NationStates Jolt Archive

Well, since the other thread (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=386261&page=4) got locked for whatever reason, and since I figure I still felt like voicing an opinion, here goes.

No, there hadn't seemed to be a real problem there, but bragging a thread is still open and claiming success when the topic had shifted entirely from the original intent and taken other roads was misguided.

The thread was open because it brought up other thoughts, not because it got overwhelming support - it got anything but. Perhaps for some it was the wording, perhaps for some it was the content in general - whatever the reason, it seems to have just not gone over well.

Now onto some thoughts on this whole business of Mods and the operation of NS and such as inspired by that thread and others.

I think one of the basic things folks need to take into consideration here is the simple truth of 'balance of power'. You're not going to have it all ways, people. The more freedom you have, the less protection. The more protection, the less freedom. What seems to be developing is a well-meaning but possibly irrational desire to have the mods both be able to take care of the annoyances like spammers and griefers and multis and what have you, and yet a cry of injustice and what not when in doing their 'jobs' (misnomer as it's all voluntary) they do something that doesn't agree with a player's point of view.

I don't care how many mods we get, or of what political bent they are, there is no way to keep everyone on this site happy at all times. I'd like to think that what we need is a group of moderators who can get along in spite of their differences (of which it has been mentioned, despite 'popular' belief, there are many) work together for the good of the site in the manner Max would prefer it run, and spend their moderating time actually moderating, not bickering amongst themselves - which is how I'm afraid, given past history, this 'elections' thing would go.

Granted, I don't know what all goes on behind the scenes. Believe it or not, rp'ing with some of the players who happen to be mods does not earn you inside knowledge to the workings therein, nor does it earn you favoritism. I've been spanked and rightly so when I've gotten out of line - I wouldn't expect anything less. This all is still my take on it.

Do I think the mods are perfect and can do no wrong? Hell no. I've taken issue with decisions before, and I likely will again. If and when I do, I make mention of it. I don't expect to be answered or told the whole story, don't expect them to be answerable to me - that's Max's priviledge - but hey, I'll voice my opinion if I think it's worth it. Why don't I expect things? Because frankly, I'm not paying a dime for any of this, and despite any time invested here, I realize this is not a democracy, it is not my site to be dictating 'how things should be' on, and it is not my god-given (or otherwise) right to be privy to every little decision, rulemaking, event, judgement, 'secret', operational issue, or explaination on or concerning it.

While I accept that there is nothing in the world wrong with suggestions and ideas offered in the spirit of trying to improve or elevate play - on whatever level it exists on, which we all know are many, I maintain that it is different entirely from these 'crusades' that we have been seeing pop up for some time now.

Comments I continually see are 'without the players, there is no NS'. Granted. I also see a relatively small minority seems to be the ones most 'up in arms' over some of these concerns, making mountains out of molehills, looking in some cases for a reason to take personal affront at the slightest provocation (as if the mods here really have the time to go out of their way to purposefully try and make any one of our lives a living hell - they have more than enough folks doing just that for them it seems), or getting completely riled up over something only to later pause and go 'oh, whups' after spending an exhorbitant amount of time stirring things up.

Sorry folks, I just don't see the majority of NS up and quitting just because we don't get mod elections. Or just because a nation gets deleted for whatever reason. Or just because this player feels they've been treated less fairly than another. Or their flag/motto/national animal or currency was deemed inappropriate. Or any of the things that have been cropping up in here. And no, not even a combination of all those things. Why?

Because there have been these arguments from the beginning so far as I can tell. And NS just keeps going in spite of it all, with a vast majority of people going contentedly along their way. Granted, there may very well be different ways to handle some things. I'm sure ideas that are submitted to the Mod Squad and powers that be that can be implemented and used, will be - they've always show an interest in keeping the game growing and running smoothly after all. It can't be helped that not everyone's ideals will be met. I do happen to believe they're doing the best they can with what they have all the same. Whether I agree with it all or not, I can respect that, and choose to give them the benefit of the doubt on account.

At any rate, I think I've rambled on long enough. I'm sure I got a bit jumpy in topics here and there - been back and forth as usual between dinner and fam and all the rest - but I think I got out what I'd intended all the same.

--Nathi's Player

"One can only please some of the people all of the time, or all of the people some of the time"

And I'd have to say that the mods are doing a pretty good job for being human.

power corrupts. Absolute Power Corrupts Absolutely. But it rocks absolutely too. :fluffle:

I've run public access sites before. I've run live action gaming with a lot of participants. I've been in various positions of authority (and some of you wish I weren't, I know), none of which you should have any reason to care about. All it means is that I have a reason for the opinion I am about to express.

Democracies don't work well in situations like this. This is not a happy commune with lots of people working together to build a better tomorrow. Most of the role-plays going on in the forums demonstrate that people are interested in anything but.

This site was originally created by Max Barry for a specific purpose: to let people discuss their nations and be creative. To that end, it's been a phenomenal success. Such a success that Max found it necessary to create a team of moderators to help keep things in order. Because, like it or not, there are always people out there who think it's fun to disrupt our enjoyment of the site.

Democratic elections are not going to choose the most impartial, fair-minded individuals for Moderator. Quite the contrary, such elections will promote pandering, nepotism and vote-buying of the worst kind. Welcome to politics taken to extreme. I've seen it happen before, and it's no better than nepotism in a dictatorship. It just maximises the chaos.

It is important for everyone to have their say. I imagine that's the primary reason why we have the Moderation forum, so everyone is given their chance. Whether or not you believe the Moderators actually listen is your own problem. But to have this site run by consensus of all participants is to invite disaster. We're simply not capable of policing ourselves that well.

If I may nitpick for a moment?

This site was originally created by Max Barry for a specific purpose: to let people discuss their nations and be creative.
This is not correct. This site was originally created by Max Barry for a specific purpose: To promote, and sell copies of, the novel Jennifer Government (http://www.maxbarry.com/jennifergovernment/).

I have no further comments, except to unofficially agree with the remainder of Treznors post.

--The Democratic States of Cogitation
"Think about it for a moment."
Founder and Delegate of The Realm of Ambrosia

This site was originally created by Max Barry for a specific purpose: To promote, and sell copies of, the novel Jennifer Government (http://www.maxbarry.com/jennifergovernment/).I stand corrected. I recall Max saying that the forums were set up as a means for players to discuss their nations and the like. The actual role-playing that took off apparently caught him by surprise. I perhaps should have specified "forums" instead of "site."

