NationStates Jolt Archive

recieved:

NationStates Moderators
Received: 2 hours ago You have been warned repeatedly for making posts intended to annoy or offend others. You will not be warned again.

i suppose a message warning me i'll be be deleted if i do 'it' again without telling me what 'it' is might sound effective, but really it isn't. considering the number of posts that are there to intentionally annoy and offend out there, what makes me so special to be selected for such individual attention?

My guess is that "it" would be, "making posts intended to annoy or offend others".

obviously, but if i'm not told what i did that offended or insulted, or given a clear set of guidelines, how can i possibly not do it again? what's the point of a warning if it doesn't tell me what not to do?

Hmm, you are very reasonable.
A person with that number of posts desserves some more respect!

obviously, but if i'm not told what i did that offended or insulted, or given a clear set of guidelines, how can i possibly not do it again? what's the point of a warning if it doesn't tell me what not to do?

You may have to wait until the Mod who issued it is next on line. I'd advise patience!

Tag.

You may have to wait until the Mod who issued it is next on line. I'd advise patience!

i would have TGed the mod directly except that it didn't come from a mod, it came from the anonymous 'Nationstates Moderators,' an account that cannot be TGed. i wouldn't air it here at all except it's the only place i can get answers. and i can't even post what i think i was warned for (though i don't know, on account of not being told what i did wrong) since for all i know i'll get deleted for it.

I'm certainly interested in hearing more details from the moderators on this.

An anonymous mod message cannot really be viewed as constructive in any circumstances.

Although I'm not very experienced on the NS Forum, it seems underhand and sneaky some how for a mod (who should be totally fair in all circumstances surely?) to threaten some guy but not reveal who they are or be specific about the details of the warning.

Maybe I'm just being naive but anonymous modding, without detailed reasoning, seems really sinister.

Please can someone clear this up?

Just for my own part, had I been issued a warning featuring some unknown 'it' that I had done and an ultimatum that I had better not do 'it' again, I would very much like to know what 'it' was. It does seem a bit dodgy that this warning was issued without either explanation or return address, as it were. I hope some clarity can be brought to this matter. I would certainly not like to see a long-standing RP-partner (ascerbic though he may occasionally be) deleted because of some unknown 'it'.

And apologies in advance if I double post. Board being difficult again.

*double post deleted*

Because of SeOCC's justified concern at the possibility of being deleted at re-posting his original comment I’ll take the risk of posting his own paraphrasing on a non-NS thread to demonstrate what his last message was on NS before receiving the warning. I’m sure I don’t need to remind moderators and other game players that what he says outside of NS is not under any jurisdiction of NS, so the responsibility lies with me for replicating his paraphrase and posting it on NS.

"of course these threads should be locked, until i start one of my own, at which point they shouldn't be locked, or i become a moderator, at which point i will forget i said they should be locked and ignore the sense and sanity of locking these threads.

more ego masturbation! i'm not saying i'm great, but i'm great!"

I’ve put this up because SeOCC’s original comment [the evidence] was removed from NS and other game players and mods should be able to see what SeOCC’s warning is supposedly based upon. Therefore if you have a problem with this material being posted – warn me and no doubt you’ll either have to give the reason SeOCC is looking for or I’ll simply return to this thread and ask the same questions.

The point is the warning doesn’t even mention if ‘it’ is in reference to this thread, SeOCC deserves better and the mods certainly ought to be operating far more professionally rather then frustrating game players with untraceable warnings and threats for unidentified and unjustified crimes against NS kind.

Would someone care to point where the word 'it' even appears in that warning? It states very specifically that the warning is for making posts intended to annoy or offend others.

