NationStates Jolt Archive

I also posted this over at General, but I'm hoping to get more feedback, especially from mods themselves. Anyway, here it is:

A More User-Friendly NS: The NSRP Platform

Imagine a NS where moderators are friendlier and more courteous to players.
Where moderators truly care about what players think.
Where moderators treat every single player with compassion and tolerance.

This is our vision of NS.

It is important, however, to note that we are not anti-mods. We do not believe that moderators are unfriendly, uncourteous, uncaring, and intolerant. Rather, we simply believe that moderators can be more friendly, more courteous, more caring, and more tolerant. We believe that when it comes to moderation, there is always room for improvement.

It is also important to note that we realize that NationStates is a private entity. In our plan for NS, administrators and moderators will still have the final say. We only hope for greater consideration for player interests, and a greater role for players in moderation affairs. However, this role will merely be an advisory one.

Bearing this in mind, here is our plan for NS:


First Step: More Moderators

We have seen requests for more moderators denied, even there was a general consensus that there was a need for more moderators. We also believe that more moderators will reduce moderator stress, leading to more user-friendly moderators. Therefore, we propose a set ratio to guarantee the minimum number of moderators:

- 16 moderators (the current number, not including [violet] and Salusa) for the first 100 000 active nations on NationStates
- 1 moderator for every 5 000 nations thereafter

- we also propose two additional Game Admins, which, in our opinion, will increase the willingness of NS admin to implement miscellaneous improvements and the speed at which they are implemented.


Greater Consistency in Moderation

We believe that the subjectiveness of moderation should be reduced. Although we realize that moderators do have to make judgement calls, we believe that should consult previous judgements and consensus first. However, it is important to note that true justice does not mean "the same punishment for the same crime", it means "the same punishment for the same crime with the same circumstances".

Therefore, we propose:

- the creation of a "NS Legal Library", a read-only archive of standard policies and procedures ("The NS Criminal Code"), plus notable moderator decisions ("precident-setting cases") . This will increase awareness of NS policies and procedures by the average NS user, which, in our opinion, will reduce "unintentional rulebreaking". In addition, it will put increased pressure on moderators to make decisions according to precident, which fits in the spirit of consistancy.

- that moderators give greater consideration to circumstance when making judgements

- an official review on how to make NS moderator rulings more consistent and just, taking into account basic legal principles. Although NS moderators are not judges in a Court of Law, both are places where judgements are rendered: therefore, we believe that NS moderators should adopt basic legal principles whenever possible.


Truly User-Friendly Moderation

We believe that this means two things:

- friendly and courteous moderators
- greater player input in moderation affairs

Therefore, we propose:

- that three moderators be semi-elected by players. This means that moderators will, with input from players, create a list of suitable candidates. Players will then select one moderator from this list.

- the creation of three directly elected "player representatives", who task is to participate in moderator reviews held at the modcenter. These representatives will not have moderation abilities and will not have access to OPSEC. We believe that these representatives will increase honesty and transparency in the moderation process.

- the holding of "public consultation exercises" to seek player opinion on important issues, and attempts by all parties (moderators, players, administrators) to reach a general consensus on these issues. However, shall a consensus fail to be reached, moderators and administrators will still have the right to final judgement.

- the creation of an official "People's Choice" Moderator award

- an official, in-depth study on how to improve the friendliness and courtesy of moderators ("sensitivity training" for moderators)


More Compassionate and Tolerant Moderation

We believe that compassion and tolerance are virtues. We also believe that deletion, DOS or IP bans are not simply a matter between moderators and the player being deleted or banned: saying so is like saying that killing a man does not affect his family.

Therefore, we propose:

- that moderators, when considering or reviewing a DOS or IP ban, give a "second chance" to those who have sincerely displayed a sense of remorse for their actions. Moderators should also take into consideration the words of those who speak out in favour or against a ban.

- an official review of current warning/deletion procedures, with input from users, and taking into consideration site dynamics


More Fair and Sensible Moderation

We believe that NS rules should be a compromise between "making NS a more pleasurable place" and "ensuring the smooth operation of the site". However, we also believe that when creating or reviewing rules, "making NS a more pleasurable place" should take precedence over all other factors, because in our opinion, that is the main purpose of NS rules.

Therefore, we propose:

- allowing links to non-offensive material on sites that also host offensive material (e.g eBaums World), provided that a warning stating this fact is included in the link.