I'd look it up in one of the famous Maxchats, but I'm past my bedtime as it is.

I stand corrected. I recall Max saying that the forums were set up as a means for players to discuss their nations and the like. The actual role-playing that took off apparently caught him by surprise. I perhaps should have specified "forums" instead of "site."

I'd look it up in one of the famous Maxchats, but I'm past my bedtime as it is.

Are you a mod?

Are you a mod?
No, he is not. At least, not on NationStates.

--The Modified Democratic States of Cogitation
NationStates Game Moderator

*bows to Nathi*

Well spoken m'Lady, and I nod my head in agreement with your thoughts.

I don't see why this is posted here, because it isn't exactly helping any of us in our fight against "injustice" done by mods. Sometimes we feel treated wrong, or been pusished to harsh, and these feelings need an outlet. I hope your post is not made to discourage these feelings.

Sorry folks, I just don't see the majority of NS up and quitting just because we don't get mod elections. Or just because a nation gets deleted for whatever reason. Or just because this player feels they've been treated less fairly than another. Or their flag/motto/national animal or currency was deemed inappropriate. Or any of the things that have been cropping up in here. And no, not even a combination of all those things. Why?

I see a whole lot of nations cease to exist, because this game doesn't excite the player anymore. I see a whole lot of players login just to do their issues and logout again. They are the hard core of this game.
Than we have a fast ammount of players who like challenges and to achieve goals. They are the ones who clash with the moderators. They try to have fun and compete with fellow players. The rules on competition in this game are not easy to understand, and personally I feel that the moderators have either problems with fully understanding them, or enforcing them. It might even be both.
Than we have the roleplayers, who deserve recognition too. They are the ones who stay here the longest. Their part of this game is not easy to moderate. I highly respect any mod who can do that without losing her/his temper. There is no doubt about that.

I hate long posts, because I'm constantly afraid to timeout, so I cut this short.

This is a free game, but still all players deserve respect, how difficult it may be. Members deserve full explanations about deleted nations. I don't see that happen all the time. There are many thousands of players, and only a hand full of moderators. This is something that cannot be dealt with as easy as people may think. Before you know it, the real "Bastard Mod of Hell" joins the squad. He'll delete everything that moves, and before you know it you're done for.
Moderators deserve respect, but not anymore than a player who is in this game for a long time and still manages to stay active.

I don't see why this is posted here, because it isn't exactly helping any of us in our fight against "injustice" done by mods. Sometimes we feel treated wrong, or been pusished to harsh, and these feelings need an outlet. I hope your post is not made to discourage these feelings.What, she's not allowed to express her feelings as well, even though they may be contradictory to yours? Nothing in her post was flaming in the slightest, it merely disagreed.

I see a whole lot of nations cease to exist, because this game doesn't excite the player anymore. I see a whole lot of players login just to do their issues and logout again. They are the hard core of this game.
Than we have a fast ammount of players who like challenges and to achieve goals. They are the ones who clash with the moderators. They try to have fun and compete with fellow players. The rules on competition in this game are not easy to understand, and personally I feel that the moderators have either problems with fully understanding them, or enforcing them. It might even be both. I think perhaps you may be mistaken here. Bear in mind that everything the Moderators do is subject to review by the Admins and ultimately Max Barry himself. As has been repeatedly stated, the Mods are human, but they are moderating the site in accordance with rules set down by Max. They admit they've had decisions overturned, and Firefury referenced an event where Max "called them on the carpet" to address his concerns regarding their conduct. However, if anyone is confused regarding rules of competition on here, I suspect it isn't them.

Than we have the roleplayers, who deserve recognition too. They are the ones who stay here the longest. Their part of this game is not easy to moderate. I highly respect any mod who can do that without losing her/his temper. There is no doubt about that. To my (admittedly inadequate) knowledge, fewer hard-core role-players get targeted for Moderation activity than do the casual spammer. Moderators step in only when players have difficulty resolving differences between themselves with maturity. In other words, they police us when we can't (or won't) do it for ourselves. Otherwise they have a strict "hands-off" policy that they're generally good at following. Frankly, I don't see your complaint here.

This is a free game, but still all players deserve respect, how difficult it may be. Members deserve full explanations about deleted nations. I don't see that happen all the time. There are many thousands of players, and only a hand full of moderators. This is something that cannot be dealt with as easy as people may think. Before you know it, the real "Bastard Mod of Hell" joins the squad. He'll delete everything that moves, and before you know it you're done for. The only member who deserves a full explanation about deleted nations is a member who gets deleted. Otherwise the Mods have a policy of privacy and respect; they don't go airing dirty laundry. Don't like it? Go up the chain of command. I suspect you'll find that policy approved by the top levels, which is why it's been enforced for over a year. Take it from me, a year (let alone two) is a long time for a forum to maintain this level of interest.

Yes, there will be Bastard Moderators from Hell from time to time. You may even feel you've met one on occasion. But the Moderators moderate themselves, and they do so as quietly as possible. So far they've been lucky; the ones incapable of performing in a mature, responsible manner have agreed to step down before they were forcibly removed. You don't know who they are and neither do I, so speculation is pointless. Nothing is perfect, but by striving to maintain an image of solidarity among the ranks the Moderators prevent us from targeting one or another for special consideration. It also, I note, makes the group as a whole a target for complaint when someone decides the system is broken. It says to me they're doing their jobs.

The topic brought up within this thread was the need to have public, democratic elections for Moderators. Do you honestly believe that a publicly elected Moderator is any less likely to become a BMfH? I rather believe the reverse, and have previously stated my reasons why.

Moderators deserve respect, but not anymore than a player who is in this game for a long time and still manages to stay active. Please allow me to agree to disagree. Yes, players deserve respect but frankly, I respect the Moderators even more. They perform a difficult and largely thankless job without any compensation other than getting a neat label next to their names. I do not want and would not accept a position on their team as much as I admire them because I simply don't need those headaches added to my life.

I think I can on the whole agree with Nathi's comments.

The job was always about using one's judgement. There are some firm rules, yes, but not all rule breakers always broke them outright, those with some sense of self-preservation would sail along some fuzzy line instead. And that's where one's judgement would come in. What constitutes a swastika? How far, in making some comments, is one player going in attempting to harass another? Where does repetitive silliness become spam? Is there sufficient evidence to take action?

