imposing her own views on it.
Yes, the person used the F-word a lot, so did a lot of other players in that thread. Yes, I probably would have asked him to dial it back a little. But that is all I would had said to him and I would have called the thread author for flame-baiting. We do not have a filter against the word Fuck, and it is not deemed flaming unless it is used against a player. I did not see where he crossed the line before Kat took action on page 3. We've all used the word Fuck on NS. And we don't get warned for it if it done in the proper way. The Mods in fact use it as much as anyone.
I could find other examples of bad calls by Kat. Many of them. So if I was being hard on her a bit in M/A that day- it is because I have been watching some very questionable actions from her since she became a Mod. I like Kat. I endorsed her. I think she CAN be a good Mod, but that she needs some guidance right now.
But yes - I should have put it in another thread.
Third, regarding the Arafat situation - perhaps it wasn't my best work. However, to note the post that you mentioned where the person made the rude statement. If you look at that page: http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t...8&page=12&pp=15 you see that this was the first thread I had seen that morning on the subject and posted a quick "please be nice" comment to all the players because I knew that this would be an emotional subject. I then read the offending post and gave the person a warning in that thread - which he apologized for and that defused him on the subject. It shortly afterwards became apparent that a lot of people were flaming and flame-baiting in various threads on the subject - at which point I locked a number of them. So it can't be characterized that I ignored that comment while in the midst of clamping down on them all. That was just the start of it, and as I noted in my first "be nice" post - I was having a very busy day and so didn't really have the time to devote to moderating. I just was trying to do what I could to avoid things getting completely out of hand in the time I had available - which seemed possible to happen.
In General, things get heated. If we deleted everyone who swore we wouldn't have that board left anymore. That was the first example of bad behavior that I had noted from that player, and he responded well to my in-thread warning. Normally that is the way I try to deal with things in General where I try to control things in the thread first as it gives the player a chance to learn, and also lets the other players involved know that given situations are being watched. I have found that it has generally been an effective strategy on that board. Indeed, I think that I've developed a good rapport with the players in General because I WAS able to control things without having to resort to Mod actions more than necessary. Perhaps it's the parent in me that helps me to pick my battles and keep things controlled without resorting to overkill - but I think that my style has proved itself effective.
And finally, regarding the Election Day events, if it hadn't been for the fact that it was a thread of mine locked I probably would have debated the request from Rep to keep out of the discussion. Mind you, if it hadn't been for having my thread locked Rep would not have made her post in the first place. However after that had happened, out of respect for her (she IS, after all, my favourite Mod) I went along with her decision. It did not mean that I agreed WITH it, but rather that I agreed TO it. And most of my objections to the way things were being handled that day had already been hashed out in IRC, and I didn't feel the need to repeat myself in M/A. She also made it clear that she would pull rank if necessary, and so I decided that the best thing I could do for the team was to back down. I wasn't happy with it, but under the circumstances I didn't feel that I had much of a choice - unless I wanted to increase the friction within the group that morning.
Indeed, it is the difference between these last two events (Arafat and the election) that are the sort of special treatment I was referring to. And even you state that you think that the election was a special event that required special handling.
Frankly, I thought that some of the Mods went overboard shutting down borderline threads that day, something along the same line as what they then objected to my doing with Arafat. And I would not have responded to the Arafat day in quite the same way if it hadn't been for that precedent. But I disagree that the election was somehow more "special" than the death of such a divisive personality as Arafat. Both events have a number of people very passionate on the subject and I guess it seems that the rules should have applied equally in both. Indeed, I have difficulty with the concept that the election was any more special than anything else we have seen on the boards.
Why was it? I'm sorry, but I'm just not seeing it.
Compared to mad spammers and various abusive people who have showed up from time to time, frankly the election was a breeze. Yes, there were emotional people. Yes, there were some posts and players that needed to get reigned in. And yes, the post volume that day meant that it needed a lot of work to keep up. But I fundamentally disagree that it required any special handling. As long as people voiced their opinions in a proper manner they should have been free to do so. Flamers and flame-baiters should have been treated as normal. Business as usual.
It was nothing special, and nothing that we haven't seen before.