- relaxing the total ban on word games. Instead, an "Official Word Games Thread" will be created and stickied. This will be the only word games thread allowed on the NS forums.

- allowing thread trends: let "the market" decide the topic of the day

- treating parodies as parodies: judge them to a lower threshold.

We will propose other ideas that we feel will make moderation policies more fair and sensible by responding to current events on the NS forums, on a case-by-case basis.


Moving Beyond Moderation: Towards A Friendlier NS

We believe that creating more user-friendly moderation policies is only a start. Ultimately, our goal is to create a friendlier NS, where not only moderators are friendlier and more courteous to players, but players are also friendlier and more courteous to each other. Where not only moderators truly care about what players think, but players also respect each other's opinion and appreciate the new perspective. Where not only moderators treat every single player with compassion and tolerance, but players also treat other players with compassion and tolerance.

Although we realize that this is an utopian and almost impossible goal, it does not mean that we cannot strive in that direction.

Therefore, we propose that all members of NS (players, moderators, administrators):

- Be nice, Be considerate, think critically
- discuss with others regarding how to do so
- teach others to do so

Because in the end, this is what the NationStates reform movement is all about.

maybe you should try running your own forum properly before trying to change others :rolleyes:

Some parts of this sound really good, like the NS Legal Library, but I don't think that the part about a representative or the semi-elected mods would work too well.

that three moderators be semi-elected by players. This means that moderators will, with input from players, create a list of suitable candidates. Players will then select one moderator from this list.

This is exactly what we shouldn't do. Despite probably having a list of decent candidates, many people out there aren't going to vote based on past actions of any of the candidates, but rather on if they like them or not. That sort of system is flawed.

the creation of three directly elected "player representatives", who task is to participate in moderator reviews held at the modcenter. These representatives will not have moderation abilities and will not have access to OPSEC. We believe that these representatives will increase honesty and transparency in the moderation process.

The moderators were put in their positions for a reason, one of them being the fact that they're all level-headed, and are able to moderate as fair as possible. I don't understand how this would work in the first place. The moderators are still going to come to the same decision over certain matters, with representatives or not.


I don't understand how you feel you have the right to come into a privately-owned site and dictate to them on how everything should be run.

This is exactly what we shouldn't do. Despite probably having a list of decent candidates, many people out there aren't going to vote based on past actions of any of the candidates, but rather on if they like them or not. That sort of system is flawed.



The moderators were put in their positions for a reason, one of them being the fact that they're all level-headed, and are able to moderate as fair as possible. I don't understand how this would work in the first place. The moderators are still going to come to the same decision over certain matters, with representatives or not.


I don't understand how you feel you have the right to come into a privately-owned site and dictate to them on how everything should be run.I agree with a lot of what you are saying, except for the last paragraph. They're not trying to dictate, they're suggesting, I think.

maybe you should try running your own forum properly before trying to change others :rolleyes:

I concur.

However, I really think the NSRP/NS Local has no true idea of how NationStates works or how Moderation works on a forum this large as documented by the utter lack of respect, character and integrity on Sandpit's off-site forum - home to both - as of now.

Most of the members of the NSRP/NS Local are rulebreakers with grudges against the Moderation team for simply doing their job as the rules line them out to be now. I see this "movement" as a joke, as I know many do, and I see nothing coming of it.

You want change? Make your own damn game. I like this one as is.

I agree with a lot of what you are saying, except for the last paragraph. They're not trying to dictate, they're suggesting, I think.

Yes, we're suggesting, and of course I can move out the whole "could vs. should" thing out again, but I don't want to. Certainly we all know that NS is a private entity, and we should all debate the merits of reform without letting that throw us off track.

I concur.

However, I really think the NSRP/NS Local has no true idea of how NationStates works or how Moderation works on a forum this large as documented by the utter lack of respect, character and integrity on Sandpit's off-site forum - home to both - as of now.

Most of the members of the NSRP/NS Local are rulebreakers with grudges against the Moderation team for simply doing their job as the rules line them out to be now. I see this "movement" as a joke, as I know many do, and I see nothing coming of it.

You want change? Make your own damn game. I like this one as is.

Yes, some of our members have grudges, and this is unfortunate. As in RL politics, people with grudges are not the best for the job.