Human judgement is an imperfect thing, that's why we work as a team and can view logs of what we've done, that's why [violet] periodically reviews them. Tasks sometimes take a while because we are waiting for a second opinion. On occasion, my actions have been of a temporary nature, pending review, and some have been reversed. The job is hardly made easy for us.

In appointing moderators, we seek to enlist the help of those who appear to possess that quality - sound judgement. It is not about politics, as although an astonishingly wide political spectrum is already embraced by the moderation staff, we do not hold the office to represent some political faction. Why should some political interest be "represented" on the team, if it is not part of the job? Nor should it ever be about democracy or representation, as I think by now we can all grasp the fact that popularity does not necessarily make a good moderator. The idea of class clown as school director only sounds appealing until one begins to consider the consequences.

Also, most players learn the lesson when they are disciplined for breaking the rules. Those few who refuse to accept the decision and embark on a crusade, often attract a wide following, and yet in my experience are undeserving of it, through their refusal to accept the consequences of their actions and irrational response. Why constantly back the rebel without a cause?

And who are the players who no longer find the game exciting? It is usually the case that their populations runs into billions. It is not the Moderators that have taken the fun out of the game, it is the fact that this game cannot be played forever. It is thus for me, over 3.1bn population, and quite simply, very little else to do. I too just sit in a region logging in once a day to do issues, but I do not blame my former colleagues for red-taping the game out of existence. I recognise that its appeal is finite.

So I would ask people to relax, carry on playing, don't back empty causes, don't blame others for spoiling things when the time comes to move on.

Why constantly back the rebel without a cause?
More like Rebel Without a Clue (http://redwing.hutman.net/~mreed/warriors/Rebel%20Without%20a%20Clue.031.php).

--The Jovial States of Cogitation

I don't see why this is posted here, because it isn't exactly helping any of us in our fight against "injustice" done by mods. Sometimes we feel treated wrong, or been pusished to harsh, and these feelings need an outlet. I hope your post is not made to discourage these feelings.

I wasn't aware my intent was to 'help fight against the injustice' of anything really. I was simply hoping to offer my own admittedly limited opinions and perhaps toss out a few thoughts that maybe haven't crossed the minds of some. Granted, I understand the need for outlet. You know what? Those of us who feel that overall what can be done is being done and tire of seeing the blatant character attacks that are thrown at the mods constantly sometimes need that outlet as well. I find it the epitome of hypocrisy when one side or the other in a debate or discussion wishes to deny the oposition the same rights they demand for themselves. I think we see that sort of thing all too often here. I never intended to discourage anyone's 'feelings'. If you feel that my post has, I suppose that is your right. Perception oftimes is unfortunately, reality.

As has been stated numerous times, if you have a disagreement or point of contention with the moderators, there are ample ways of having it addressed. I would hope that folks would understand, as Steel Butterfly I believe pointed out, that some methods will likely yield better results than others. Those who might wish to act like the chimpanzees at the zoo, screaming and flinging crap everywhere to get attention likely will just end up looking bad, and frankly, stinking. Those who wish to voice an opinion in an intelligent manner, however impassioned it might be, I would think would be taken much more seriously. That isn't to say I'm pointing any fingers of accusation here at anyone in particular - just trying to illustrate the difference.

I see a whole lot of nations cease to exist, because this game doesn't excite the player anymore. I see a whole lot of players login just to do their issues and logout again. They are the hard core of this game.
Than we have a fast ammount of players who like challenges and to achieve goals. They are the ones who clash with the moderators. They try to have fun and compete with fellow players. The rules on competition in this game are not easy to understand, and personally I feel that the moderators have either problems with fully understanding them, or enforcing them. It might even be both.
Than we have the roleplayers, who deserve recognition too. They are the ones who stay here the longest. Their part of this game is not easy to moderate. I highly respect any mod who can do that without losing her/his temper. There is no doubt about that.

Granted, folks time out or let their nations die all the time. What you missed in all of that was this - in spite of it, the game is still up and going strong. Unless you honestly think that you, or any other player or group has the 'power' to make the majority of NationStates up and leave to support whatever the cause of the moment is, such claims are weak and pointless. It just ends up sounding like the arguments of a child who's been told to go sit in the corner for a time out. You know the one - "I'm gonna run away, and THEN you'll be sorry."

Yes, I understand that players become disillusioned at times. I have myself, more than once - in particular over the purges that we weren't warned about and hence lost some damn fine posts on account. I admit, I still feel the sting over that one. This is simply the way of a large game like this. As stated previously, there is simply no rational way of keeping everyone happy. I keep hearing 'a vast majority' arguments used in many of the complaint posts, and yet I fail to see 'a vast majority' leaping to support them. This isn't to say there aren't valid complaints - it does suggest however that no one issue has that sort of draw for it, other than the 'vast majority' who seem to be enjoying the game well enough as is.

Granted, many could likely not care. Others just don't want to be bothered. Still others may be intimidated from voicing an opinion given the 'enthusiasm' with which said opinions are often responded to. I do not say 'proof', I say 'suggestion'. Just bear that in mind.

This is a free game, but still all players deserve respect, how difficult it may be. Members deserve full explanations about deleted nations. I don't see that happen all the time. There are many thousands of players, and only a hand full of moderators. This is something that cannot be dealt with as easy as people may think. Before you know it, the real "Bastard Mod of Hell" joins the squad. He'll delete everything that moves, and before you know it you're done for.
Moderators deserve respect, but not anymore than a player who is in this game for a long time and still manages to stay active.

I fail to see where I, or anyone else here has suggested players do not deserve respect. I will point out that players and moderators, regardless of station or affiliation or tenure or the like are capable of forfeiting that right through their words and actions. Respect is something that can be easily abused, and lost. Respect oftimes must be earned, not simply given. I think that in attempting to remain unbiased as humanly possible, and answering to those who have no interest in playing favorites - Max and [violet] and I would dare say, Salusa - that the mods offer up more respect to folks than is sometimes deserved in an effort to lessen tensions or keep the peace.

Why is it you think that we deserve full explanations of moderator actions again? You still haven't made that clear. Because you want to know? Because you have a deep desire to be privy to every little bit of info on everyone else? So you can gloat, or cry foul depending on the case? So you can feel superior in having that knowledge? Just to be a busybody? Why? (Note, I'm not saying any of the above is true of you or others, I'm just not getting the 'why' of this line of argument.) It is not our site. We are not paying Max for the use of it. Time we have invested in it has been our choice, and said choice does not grant us automatic rights. In creating a nation here, we all accepted the rules and agreed to them. If there exists such an aggregious wrong in our eyes, we all have the option of playing somewhere else.