We had huge volumes and high emotions in the lead up to the Iraq invasion. We had huge volumes and high emotions at various points throughout the campaign as things like the Swift Boat Vets came out, as Abu Ghraib occurred, and when Al Qaeda bombed Spain. And we handled all of them by fairly applying the rules as normal to keep things in check.
That was all the election needed. Nothing more, nothing less.
But instead it got the kid glove treatment as several American Mods felt it was their place to over-moderate it to the detriment of the discussion. It happened to the level that I got publicly embarrassed by one of them, and wound up feeling compelled to excuse myself from discussing the final outcome of an issue that has been near and dear to my heart for four years. That sucked, and to my mind was totally unnecessary.
We have rules. And when we apply them fairly they work. I don't think anything else should really be required.
Also, a conversation between Japaica and another NSer who choses to reamain anonymous has provided the link above and this link:
http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=386009
Supposedly the post that Reploid Productions edited was because she said that Neutered Sputniks was "tossed" from the team.
Make of it what you will, but please, read everything.
http://s6.invisionfree.com/PCRA_Central/index.php?showtopic=19
Max,
I'm sorry if I messed up your protocols with my hasty exit, and perhaps I did do it the way I did in a moment of high emotion, so let me explain my position.
First off, I have really enjoyed my time on Nationstates. It is something I love doing very much, both as a player and in my official duties. That is - until recently.
When I started Modding I made my share of mistakes. Indeed, like all of us, I still do. However, up until recently at least it seemed that there was a level playing field. That we were all working from the same basic playbook.
This has seemed less and less the case lately as the rules bounce around according to the personal viewpoints of some of the team. It has sometimes seemed like offending the sensibilities of some people takes precedence over those of others. And also that the unified front has crumbled.
Two of the recent incidents that contributed to my decision are well known, so I don't have to detail them too much. Scolo locking my thread - embarrassing me publicly - without foundation and without even doing me the courtesy of asking me privately to delete it first. We were both in IRC at the time, but he just locked me out. His reasoning was that emotions were running high, and that Mods shouldn't be seen as taking sides in the outcome of the election. Well, my position on Bush has been very well known since day one on NationStates. Nobody was expecting neutrality from me as a player that day. But I was requested to step aside.
Frankly, I fail to see why American sensitivities required me to excuse myself as a player for the most critical moment in an electoral process that I was heavily involved in, but I did so to avoid more friction within the group. Instead of playing I stood by for a day and watched as the other mods locked many threads were locked at the first hint of impropriety. This was done as a pre-emptive strategy.
So, when Arafat died I applied that same new standard - locking threads at the first sign of inappropriate comments. Because this was a critical moment in Israeli-Palestinian relations I knew that emotions were similarly high for those parties for whom this directly impacted. What did I get? A public rebuke by Melkor.
And in both cases these actions were glossed over when discussed in Mod Admin with neither Melkor nor Scolo being specifically called out for their actions that embarrassed me in front of the players.
The final straw came when I tried to point out a judgment error by Kat. We had both been participating in a thread where clearly another player was rubbing her the wrong way, and she got frustrated and responded by warning him for something we would never normally warn another player for. I was just trying to help her out in her new job because General is such a tough board to handle and I wanted to help her to ensure that we all maintained a consistent application of the rules.
And, after not specifically calling out Scolo or Melkor for their public humiliations of me, you DID specifically call me out for my trying to work with Kat - and I was operating where these things are supposed to be done: in Mod Admin.
Frankly, that hurt. Especially since it seemed to be done cavalierly when you stated that " you seem to be taking an unnecessarily strong interest in this thread, since I don't think you were involved in it", when I WAS involved.
Honestly Max, I felt like a second-grade member of the team. Third grade actually given that I was being rebuked for trying to help out a newer mod.
I just don't know how to mod in this atmosphere right now. Where the united front of secrecy gets violated to the detriment of some of the Mods with impunity. And where it seems that preferential treatment is given to some groups over others.
I mean, really - how can I enforce on the boards the idea that someone using the phrase "fat Americans" is going to get struck down while those using the term "cheese-eating surrender monkeys" to apply to the French can continue to do so without comment?