As for the previous incidents on the MDSC, I sincerely apoligize once again, and this is why I don't want to be NS mod: too much work, too little experience. Plus, we all need an "outsider" to advocate ideas.

And the change we want is not mainly in moderation policies (although we would like to see changes there). The main change we want is for NS to be a friendlier place: moderators to be friendlier to players, and players to be friendlier to each other. So it's a noble cause.

Most of the members of the NSRP/NS Local are rulebreakers with grudges against the Moderation team for simply doing their job as the rules line them out to be now.


Excuse me, but I think that's a bit of a sweeping generalisation. I can't speak for the NSRP, but most of the members of NS local 8976 are pretty reasonable people.

I concur.

However, I really think the NSRP/NS Local has no true idea of how NationStates works or how Moderation works on a forum this large as documented by the utter lack of respect, character and integrity on Sandpit's off-site forum - home to both - as of now.

Like that part where they had an "election" and then ignored the results. "Person A has more votes? Well I won't let that stand, person B wins"

Not to mention the incident where a shit load of votes suddenly appeared out of "nowhere".

Nothing personal, but if that's any indication of what the NSRP/NS Local will bring to NS, thanks but no thanks.

Like that part where they had an "election" and then ignored the results. "Person A has more votes? Well I won't let that stand, person B wins"

Not to mention the incident where a shit load of votes suddenly appeared out of "nowhere".

Nothing personal, but if that's any indication of what the NSRP/NS Local will bring to NS, thanks but no thanks.

I will admit that that was due to my inexperience with being a moderator, but everyone had a time when they were inexperienced. And that is why I don't want to be a NS mod. Not that they would make me one anyway :)

I will admit that that was due to my inexperience with being a moderator, but everyone had a time when they were inexperienced. And that is why I don't want to be a NS mod. Not that they would make me one anyway :)
I'll give you the benefit of the doubt on the incident with the mystery votes, but on the first one, no.
How hard can it be to look at the voting poll, go "more people voted for person A" and then mod person A.
What am I missing here?

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt on the incident with the mystery votes, but on the first one, no.
How hard can it be to look at the voting poll, go "more people voted for person A" and then mod person A.
What am I missing here?

It was a complaint about not having enough candidates. I listened, and took down the poll to put up a new one with more candidates.

Yeah, this seems kind of silly. I really don't think that there is any chance of this happening. I really like the game the way it is.

Yeah, this seems kind of silly. I really don't think that there is any chance of this happening. I really like the game the way it is.

There's always room for improvement.

Friendly? Nice? Mods aren't here to be any more friendly or nice than they want to be. They're not here to be our best friends. They're here to moderate. If they get paid, then they can be friendly

I've seen some complaints in this forum, and I can pretty much guess these moderators are the epitomy of self-restraint.

I, like Tuesday Heights, like the game run just as it is.

This is exactly what we shouldn't do. Despite probably having a list of decent candidates, many people out there aren't going to vote based on past actions of any of the candidates, but rather on if they like them or not. That sort of system is flawed.

Isn't RL democracy also like that? The point is, it involves users a bit more, and the fact that the list is mod-selected means that quality is assured.

The moderators were put in their positions for a reason, one of them being the fact that they're all level-headed, and are able to moderate as fair as possible. I don't understand how this would work in the first place. The moderators are still going to come to the same decision over certain matters, with representatives or not.

They're to remind mods about what players think once they're locked up amongst themselves in the modcentre. And for the record, this wasn't my idea: I took a sugestions for "having civilian overseers just like they do in the military" and refined it.

Good work Sanpit! Don't let these naysayers and sheep get you down.

The best ideas are sometimes seen as heracy.

The mOds like things as they are, and why would they not?

They're to remind mods about what players think once they're locked up amongst themselves in the modcentre. And for the record, this wasn't my idea: I took a sugestions for "having civilian overseers just like they do in the military" and refined it.

The moderators themselves were players before they were appointed to their positions. I think they have a pretty good understanding of what is best for the forum. In order to get the position in the first place, they needed to be proven level-headed, correct?

The moderators themselves were players before they were appointed to their positions. I think they have a pretty good understanding of what is best for the forum. In order to get the position in the first place, they needed to be proven level-headed, correct?

Had to demonstrate that they like the place as it is and willing to kiss alot of a$$.