Of course it isn't easy for a handful of people to moderate thousands. Luckily, it seems a good chunk of NationStates doesn't require most of their attention. In reading the names in Moderation - some of which pop up constantly, and in some cases with problems that really could be solved between players if they gave it a little effort - it would seem that many, but not all of the problems come from a relatively small cross-section. I say 'realtively' in perspective of active nation numbers. After all, 'relatively' few people actively roleplay if you use that argument as well, just to give a parallel.

As for the BMFH argument - of course it's possible. Do you think that by introducing elections it is any less? Not to drag up painful memories for some, but lets take a glance at the last US election and the storm it kicked up not only offline, but right here on the forums, with people who had been playing together and having a good time suddenly at each other's throats. I'm still not sure if some of them have forgiven each other. I think that's more than enough to suggest the kind of absolute mess that is likely to happen here if modship becomes a matter of public opinion and 'popularity' rather than ability. We've already had moderators and players who were around at the time they tried it before illustrate just how nasty it got.

Again, if you have an issue, there are avenues to address it. Of course you have a right to an opinion. If you have a problem, of course you have a right to make it known and hope for a solution that works for you. Not knowing how things work behind the scenes, and lacking a deeper understanding of just how some of all this can affect other aspects, we simply can't expect that decisions will always be to our liking, or go our way. That's irrational. I'm not now, nor will I ever discourage intelligent discussion of issues or problems. I will however take issue with poorly thought out attacks and baseless accusations. I hope that people understand there is a difference in challenging decisions and ideas and people, and outright attacking.

Hope that answered you in full.

--Nathi's Player

Why is it you think that we deserve full explanations of moderator actions again? You still haven't made that clear. Because you want to know? Because you have a deep desire to be privy to every little bit of info on everyone else? So you can gloat, or cry foul depending on the case? So you can feel superior in having that knowledge? Just to be a busybody? Why? (Note, I'm not saying any of the above is true of you or others, I'm just not getting the 'why' of this line of argument.) It is not our site. We are not paying Max for the use of it. Time we have invested in it has been our choice, and said choice does not grant us automatic rights. In creating a nation here, we all accepted the rules and agreed to them. If there exists such an aggregious wrong in our eyes, we all have the option of playing somewhere else.

While, as Nathi alluded to, I posted my insight and opinions on the previous thread, I can’t help but feel as if Nathi has hit the nail squarely on the head with what I have quoted.

Too often nations on NS, as well as people in general, feel that they need to be special or be “in with the in crowd.” In this case, that “clique” is the mod squad. The difference is, that while everyone wants to know what their boss says about them or more specifically others who work with them, nations on NS seem to feel that the moderators owe them this information as well as play by play accounts of all of their actions. It has been pointed out numerous times that moderators also moderate themselves and are also moderated by superiors, not only in this thread or its predecessor but throughout the months of this site’s existence, yet still some nations feel that they would do a better job of this policing then those who have been at it for a year now.

Too many people simply want to know, too many nations feel that they are owed the latest gossip, and as Nathi said, too many members simply feel that they are the second coming, deserving of special treatment as a demi-mod. They want something to hold over the heads of other members and gloat about. As a current and past moderator and even an admin at various sites and boards still alive or now closed, I can safely say that “being in the know,” “being cool,” or “bragging about your power,” is hardly what being a mod is all about. Moderators are volunteers, however priviledged volunteers they may be, and yet they still do quite an active and effective job of policing the forums and game in general.

Naturally everyone thinks that their opinion is god’s word, is a “mod on another forum,” (You can believe what you want about me. I can show you proof if you so desire. Either way...it doesn't make or break my arguement.) or is one of the many “mod-wannabe’s” we have scouting this forum night and day, dying to add their advice. However, these holier-than-thou members, along with all the mod-haters, as I and others have said before, need to simply lighten up. This game hardly effects your life in detrimental ways (barring taking you away from your homework or whatever) and the mod cannot actually harm you either. If you break the rules, you get slapped. The mature learn from this. The immature complain about this. Think about what your responses have been in the past and you’ll quickly see where you fall.

-Alec, RL player of SB

Firstly, I must apologise for the manner in which I've handled this so far; it was unnecessary to tag your post the way I did or to do so without consulting you first.

In addition, here is a prime example of a mod apologising after doing something for those who think the lot of us are simply bullshitting.

http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=385862

Too often nations on NS, as well as people in general, feel that they need to be special or be “in with the in crowd.” In this case, that “clique” is the mod squad.

This remark hits the issue squarely on the mark. Too many people feel that they should also deserve the privilege of being a moderator and being able to moderate. For all of you out there pining or moaning away, wanting to be a mod, the "clique" does not really exist. Even if it does, entrance into the clique will bring many of you responsbilities and annoyance that you wish you didn't have to handle.

In my case I didn't ask for any of my modships and adminships. They were given to me on the basis that I was one of the few people who did not want it.

Too many people simply want to know, too many nations feel that they are owed the latest gossip, and as Nathi said, too many members simply feel that they are the second coming, deserving of special treatment as a demi-mod. They want something to hold over the heads of other members and gloat about. As a current and past moderator and even an admin at various sites and boards still alive or now closed, I can safely say that “being in the know,” “being cool,” or “bragging about your power,” is hardly what being a mod is all about. Moderators are volunteers, however priviledged volunteers they may be, and yet they still do quite an active and effective job of policing the forums and game in general.

Quite frankly, although being a moderator or even an administrator may sound cool and all, it is a THANKLESS JOB. Through my experience as an administrator and as a moderator, I have seen that it is far better to not be either, because not only of the responsibility that comes with it, but also because of the exasperating amounts of disrespect that I got from those who didn't understand my position. The responsibility comes not only in moderating offensive things off the site, but also regulating arguments between posters, which can become quite heated in some cases... However it is clear that in most of the cases, albeit arguably, I was working for the site or forum's good. Even on the occasions that it was clear that I was doing the right thing, i.e. when removing offensive pictures or posts, I have been screamed for limiting "free speech." People, you must realize that even in the United States of America, purported to be the bastion of freedom and equality, THERE IS NO SUCH THING!

In addition, I have also been accused of abusing my power both as a moderator and an administrator. But do I care? No. Is my "job" worth the thankless and underappreciated effort that I put into it? Absolutely.