Posts like this one, for example.

http://www.nationstates.net/forum/viewtopic.php?p=2278590&highlight=#2278590

And yes, posts like that one too. Thus, a general 'knock it off' is issued. Violating the rules is violating the rules, and despite his claims to the contrary SeOCC has been given more warnings than is general procedure; in other words, if anything he's being shown favouritism!

ah yes, why not scroll up and see the wonderfully substantive posts from your friends and answer me this: were they given warnings?

moreover, if you don't explain the guidelines for 'offend' and 'annoy' how can we possibly follow them? how can i follow the rules when you can't tell me what i did wrong? point out what about my last post offended or annoyed, or was intended to. but whatever, don't pretend i'm getting favoritism. Menelmacar's gotten away with calling people stupid in her official moderation posts, Knootoss spend several weeks intentionally annoying us (note the first line of Knootos' post at the bottom (http://cace.thegrimproject.net/scratch/wbo%20pic%205.jpg) if you're going to attempt a denial), and if i had the time or gumption i'd just trawl the forums for posts more annoying or offensive than mine.

so if you're going to delete me, delete me, just don't pretend like i'm some kind of menace that deserves deletion for one tongue in cheek post.

Playing the martyr is one of your more tiresome schticks. Give it a rest.

you are such an asshole, and this is probably the last post i will ever honor your pustule ridden flesh sac with.

That's "tongue in cheek"?

That's the same level as calling something stupid?

you are such an asshole, and this is probably the last post i will ever honor your pustule ridden flesh sac with.

That is outright flaming. SeOCC, I mean this in the most sincere way, but geez, get over it- you've been given more leeway than a lot of players. Playing the martyr won't win you any favors.

~Evil Empress [Rep Prod] the Forum God

ah yes, why not scroll up and see the wonderfully substantive posts from your friends and answer me this: were they given warnings?

moreover, if you don't explain the guidelines for 'offend' and 'annoy' how can we possibly follow them? how can i follow the rules when you can't tell me what i did wrong? point out what about my last post offended or annoyed, or was intended to. but whatever, don't pretend i'm getting favoritism. Menelmacar's gotten away with calling people stupid in her official moderation posts, Knootoss spend several weeks intentionally annoying us (note the first line of Knootos' post at the bottom (http://cace.thegrimproject.net/scratch/wbo%20pic%205.jpg) if you're going to attempt a denial), and if i had the time or gumption i'd just trawl the forums for posts more annoying or offensive than mine.

so if you're going to delete me, delete me, just don't pretend like i'm some kind of menace that deserves deletion for one tongue in cheek post.

Calling someone an asshole is a flame, it's a directed insult. 'Pustule Ridden Flesh Sac' is also a flame. 'Mindless f---head' is a flame.

These are from just one post!! I don't know how it can be perceived as a 'tongue in cheek post!'

Looking at the comments above yours, they don't contain any directed insults and are therefore not considered flaming!

As for a Mod calling people 'stupid' in an official post... well I don't think stupid compares to mindless f---head in terms of insults, most of us have thick enough skins to cope with that!

As for finding MORE insulting posts... of course there are, it doesn't mean people didn't get a warning from it and it also doesn't mean you can follow their standards and break the rules yourself.

You've got a warning, just learn from it and move on.

you are such an asshole, and this is probably the last post i will ever honor your pustule ridden flesh sac with.

That's "tongue in cheek"?

That's the same level as calling something stupid?

:oops:

*ahem*

yeah, what he said!!

(apologies if I spoke out of term, just thought maybe if he heard it from a non-Mod, then it might seem it's NOT the Mods ganging up on him!)

I was going to stay out of this thread but now my name is being mentioned and I don’t like to be put in a bad light like that in front of the NS community. The ‘annoying’ of which I spoke (in that offsite forum) was an IC objective, of annoying your government by settling on an island near it and having wargames. That is not the same as OOC flaming. It is called roleplay. I beg you not to go into this again, we had these discussions before and they accomplish nothing.

I’d like to note that if you had posted everything you have posted on the CACE board you would have been deleted a long time ago, but that is an offsite forum. The mods take this into account. The mods are also trying to do a good job in trying to keep these forums clear of trash and I think they are doing a great job on the whole. This thread really only proves their point.