Friendly? Nice? Mods aren't here to be any more friendlier or nicer than they want to be. They're not here to be our best friends. They're here to moderate. If they get paid, then they can be friendly

I've seen some complaints in this forum, and I can pretty much guess these moderators are the epitomy of self-restraint.

I, like Tuesday Heights, like the game run just as it is.

We all know that Mods aren't obliged to be any more friendly or nice than they want to be. But wouldn't it be nice if they were friendlier? And certainly friendlier mods increases general goodwill on NS, which will decrease the amount of moderation needed.

As for the part about being paid, it reflects a serious problem in our society: "it's all about money". You should be nice to everyone, and money should play no part in that.

The moderators themselves were players before they were appointed to their positions. I think they have a pretty good understanding of what is best for the forum. In order to get the position in the first place, they needed to be proven level-headed, correct?

Unfortunately, they tend to lose touch with the general public: it's like how a working-class-man-turned-billionaire tends to lose touch with the working class. It's unfortunate, but it's a reality most of the time.

Unfortunately, they tend to lose touch with the general public: it's like how a working-class-man-turned-billionaire tends to lose touch with the working class. It's unfortunate, but it's a reality most of the time.


I suppose then that that's NOT me posting on threads in General as a player, too.

Curious.

Unfortunately, they tend to lose touch with the general public: it's like how a working-class-man-turned-billionaire tends to lose touch with the working class. It's unfortunate, but it's a reality most of the time.
I'm a billionaire? Wow. How come nobody told me?


I could be a real jerk as a player, and I tend to be less of one as a moderator. How about them apples?

First off, I don't agree with the entire 'mods have lost touch with the players' thing. Most of them are very active, either in RP or in General. For that matter, I don't see the mods being unfair, biased, or unfriendly to anyone.

More importantly, it really doesn't matter if they've lost touch with the public. They only have to keep 'in touch' with one person, Max. As far as Nationstates is concerned, Max is not just the absolute dictator, he's effectively god. It doesn't matter how much you want democracy and reforms. Max your god will appoint whomever he sees fit as moderators, and they will carry out whatever policies he wants them to. It's that simple, and no amount of complaining by your 'local' will get Max your god or the mods to do anything.

It was a complaint about not having enough candidates. I listened, and took down the poll to put up a new one with more candidates.
All after Person B was chosen as mod after the people had clearly elected person A

Unfortunately, they tend to lose touch with the general public: it's like how a working-class-man-turned-billionaire tends to lose touch with the working class. It's unfortunate, but it's a reality most of the time.

I could go on a huge rant on how much I appreciate all of the mods, not only as moderators, but as human beings...but I'll make a quick summary for ya. ;)

Personally, in the time that I've been here, I couldn't say a single bad thing, from experience, about any of the moderators. They've all been extremely nice to me, and have taken my thoughts and opinions very seriously. Scolopendra's open-mindedness to RP with others, Katganistan's listening skills as well as her humor, Frisbeeteria's utmost dedication to a job he was most recently given....... I could seriously go on forever. (No, this isn't sucking up, it's proving a point that moderators are human as well) I remember being told a wise saying on IRC a few days ago.... and it goes like this.

"You reap what you sow."
by Kat

If you're nice to the moderators and respect the rules they set forth, then there is no need for such reforms that you suggest, but unfortunately, there are a select few who seek to break those rules, and the moderators must act accordingly to punish those people. If that's too harsh for you, then I really don't know what to say...

Interesting post. :)

First I'd like to congratulate you on presenting a well-thought out plan, with actual ideas for improving the site. Thank you for it.

Imagine a NS where moderators are friendlier and more courteous to players.
Where moderators truly care about what players think.
Where moderators treat every single player with compassion and tolerance.
Mods are friendly and courteous, and have good senses of humor, too. Unless you repeatedly spam the forum or call your nation "Kill All Jewz" or create half a dozen UN nations that all endorse each other, in which case they become less friendly, compassionate, and tolerant. I have seen the odd occasion in which a mod loses his/her cool and responds more aggressively than he/she should, but no more than any rational human being would in their place, so I don't think we have a problem here.

It is important, however, to note that we are not anti-mods.
Yet your group contains members I would find it hard to describe as anything else. One or two have taken extraordinary steps to disrupt NationStates, which required extraordinary steps from moderators and/or me to shut them down. Welcoming them back is not the kind of tolerance I want for this site.