Moderators and administrators are all busy people, volunteering their time to help out a site, especially those here on NS. Instead of the time they could spend on the forums chatting or RPing, they spend it moderating. Think about it. And if you don't like the decisions that they make. Tough. For they are taking their time to do their jobs. Next time you question a moderator, remember that on the other end of the internet on a computer is another human being, who has a just as busy if not busier real life besides the time they spend on NS.

Thank you all ex- and current moderators and administrators of NS for your time and brain space and for volunteering for such a thankless and underappreciated task. And I am sorry if I've ever caused any problems for any of you.

~YiYang, 5CN's player

I think one of the basic things folks need to take into consideration here is the simple truth of 'balance of power'. You're not going to have it all ways, people. The more freedom you have, the less protection. The more protection, the less freedom. What seems to be developing is a well-meaning but possibly irrational desire to have the mods both be able to take care of the annoyances like spammers and griefers and multis and what have you, and yet a cry of injustice and what not when in doing their 'jobs' (misnomer as it's all voluntary) they do something that doesn't agree with a player's point of view.

Personally I prefer more liberty and am willing to sacrifice some protection. Also, the "cry of injustice" is not so much as when the mods disagrees with a player's point of view, it's when they disagree with the player community at-large's point of view (judging fron those who posted).

I don't care how many mods we get, or of what political bent they are, there is no way to keep everyone on this site happy at all times. I'd like to think that what we need is a group of moderators who can get along in spite of their differences (of which it has been mentioned, despite 'popular' belief, there are many) work together for the good of the site in the manner Max would prefer it run, and spend their moderating time actually moderating, not bickering amongst themselves - which is how I'm afraid, given past history, this 'elections' thing would go.

I agree, we can't keep everyone happy at all times, but let's try to keep most of the people happy, most of the time.

Do I think the mods are perfect and can do no wrong? Hell no. I've taken issue with decisions before, and I likely will again. If and when I do, I make mention of it. I don't expect to be answered or told the whole story, don't expect them to be answerable to me - that's Max's priviledge - but hey, I'll voice my opinion if I think it's worth it. Why don't I expect things? Because frankly, I'm not paying a dime for any of this, and despite any time invested here, I realize this is not a democracy, it is not my site to be dictating 'how things should be' on, and it is not my god-given (or otherwise) right to be privy to every little decision, rulemaking, event, judgement, 'secret', operational issue, or explaination on or concerning it.

Just because the mods aren't obliged to something doesn't mean that they shouldn't. I too realize that full democracy is not suitable for NS,as it would create chaos, but we should be as democratic as possible.

While I accept that there is nothing in the world wrong with suggestions and ideas offered in the spirit of trying to improve or elevate play

To the mods, there often are. Discussion often gets locked, even when there is not breaking of site rules.

Comments I continually see are 'without the players, there is no NS'.

This statement is true. Without the players, the mods would be moderating nothing.

Sorry folks, I just don't see the majority of NS up and quitting just because we don't get mod elections. Or just because a nation gets deleted for whatever reason. Or just because this player feels they've been treated less fairly than another. Or their flag/motto/national animal or currency was deemed inappropriate. Or any of the things that have been cropping up in here. And no, not even a combination of all those things. Why?

The main reason for this is because there is no equivalent for NS. I actually support the creation of a NS "spin-off", because it would keep pressure on NS to improve.

Democracies don't work well in situations like this. This is not a happy commune with lots of people working together to build a better tomorrow. Most of the role-plays going on in the forums demonstrate that people are interested in anything but.

Democracy works surprising well at Wikipedia, with its "vandals" and all. But of course, this isn't Wikipedia. Just pointing out an example of a large site where democracy is working well.

Democratic elections are not going to choose the most impartial, fair-minded individuals for Moderator. Quite the contrary, such elections will promote pandering, nepotism and vote-buying of the worst kind. Welcome to politics taken to extreme. I've seen it happen before, and it's no better than nepotism in a dictatorship. It just maximises the chaos.

I actually agree with you here, to an extent. That's why I never support the direct election of moderators, instead supporting non-binding elections, where players elect moderators, but the current mods aren't obliged to accept the results. Unfortunately, players aren't even allowed to suggest candidates for moderators (threads like that get locked).

It is important for everyone to have their say. I imagine that's the primary reason why we have the Moderation forum, so everyone is given their chance. Whether or not you believe the Moderators actually listen is your own problem. But to have this site run by consensus of all participants is to invite disaster. We're simply not capable of policing ourselves that well.

Like I said, censorship happens. Also, I don't necessarily believe in running everything based on consensus, I simply wished that the mods would respect player consensus, and follow it whenever possible (i.e it wouldn't hurt things that much). The first example I can think of is the resurrection of Orioni: no harm done in resurrecting her.

The Mods are here to serve Nationstates (and its associated forums and territories), not the people. The Nationstates rules are created by Max Barry. Then (my apologies if I get this wrong), comes [violet] and the rest of the Mods. The Mods do not make the rules, they simply enforce them. Similarly, the Mods do not appoint new Mods, the admin do.

So simply put... No one's making you stay. If you don't like how the Mods work, leave. Just, leave. We won't come after you, it's your bloody right. But you, by agreeing to the Nationstates rules, have come under de facto control of the Mods.

The Mods are here to serve Nationstates (and its associated forums and territories), not the people. The Nationstates rules are created by Max Barry. Then (my apologies if I get this wrong), comes [violet] and the rest of the Mods. The Mods do not make the rules, they simply enforce them. Similarly, the Mods do not appoint new Mods, the admin do.

So simply put... No one's making you stay. If you don't like how the Mods work, leave. Just, leave. We won't come after you, it's your bloody right. But you, by agreeing to the Nationstates rules, have come under de facto control of the Mods.

True, but like I said, just because the mods aren't obliged to serve the people, doesn't mean that they shouldn't. Also, it is the mods/admin, not Max, who appoints new mods and makes most of the rules (as answered in MDSC). Also, I can't speak for him, but I bet that Max would be real unhappy if the mods didn't serve the people. Therefore, serving NationStates would also be serving the people.

As for leaving, I already discussed that.

I don't see why this is posted here, because it isn't exactly helping any of us in our fight against "injustice" done by mods. Sometimes we feel treated wrong, or been pusished to harsh, and these feelings need an outlet. I hope your post is not made to discourage these feelings.


Ahem, I am trying not to be rude about this, but I have never been treated badly by a mod. And for one reason, I do not do things that breaks any rules, or pushes any boundaries. Don't break a rule or be rude, and you won't be on any mod's badside. You'll be treated just as fairly as everyone else.