Am I to be required to apply all ruling from a pro-American sentiment from here on and only consider their delicate egos?
I can't do that. It's too hard when there are separate rulebooks for different circumstances, especially when I am the one who winds up taking the heat for such inequities on the board by other players who feel slighted by such biases.
It's harder still when I get slammed on these things publicly.
I still love NationStates, and yes I miss being there. And I'm sorry that I exited in such an abrupt manner that it wound up leaving you flat-footed.
But I can't go back if the atmosphere and interactions between the team members is going to stay the way it has been lately. It is just frustrating. And the fact that consistency in application of the rules seems to have been tossed out the window is another frustration. Between these two issues, the job just isn't a whole lot of fun anymore for me.
If you have some suggestions on how things can be managed to limit these problems, then I'd be happy to discuss them with you. But if this is going to be the new status quo, then I'll happily work out a more formal farewell statement with you for publication.
I DO miss NS, and would love to return, but I can't do that without a few assurances that things are going to return to a more stable environment than they have been lately.
Max,
Sorry that it took a bit to get back to you. It was a hectic pre-holiday weekend.
Now, a couple of things to respond to:
First, I had not been aware that you had spoken to Melkor and Scolo. Yes, I had read the "Be nice" thread, and understood whom it had been addressed to, but it was written in a non-specific way and I guess it bothered me that they weren't addressed by name. And also, perhaps, the fact that Melkor had never apologized to me left me with a bad feeling from it. But knowing now that you had indeed spoken to them makes that a non-issue now. It would have been nice to know that :-).
Second, I should have started a new thread for my issue with Kat in that thread in M/A. I had no stake whatsoever in whether Tac's thread was locked. Please don't confuse my issues with Kat's actions and the thread that it happened in itself. Kat was in the thread on General as a player and somebody pushed her buttons, at which point she used her Mod powers to respond, and I just didn't feel that the term 'dolt' was something worth a flaming warning for. It looked like Kat was letting her Mod duties be coloured by her interaction as a player. When have we ever tagged a player with a warning for the term "dolt"? In the dictionary that means "foolish". Things get heated, and perhaps we might ask somebody in a thread to calm down, but I don't think that any of us would have tagged a nation with a warning if somebody had complained about that term being used in Moderation. We both got argumentative about this, but I think that the argument was from both parties not just from me. And I still feel that Kat was wrong in her action. It came across as an abuse of mod power for a minor infraction.
Indeed, I have been less than impressed with Kat's actions as a Mod. Here is another example that happened a couple of days after that issue between us:
A player complains about somebody "flaming" his thread: http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=377663
Kat goes and warns the person as asked, which to me seemed totally uncalled for. The thread itself is total flamebait with the title: "Curious About Communism (Closed to All Flamers, Spammers, and Idiots) ". The person who was complained about never did flame, and Kat even deleted a comment by him on page 1 (post 7) for flaming, when all the post said was "and rightfully fucking so" in response to another player's comment.
THAT is a flame????
And meanwhile Kat totally ignored the thread author's screaming in huge bold caps further down on page one of that thread. The thread is here: http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=377663. That was another bad call. It seems like she is trying to treat General like a group of six year olds, and imposing her own views on it.
Yes, the person used the F-word a lot, so did a lot of other players in that thread. Yes, I probably would have asked him to dial it back a little. But that is all I would had said to him and I would have called the thread author for flame-baiting. We do not have a filter against the word Fuck, and it is not deemed flaming unless it is used against a player. I did not see where he crossed the line before Kat took action on page 3. We've all used the word Fuck on NS. And we don't get warned for it if it done in the proper way. The Mods in fact use it as much as anyone.
I could find other examples of bad calls by Kat. Many of them. So if I was being hard on her a bit in M/A that day- it is because I have been watching some very questionable actions from her since she became a Mod. I like Kat. I endorsed her. I think she CAN be a good Mod, but that she needs some guidance right now.
But yes - I should have put it in another thread.