We do not believe that moderators are unfriendly, uncourteous, uncaring, and intolerant. Rather, we simply believe that moderators can be more friendly, more courteous, more caring, and more tolerant. We believe that when it comes to moderation, there is always room for improvement.
No doubt, but when a moderator is more tolerant of a griefer, and this person offends again, who benefits? Not the players, who are on the receiving end of a spammed region or flamebait thread; not the moderator, who has to clean up; only the griefer.

A very small number of committed trouble-makers can take up enormous amounts of moderator time. I am certainly interested in exploring ways to make NationStates moderation more effective, but I don't believe that giving even more leeway to such people is the way to do it.

We have seen requests for more moderators denied, even there was a general consensus that there was a need for more moderators.
I'm not aware of any such general consensus, or why exactly it was felt that more mods were required.

We also believe that more moderators will reduce moderator stress, leading to more user-friendly moderators. Therefore, we propose a set ratio to guarantee the minimum number of moderators:
- 16 moderators (the current number, not including [violet] and Salusa) for the first 100 000 active nations on NationStates
- 1 moderator for every 5 000 nations thereafter
More moderators is not necessarily more effective. A smaller group means it's easier for everyone to communicate, and stay on the same page. A larger group, on the other hand, means a larger security risk: a higher chance that we'll get a moderator who acts against the best interests of the site.

That aside, I don't see how specifying absolute numbers of moderators will mean anything. Sometimes one mod will be performing ten times as much work as another -- it all depends on how much time various people have.

If the mods feel there's a need for more help, they say so; and if I thought the list of Help Requests was getting out of hand, I would suggest we appoint more. But neither is the case right now. Adding five moderators, as you propose, would be largely pointless as there wouldn't be much for them to do.

- we also propose two additional Game Admins, which, in our opinion, will increase the willingness of NS admin to implement miscellaneous improvements and the speed at which they are implemented.
Well, this would be lovely, but where are we to obtain these Perl gurus willing to write code for free and never abuse the system access they are given?

- the creation of a "NS Legal Library", a read-only archive of standard policies and procedures ("The NS Criminal Code"), plus notable moderator decisions ("precident-setting cases") . This will increase awareness of NS policies and procedures by the average NS user, which, in our opinion, will reduce "unintentional rulebreaking". In addition, it will put increased pressure on moderators to make decisions according to precident, which fits in the spirit of consistancy.
- an official review on how to make NS moderator rulings more consistent and just, taking into account basic legal principles. Although NS moderators are not judges in a Court of Law, both are places where judgements are rendered: therefore, we believe that NS moderators should adopt basic legal principles whenever possible.
This I completely oppose. I will not create a NationStates sub-game where the aim is to outwit moderators by discovering clever loopholes in precedents and case law.

The fact is NationStates has a very simple set of rules, as outlined in the "Etiquette" section of the game FAQ: you can't post content that is obscene, illegal, threatening, malicious, defamatory, or spam. Because everything is subjective, moderators have made more detailed rulings about what constitutes spam, or what makes a post malicious flamebait, etc. For most people these aren't necessary, but for some they help. For some others, they are still not enough: they want more detailed explanations of each of those posts, and when they get that, they want further clarifications, and so on. The only truly comprehensive solution is a massive compendium that describes every possible situation that could be illegal in NationStates, and doesn't forget to include a single one. We're not going to do that.

And if we did, nobody would read it. Most people don't bother to read the FAQ; I'm not sure how we could expect them to wade through a huge "Criminal Code" and "precedent-setting cases."

In my opinion it's simple to stay on the right side of moderators: you use your common sense to avoid breaking the site rules, and if you think you might be sailing close to the wind with something, you ask a mod before you do it. If you take a chance and cop an official warning, you know you'd better be more careful in the future.

- that moderators give greater consideration to circumstance when making judgements
Circumstances are never the same, at least in somebody's eyes. For example, quite a lot of people protest that they share a computer with a sibling and they both want UN nations. We can't tell how many different people use a computer, so it is impossible to allow this without also allowing every player in the game to have multiple UN nations, which would destroy an integral part of NS gameplay. However, from the player's perspective, we are simply not being fair: we are failing to take into account their individual circumstances.