Personally I prefer more liberty and am willing to sacrifice some protection. Also, the "cry of injustice" is not so much as when the mods disagrees with a player's point of view, it's when they disagree with the player community at-large's point of view (judging fron those who posted).
'The community at large'? Could you define that please? I think you might be getting confused between 'vocal minorities' and 'community at large'. None of the people I associate with tend to give a damn about, say, RPing or the RPing forum. None of them care if random people get deleted, because they trust the mods. Speaking solely from my own point of view, I seriously, seriously doubt that the 'community at large' EVER agrees on ANYTHING.

And even if they do agree, that doesn't make them right. This is why America isn't a democracy, it's a republic. Just because a bunch of people agree on something, doesn't mean they should be pandered too by the authorities. Ignoring the fact that NS *isn't a democracy* (as has oft been repeated and ignored), the mods aren't here to make the majority happy. They're here to get rid of spammers, flamers, trolls, and people who break varied other rules. They're here to make sure people don't use puppets in the UN to get unfair advantage. The way I see it, they're here to make sure Nation States *the game* can run smoothly - and the game can run smoothly without the 'majority' of players being appeased.

I agree, we can't keep everyone happy at all times, but let's try to keep most of the people happy, most of the time.
Unlike you, I would say the majority *are* happy most of the time. Maybe it's because I can speak outside all the drama - I don't have a huge list of friends on NS, and none of them have had any unfair treatment from the mods. So far I've only seen people who break the rules getting slapped down, plus one or two borderline cases that get apologies.

Just because the mods aren't obliged to something doesn't mean that they shouldn't. I too realize that full democracy is not suitable for NS,as it would create chaos, but we should be as democratic as possible.

*Why* should we be as democratic as possible? You keep talking as though democracy is just automatically the best thing possible, and I happen to disagree. In a game like NS, there are far too many players for there to ever be anything even close to democracy. No one would ever agree on anything (hell, you'd have a large number of people not agreeing for the sake of not agreeing), and you'd get a whole bunch of pointless competition.

To the mods, there often are. Discussion often gets locked, even when there is not breaking of site rules.
This is one of those places where you need an example. I've never seen a thread locked without reason. Often threads get locked without an explanation, which I for one can understand - often explanations aren't even needed. If you see a thread you think was locked for no reason, you could probably just come to the moderation and ASK, instead of using it as an excuse to badmouth the people trying to protect you from flamers and the like.

This statement is true. Without the players, the mods would be moderating nothing.
OH NOES! You mean they wouldn't have to spend hours and hours dealing with unappreciative people questioning them, arguing with them, accusing them (often with zero proof), telling other posters how much the mods suck and so forth?

Somehow, I think they'd survive.

The main reason for this is because there is no equivalent for NS. I actually support the creation of a NS "spin-off", because it would keep pressure on NS to improve.

I doubt it would make NS improve. There are many, many people perfectly happy with NS, not to mention plenty of people like me who hate change. I'd stay on NS even if another NS 'spin-off' started. *Especially* if it incorporated the ideas you've mentioned here.

I'm still waiting to see any of the examples that support you position. You can't expect much sympathy from me so far, since I've had exactly zero problems with the mods, and so far see your stance as basically whining needlessly.

Ahem, I am trying not to be rude about this, but I have never been treated badly by a mod. And for one reason, I do not do things that breaks any rules, or pushes any boundaries. Don't break a rule or be rude, and you won't be on any mod's badside. You'll be treated just as fairly as everyone else.

I concur.

I haven't seen any examples yet of mods abusing their power - mistakes have been made (but with the number of cases they have to deal with, is it any wonder?), and they get cleared up. And the mods apologize. If the aim here is to put a stop to the mistakes... well, I'd hazard a guess that the answer would be reducing the workload or/by adding new mods, NOT adding extra stress and pointless legwork to the job.

The thing I've been having trouble trying to wrap my head around at this point is what our motivation is supposed to be for all this corrupt, cutthroat, behind the scenes backstabbing nonsesne we're supposedly doing. I for one don't see much of a tangible benefit to doing something that would jeopardize the work I've done so far--call me arrogant but I'm rather content with my reputation, and as such, I would prefer to keep it intact as opposed to doing bad things.

I'm certain at some point it's likely that one of these dissidents will accuse me of something, despite he fact that I'm out of the country. Every time I've seen movements like this its usually based on some sort of irrational outlook that likes to tell people "I'm not happy, therefore there's thousands of other people on the site exactly like me." One person gets some wild hair up his ass about moderator corruption and BAM! we have them making hate threads and what with the libel and so forth... at least this attempt at "reform" has been much more civilized.

But, ultimately, it's probably not really a viable possibility. Put yourself in Max's shoes on this and then let me know what you think you'd do. I'd wager that none of you would allow it, and I suspect anyone who claims otherwise is merely trying to prove their point. Frankly, about the worst I've seen amongst the moderation staff is the occasional dropped warning tag or accidental ejection [in my case :headbang: ]. Anything else is either a misunderstanding or a vendetta.

Well, enough of my ranting! I'm in Amsterdam, baby! Time to get lit! Woo!

Oh, just one more thing: yes, a lot of the work we do on this game is largely subjective, and yes I'll agree with anyone who says we need to write the rules down. I'm in the process of doing so, but it will take some time. When I'm done, hopefully we'll have a solidified ruleset for NS itself, and the Moderation staff.

You all write far too long and need to go outside and play. :fluffle: :D :p

power corrupts. Absolute Power Corrupts Absolutely. But it rocks absolutely too. :fluffle:

I think that's a brilliant point. In another game I play, Rise of Rome, the Moderator type people there think they are some kind of special all-powerful super humans, and if you diasgree you get gagged (can't talk on the game lobby). They just abuse their powers.. Maybe the same here?

Oh, just one more thing: yes, a lot of the work we do on this game is largely subjective, and yes I'll agree with anyone who says we need to write the rules down. I'm in the process of doing so, but it will take some time. When I'm done, hopefully we'll have a solidified ruleset for NS itself, and the Moderation staff.

I think that is THE biggest problem that NS has, is that it is so subjective. In the initial thread there was a nice quote "One Person Godmod is another persons RP." (I don't feel like finding the actual quote). With the exception of our daily issues, everything else fall in a grey area. Navigating that grey area can be some what difficult for new players. The same can be said for any political debate, what may cross the line in one thread may not do so in an another thread. NS's limits are set by ones own creativity, and presonal beliefs, so how does one decide what right and what wrong in a game that really has no limits. I can't even begin to imagine what it must be like for a Mod to decide if some one has crossed the line and has stepped outside the rules, when the rules themselfs are so vague. It can only be done case be case by what ever Mod happens to come across it.