You are still here, not deleted or anything, so I really do not see what this fight is about or what you are trying to accomplish here.

OOCly Yours,

The Knoot
Evil capitalist deliriously pretending to be left wing

you are such an asshole, and this is probably the last post i will ever honor your pustule ridden flesh sac with.

That's "tongue in cheek"?

That's the same level as calling something stupid?

that is from a month and a half ago and is not the post in question, nor was it refered to as being tongue in cheek. and a month and a half sounds like statute of limitations material for an online forum to me. that post is neither here nor there.

the post that is in question appears to have been deleted, so all we have is the paraphrase, which doesn't sound too bad to me. a bit sarcastic and slightly biting, but not vicious or even offensive. or maybe the warning refered to one of the other 15 or so posts seocc has made in the past week. but if so, which one?

Would someone care to point where the word 'it' even appears in that warning? It states very specifically that the warning is for making posts intended to annoy or offend others.

Posts like this one, for example.

http://www.nationstates.net/forum/viewtopic.php?p=2278590&highlight=#2278590

And yes, posts like that one too. Thus, a general 'knock it off' is issued. Violating the rules is violating the rules, and despite his claims to the contrary SeOCC has been given more warnings than is general procedure; in other words, if anything he's being shown favouritism!

?? I thought you ceased to exist the other day, I even posted a death message in your memory, , We Sent Flowers!

?? I thought you ceased to exist the other day, I even posted a death message in your memory, , We Sent Flowers!

That was an impersonator by the name of GMC Milltary Arms. I'm still here!

that is from a month and a half ago and is not the post in question, nor was it refered to as being tongue in cheek. and a month and a half sounds like statute of limitations material for an online forum to me. that post is neither here nor there.

Err, it's kinda up to the moderation staff whether a post is 'here nor there,' and since that post was part of the reason SeOCC got this warning now it is entirely relevant to this topic.

Despite any previous posts he made it does seem a little strange that Seocc's been pulled up for this, apparantly, innocuous one. Particularly in a thread where a number of people were already told to cool it in a more friendly way.

Given some of the crap people post arounf here, especially in the General forum, I really can't see what was so offensive about this one.

I've said my piece, but I think a slanging match between Seocc and the mods is pretty pointless (in every single case, that I've seen, where a mod's actions are questioned I've never seen any decision other than one in support of the mod) and hopefuly this can just be allowed to blow over.

Although, it would be helpful if people were more explicitly told what they were being warned about. Reminds me of the predicament of Josef K.

I must say I agree with Celdonia.

The 'mod', acting annonymously (at least he/she could have had the guts to say who he/she was), warned him and deleted his post for no reason at all, just because he critisized them without flaming them at all.
While I don't want to put SeOCC in the position of martyr, in this oportunity he did nothing wrong and so, the mod had no reason to warn him or delete his post.
I've seen posts much worse than his, and the mods did nothing in those cases.
Anyway, I think the most worrying thing of this episode is not the unfairness of the warning, but the fact that the mods can make this things annonymously and with complete impunity.

Is there something incredibly difficult about not making a false dilemma out of this? The warning does not dictate it's relation to a specific post because it doesn't relate to a specific post. Rather, it relates to a pattern within those posts, either the recent post [and if you don't think calling everyone who's posted in a thread so far a jerkoff and insinuating the moderators aren't doing their job properly while you're at it trolling, what do you think trolling is?], the cute [and also deleted] little string of invective SeOCC posted in the modern tech vs. future tech debate last week, the post I linked to, or indeed most of his posts.

Deleting the post is simply a measure to prevent it derailing the thread into OOC flaming; reading anything sinister into it is pretty silly.

Oh, and:

I've seen posts much worse than his, and the mods did nothing in those cases.

Because you didn't post about them in the moderation forum, perhaps? Mods aren't omnipresent.