- that three moderators be semi-elected by players. This means that moderators will, with input from players, create a list of suitable candidates. Players will then select one moderator from this list.
This is a nice concept, but I don't see how it could work in practice. I presume by "elected" you mean "create a thread and whoever happens to see it can vote in it." This would give us a vote that is decided by about 1% of the NationStates player base, and highly subject to bias from a motivated voting bloc.

A game-wide vote, on the other hand, would result in most players choosing amongst three potential moderators they've never heard of.

Also, a player's popularity is not necessarily a good indication of how effective a moderator they'd be.

- the creation of three directly elected "player representatives", who task is to participate in moderator reviews held at the modcenter. These representatives will not have moderation abilities and will not have access to OPSEC. We believe that these representatives will increase honesty and transparency in the moderation process.
Another nice concept with some practical difficulties. First there's the issue of how exactly such people are elected. Then, what do I do when someone posts a thread about the corrupt Player Representatives who won't take their particular problem to the moderator review?

In principle, I quite like the idea of players being able to periodically take a small number of issues that trouble them in particular, and get a more comprehensive mod response on them -- it would clear up quite a few issues and misunderstandings, I'm sure. But I'm unclear on how it could work.

- the holding of "public consultation exercises" to seek player opinion on important issues, and attempts by all parties (moderators, players, administrators) to reach a general consensus on these issues. However, shall a consensus fail to be reached, moderators and administrators will still have the right to final judgement.
This already happens, as far as is practical. Moderators regularly consult with and take feedback from players, in both IRC and the forums, on a range of issues.

But there is, of course, no such thing as a "consensus" in a game with almost 100,000 unique players. In the end, we have to use our own judgement as to what is best for the game.

- the creation of an official "People's Choice" Moderator award
You are welcome to do this unofficially. I don't see how it can be an official award unless I or a moderator runs it, in which case it would be howled down by calls of bias.

- an official, in-depth study on how to improve the friendliness and courtesy of moderators ("sensitivity training" for moderators)
This is silly.

We also believe that deletion, DOS or IP bans are not simply a matter between moderators and the player being deleted or banned: saying so is like saying that killing a man does not affect his family.
Well, first, I don't think most players would take kindly to moderators telling everyone about their case. We tend to keep it private (unless the player starts talking about it) because it's usually nobody else's business.

Second, to correct your analogy, the man you're talking about being "killed" is a convicted murderer, and he's being executed by the State. His family's feelings are not the most important thing. When a player receives a DOS (Delete on Sight order) or IP ban, it's because that player has repeatedly and wantonly broken site rules. We don't IP ban or DOS someone for fun; such things require messing around to set up and vigilance to maintain. We do it reluctantly and only when it is required to protect the rest of the site.

- that moderators, when considering or reviewing a DOS or IP ban, give a "second chance" to those who have sincerely displayed a sense of remorse for their actions. Moderators should also take into consideration the words of those who speak out in favour or against a ban.
It's a little misleading to use the phrase "second chance," since in many cases these players would already have received more than one official warning, and often more than one official deletion. In the remainder, they have committed an offense so grievous that it's very clear we don't want this person on our site ever again.

In the past, we have removed DOS orders and IP bans from nations after a suitable length of time has passed. Sometimes this works out. Other times, players have written heartfelt letters of apology only to erupt with vitriol again later. The lengths some of these people go to to be allowed back on the site, and the lies they tell, beggars belief. Honestly, it can taint your view of human nature. The unfortunate result is we now tend to view apologies with some cynicism.

Also, if you've come to our site, created an account, and spammed our forum with pornography, I really don't care how sorry you say you are afterward. (And yes, this has happened more than once.) You can just get the hell off NationStates. I don't want to take the chance that you'll lose control of yourself sometime in the future; why should I?

- an official review of current warning/deletion procedures, with input from users, and taking into consideration site dynamics
What is a "review"? If you have a particular suggestion for improving the warning/deletion process, just suggest it.

- allowing links to non-offensive material on sites that also host offensive material (e.g eBaums World), provided that a warning stating this fact is included in the link.
- relaxing the total ban on word games. Instead, an "Official Word Games Thread" will be created and stickied. This will be the only word games thread allowed on the NS forums.
- allowing thread trends: let "the market" decide the topic of the day
- treating parodies as parodies: judge them to a lower threshold.
Many of these sound reasonable to me. Some moderator rulings on what was and wasn't spam were made back on the old forum, which was barely functional due to high demand and lagged by spam-ish posts and threads. I defer to the mods' decision here. We do want to allow whimsical threads, but this must be balanced; nobody wants the forum's more sensible topics crowded out by them.