I will fully agree that the idea of elected Mods will only end in tradgedy. I think what get Me, is that people like JRV says that EVERYONE or a fairly large percentage want this change to occur. However, it is clear to me from post that everyone has made in both Thread is that it is actually the opposite. A majority of player want to keep the things the same.

Now its time for me to Really rant. For players like JRV who seem think the current Mods are evil and have some hidden agenda against other players, and that they are so hard done by, leave then. If you are truely unhappy then I think that its time for you to move on. Last thing that I want to hear about is how aweful someone is being treated, when that is not the case. I on more then a number of occassion asked JRV to provide proof of his claims but still have yet to get any. However, there was a clear evidence of such activities then it would be different.

If you don't like it here the just leave, or sit down and shut up. Personally i've been with the game for awhile and have watched grow over time, it is truely better then when it started. In truth the game would be were it is today if it ws totally revamped every time a FEW people were not happy.

There is a good chance that I may get in some bit of trouble with this post, but I don't care. Unlike some people I am more then will to accept the repercussions of my actions.

I say KEEP things the way they are.

Tappees player
Cotie

I've seen many forums were spammers and people who insult others are actively tracked. They get a private message, if they don't stop immediately they get a ban.
It works very well.

This thread just said it is impossible. If one want to be protected from spaming, he should be forced to suffer all-powerful moderators that ban whoever they want, without a message before (or after) and without a good reason. It is a lie, it is possible to have both effective moderation and no abuse of power.
This site did not manage to do it, because the moderation team does not make a good selection of the moderators, does not have strict rules of moderation, and does not work hard enough (maybe they do work a lot, but then they need more people in the team). What I see is the result, and when I make the comparison with other sites... this result is terrible.


edit: however, "writing down the rules" (as proposed by a moderator) seems to go in the right direction. good luck to this moderator

I've seen many forums were spammers and people who insult others are actively tracked. They get a private message, if they don't stop immediately they get a ban.
It works very well.

This thread just said it is impossible. If one want to be protected from spaming, he should be forced to suffer all-powerful moderators that ban whoever they want, without a message before (or after) and without a good reason. It is a lie, it is possible to have both effective moderation and no abuse of power.
This site did not manage to do it, because the moderation team does not make a good selection of the moderators, does not have strict rules of moderation, and does not work hard enough (maybe they do work a lot, but then they need more people in the team). What I see is the result, and when I make the comparison with other sites... this result is terrible.

Funny, there are plenty of nations who have been warned, ad infinitum, about their spamming, both publicly and privately, and haven't stopped. I know -- I've written some of the telegrams personally. Frankly, we DON'T ban immediately as you say your other well-run site does. The problem is that people don't seem to like the idea that we DO track spammers, trolls and flamers pretty efficiently. No one gets banned for a single offense, unless it is of a major nature.

Funny, because if the moderation team chooses the moderators, and their choices are so awful -- well, they've chosen a number of people who are universally considered very good as well.

Funny, because the implication here is that the administration is either completely clueless or completely powerless in decisions on how the site is run and who is in charge of the store. I mean honestly -- do you believe Max, [violet], and SalusaSecondus couldn't remove ANY person, including moderators, from this site they felt was a detriment?

Funny, because if this site was actually run in the draconian manner that some of you claim it is, we wouldn't be having this discussion... because dissent would not be allowed. Nations would be quietly disappeared, and nations who questioned their disappearance would be disappeared. I think anyone reading this thread, and others like it, will agree is pretty obvious that this is not the case.

So basically, what it seems to me those who are most upset claim that moderators are bad, because they will not allow people who repeatedly flame, troll, cheat or post inappropriate material (such a graphic images of dismembered bodies) when they are popular players.

Funny, because if this site was actually run in the draconian manner that some of you claim it is, we wouldn't be having this discussion... because dissent would not be allowed. Nations would be quietly disappeared, and nations who questioned their disappearance would be disappeared. I think anyone reading this thread, and others like it, will agree is pretty obvious that this is not the case.


I think it would be more fun if it were run like that


first off: no, i didn't read one other post in this thread

but my opinion of the mods is that while I hate moderation to begin with.. conspiracy theories are fun, the mods are doing a good job, and screw you if you disagree

Funny, there are plenty of nations who have been warned, ad infinitum, about their spamming, both publicly and privately, and haven't stopped. I know -- I've written some of the telegrams personally. Frankly, we DON'T ban immediately as you say your other well-run site does. The problem is that people don't seem to like the idea that we DO track spammers, trolls and flamers pretty efficiently. No one gets banned for a single offense, unless it is of a major nature.

Funny, because if the moderation team chooses the moderators, and their choices are so awful -- well, they've chosen a number of people who seem to be universally considered very good as well.

Funny, because the implication here is that the administration is either completely clueless or completely powerless in decisions on how the site is run and who is in charge of the store. I mean honestly -- do you believe Max, [violet], and SalusaSecondus couldn't remove ANY person, including moderators, from this site they felt was a detriment?

Funny, because if this site was actually run in the draconian manner that some of you claim it is, we wouldn't be having this discussion... because dissent would not be allowed. Nations would be quietly disappeared, and nations who questioned their disappearance would be disappeared. I think anyone reading this thread, and the others like it, will agree it is pretty obvious that this is not the case.

So basically, it seems to me those who are most upset claim that moderators are bad because they will not allow people torepeatedly flame, troll, cheat or post inappropriate material (such a graphic images of dismembered bodies) when they are popular players.

Hey, woah now, folks. I appreciate the enthusiastic support of y'all, but lets remember to operate with some class and style, and not forget one of my earlier points - just because someone doesn't agree with you is no reason to tell them to shut up and leave.

Players do have valid concerns sometimes. And even if they aren't, there isn't any harm in letting them voice them anyway. I've seen many a time in here and elsewhere when someone has done just that, gotten the information they needed, and walked away happier on account, not to mention, better informed. There's no need for nastiness, nor any need as Kat pointed out, for draconian rule here. The exchange of opinions and ideas needn't be a bad thing. It is how you express them that can become a problem.