Third, regarding the Arafat situation - perhaps it wasn't my best work. However, to note the post that you mentioned where the person made the rude statement. If you look at that page: http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t...8&page=12&pp=15 you see that this was the first thread I had seen that morning on the subject and posted a quick "please be nice" comment to all the players because I knew that this would be an emotional subject. I then read the offending post and gave the person a warning in that thread - which he apologized for and that defused him on the subject. It shortly afterwards became apparent that a lot of people were flaming and flame-baiting in various threads on the subject - at which point I locked a number of them. So it can't be characterized that I ignored that comment while in the midst of clamping down on them all. That was just the start of it, and as I noted in my first "be nice" post - I was having a very busy day and so didn't really have the time to devote to moderating. I just was trying to do what I could to avoid things getting completely out of hand in the time I had available - which seemed possible to happen.
In General, things get heated. If we deleted everyone who swore we wouldn't have that board left anymore. That was the first example of bad behavior that I had noted from that player, and he responded well to my in-thread warning. Normally that is the way I try to deal with things in General where I try to control things in the thread first as it gives the player a chance to learn, and also lets the other players involved know that given situations are being watched. I have found that it has generally been an effective strategy on that board. Indeed, I think that I've developed a good rapport with the players in General because I WAS able to control things without having to resort to Mod actions more than necessary. Perhaps it's the parent in me that helps me to pick my battles and keep things controlled without resorting to overkill - but I think that my style has proved itself effective.
And finally, regarding the Election Day events, if it hadn't been for the fact that it was a thread of mine locked I probably would have debated the request from Rep to keep out of the discussion. Mind you, if it hadn't been for having my thread locked Rep would not have made her post in the first place. However after that had happened, out of respect for her (she IS, after all, my favourite Mod) I went along with her decision. It did not mean that I agreed WITH it, but rather that I agreed TO it. And most of my objections to the way things were being handled that day had already been hashed out in IRC, and I didn't feel the need to repeat myself in M/A. She also made it clear that she would pull rank if necessary, and so I decided that the best thing I could do for the team was to back down. I wasn't happy with it, but under the circumstances I didn't feel that I had much of a choice - unless I wanted to increase the friction within the group that morning.
Indeed, it is the difference between these last two events (Arafat and the election) that are the sort of special treatment I was referring to. And even you state that you think that the election was a special event that required special handling.
Frankly, I thought that some of the Mods went overboard shutting down borderline threads that day, something along the same line as what they then objected to my doing with Arafat. And I would not have responded to the Arafat day in quite the same way if it hadn't been for that precedent. But I disagree that the election was somehow more "special" than the death of such a divisive personality as Arafat. Both events have a number of people very passionate on the subject and I guess it seems that the rules should have applied equally in both. Indeed, I have difficulty with the concept that the election was any more special than anything else we have seen on the boards.
Why was it? I'm sorry, but I'm just not seeing it.
Compared to mad spammers and various abusive people who have showed up from time to time, frankly the election was a breeze. Yes, there were emotional people. Yes, there were some posts and players that needed to get reigned in. And yes, the post volume that day meant that it needed a lot of work to keep up. But I fundamentally disagree that it required any special handling. As long as people voiced their opinions in a proper manner they should have been free to do so. Flamers and flame-baiters should have been treated as normal. Business as usual.
It was nothing special, and nothing that we haven't seen before.
We had huge volumes and high emotions in the lead up to the Iraq invasion. We had huge volumes and high emotions at various points throughout the campaign as things like the Swift Boat Vets came out, as Abu Ghraib occurred, and when Al Qaeda bombed Spain. And we handled all of them by fairly applying the rules as normal to keep things in check.
That was all the election needed. Nothing more, nothing less.
But instead it got the kid glove treatment as several American Mods felt it was their place to over-moderate it to the detriment of the discussion. It happened to the level that I got publicly embarrassed by one of them, and wound up feeling compelled to excuse myself from discussing the final outcome of an issue that has been near and dear to my heart for four years. That sucked, and to my mind was totally unnecessary.
We have rules. And when we apply them fairly they work. I don't think anything else should really be required.
Also, a conversation between Japaica and another NSer who choses to reamain anonymous has provided the link above and this link:
http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=386009
Supposedly the post that Reploid Productions edited was because she said that Neutered Sputniks was "tossed" from the team.
Make of it what you will, but please, read everything.