I don't want anyone trying to stifle honest, thoughtful discussion on my account ever. Nor for anyone to interpret what I've written here as an attempt to shut down discussion - it isn't. My intentions were to offer my own views on it, as stated, and perhaps offer some different thoughts on it all for your consideration. Not everyone will agree with me - that's more than fine. After all, I'm not always right, neh? And hey, if we all agreed or were forced to agree on everything, the world would be a terribly dull place. What I would ask, as I have asked repeatedly, is that when you engage in such discussions, whatever side of a debate you may find yourselves on, think before you post, have care in what you say and the 'tone' in which you deliver it. I think we're all aware of just how lacking the written media can be on occasion, given the absence of body language to read.



To Sandpit:

I think I've already answered most of your points of contention, if you'd go back and look. You seem hung up on certain points, and regardless of what is written, you are unwilling to budge one iota from that. I can respect your convictions - got to have those if you're going to take a stand, which you have. I simply happen to disagree.

You seem to have missed entirely my points on the supposed 'majority'. I recommend you go back and re-read my statements on that, so that perhaps you can better understand where I'm coming from.

Given the number of responses in my favor in this thread, should I automatically believe that the 'majority' of NationStates supports me? Frankly, I think that would be an irresponsible assumption - just as irresponsible as assuming the 'majority' of NationStates is dissatisfied when you lack the proof to back it up (something I believe you personally have insisted having on your offsite forum, no?). A group, however vocal they may be, of less than one hundred players on a game of tens of thousands (giving some allowance for puppetry here) cannot in any way shape or form be called a 'majority' of anything.

You also seem to have misunderstood or chosen to disregard my take on this supposed right to democracy on NationStates. That is your perogative. In case you missed it the first time - this is a privately controlled site hosted by a private entity. What part of that indicates a requirement for democracy for the masses? What gives you the right to demand such? I wouldn't mind seeing some proof and/or solid reasoning for your assertations other than 'we feel we ought to have it'. Unfortunately, 'feelings' do not come into play here. Facts do. (Refer to my earlier statements if you think to attack that point by saying we shouldn't care about people's feelings, which is not what I'm saying here at all.)

I'm not trying to be insulting, simply point out what I feel are some discrepancies in your stand, and ask for some clarification if you have any. Apologies in advance if I seem to be less than amicable in my responses - that is not the impression I'm going for here.

On a final note, you say you are in favor of an alternate site? Fine and well. You do realize yes, that NationStates itself is the intellectual property of Max Barry, his program and concept, and that while there is nothing stopping any of us from creating offsite forums to augment it, so I'm lead to understand, unless he gives you permission to create a mirror site of the game, I believe you would be in violation. Now, if you'd like to create something entirely new and base it off of your own ideas and such, more power to you. You already possess an offsite forum (http://s6.invisionfree.com/PCRA_Central/index.php?showforum=12), as do several persons and groups here - there is nothing stopping you from discussing and playing there, which anyone who visits can see you have been.

Best of luck in your efforts, remember folks - play nice, and ... there you have it.

--Nathi's Player
(not to be mistaken for Tsaraine. No, I could not resist. :P)

I have been a moderator for a very long time; I've been involved, on some level or another, in the selection process for ... pretty much all the current moderators. Even in the case of myself, Menelmacar, and Melkor Unchained, I was there helping organize the discussion thread and make sure no candidate - or their endorsements or objections - was forgotten. Then, it was voluntary secretary work; now, it's been an active hand in discussing potential new moderators.

First in foremost in my mind every time has been - what if we got a real "bastard moderator from Hell?" We can only see so much. We've dodged this so far. There have been occasional mistakes or excesses on the parts of the moderation staff; when this happens, we try to fix it as best as we can. We've usually done a good job; moderators we've picked have, more often than not, stepped down of their own initiative when they don't feel up to snuff. The most common reason for stepping down is a lack of time or the desire to move on in some way.

When the first batch of publicly selected moderators was picked, with much input from the community, almost everybody thought that Marathon and Kitsylvania were the leading candidates - initially. Several steps into the process of discussion, people changed their minds. Some of the most popular candidates have turned out to be people who later went berserk and got deleted or permanently banned.

In all cases, however, someone has seen the warning signs, and someone was raising objections to their becoming a moderator. We've always listened particularly closely to objections, and it's worked so far.

Plenty of people go on power trips; I believe that's what some of us are being accused of here. It's a very real phenomenon.

That said, we've had a fairly active administration here. [violet] has been involved in practically every major policy decision, and in the end, [violet] makes the decisions about how the moderation team works.

As far as navigating grey areas goes... we warn and explain. As a moderator, I've spent more time explaining and clarifying the rules than I have actually enforcing them, and I can't possibly be the only one.

I can certainly vouch that TJHairball has always been a fair and just mod. Without doubt.

I just wanted to comment on the wisdom of the author of this thread. She seems to understand every thing about the mod team without ever being a mod herself.. How admirable. Now why can't every one just be like her? Then NS would truly be a beacon of light and hope.

Great post Nathi.. and so useful too. ;)

Democracy works surprising well at Wikipedia, with its "vandals" and all. But of course, this isn't Wikipedia. Just pointing out an example of a large site where democracy is working well.

Er....yeah.

Wiki models don't work well with forum models. In a wiki, pretty much anything anybody does can be undone by anybody else, and all actions taken by somebody are be documented. It's not the same way in a discussion forum like this one.

For those of you 2004 players who are objecting to mods, I've been on the site since 2003 and when I started, there were no mods, a lot less players and Max was trying to handle all the complaints himself. It was a different world.

IMNSHO you-all should calm down and learn to live within the site's rules and play the game as it is. I don't agree with everything the mods do but I am very aware that they are not getting paid (When you work full-time for a salary and you have to support yourself you'll understand what I mean much better.), that they devote a linordinate amount of time to the job and that many used to have lots of time to role-play, get involved in regional activities and chat on the forums--time that they lost when they moved to moderation.

You should be bowing down and thanking them for sacrificing their time so that most of the nations on this site can play with relatively little aggravation.

Calling for elections is ridiculous. Max instituted moderation to keep the forums from rolling over into flaming and to prevent nations who derived their pleasure from making other nations and regions miserable. A moderator is an investigator and a regulator, not a politician. The skills are totally different.

Anyway, I know this isn't very diplomatic but I'm really tired of listening to people whine about how "unfair" the mods are. Grow up, will ya? I've grumbled on the forums about some of their decisions but on the whole I appreciate their intent and their efforts.

THANKS, MOD SQUAD.