Although we realize that this is an utopian and almost impossible goal, it does not mean that we cannot strive in that direction.
Very true. But we should also recognize that this site's moderators kick so much ass it's not funny, and without them it wouldn't be running at all. They do a tremendous job that goes largely unappreciated, and deserve more credit than most people give them.

sandpit, you also want the mods to throw around wild accusations, then throw away the evidence before anyone can verify it, while they said they would save it and let someone verify it? :p :rolleyes:

Had to demonstrate that they like the place as it is and willing to kiss alot of a$$.I guess you must be green with envy that we like the Moderators donkey so much better then yours.

...

I also found it interesting that this was duplicate posted in General. Might I suggest they get merged ? I would not think it all that special enough to be granted special rights all of a sudden. If it was so important for Moderation Staff to read it, it could have been mailed to [violet] or Salusa with a request for it to be made available to Moderation rather then risk having debate on a " controversial issue " ( I'm being very nice when I say it that way, mind you. ) while being posted only on General.

That way, this Forum would have one more free slot for an user with an actual, immediate problem that needs fixing rather then a touchy feely statement of intent by a " clique " from inside a particular forum pasted up twice over now.

We all know that Mods aren't obliged to be any more friendly or nice than they want to be. But wouldn't it be nice if they were friendlier?
No, actually, I don't think it would be. How can you judge? For all anyone knows (At least, we who don't know the mods in the three dimensional world) Cogitation, Hack, Myrth etc. could be as absolutely friendly as they can be without exploding into fireworks. This whole "more friendly" thing is just too silly.

And certainly friendlier mods increases general goodwill on NS, which will decrease the amount of moderation needed.

Uh huh. Sure it will. Or it will increase the number of people who think they can take advantage of said mods. Maybe I'm just a cynic.

As for the part about being paid, it reflects a serious problem in our society: "it's all about money". You should be nice to everyone, and money should play no part in that.

Again, that magic word..."should." I can tell you, however, that working in customer service, after 8 hours of being nice to people, (and being nice to people who don't give a flying monkey's ass if you're nice to them or not) you tend to want to stab yourself in the eyeball with a dull pencil. Yes, people should be nice to people without thinking about it. But I will tell you, money helps.

Anyway, I see [violet] has already written a response. You can't get any more official than that, so I'll take my leave of this thread. :)

We all know that Mods aren't obliged to be any more friendly or nice than they want to be.

I don't want the mods to be my friends or be nice to me when I break the rules. Why would you want cops to be nice to criminals? Same metaphor.

You really think "goodwill" is going to decrease Moderation requests? I doubt it. You realize that there's more to NS than the forums... right? Do you realize how many in-game requests the moderator's get in a day? I don't think you do, I've said it before, and I said it again... you and the union do not understand how this game is played, and therefore, you're opinions really are invalid to the entirety of NationStates and moderation.

Most of the members of the NSRP/NS Local are rulebreakers with grudges against the Moderation team for simply doing their job as the rules line them out to be now. I see this "movement" as a joke, as I know many do, and I see nothing coming of it.

Errrrmm.....no. I have never broken a rule in my time on NS (to my knowledge, apart from one time when I submitted a bad proposal), hold no grudge against the mods (more like the opposite....for a start, why would I hold a grudge against them).

I just want to get a few things straight:

Certain parts of the platform aren't the views of all members....certain parts I disagree with, for one. They are only PROPOSALS....we [hope to] act as merely a thinktank, and if you think that we think that the moderators act wrong etc., then you'd be wrong....we are throwing around ideas as to how things could be different.

So we'#re hardly raving reform lunatics, far from it. And some of our ideas are already being discussed by the mods, for example the idea of a general social thread.

And some of our ideas are already being discussed by the mods, for example the idea of a general social thread.
Clarification/Update: This idea was already denied on the grounds that socialization is already allowed in "General" so long as you're not hijacking other threads to do it.

--The Modified Democratic States of Cogitation

Very well. However, the very fact that it was taken up in the first place shows that this isn't something with no foundations.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=405754

Should the above thread be merged with this one, given that it's on exactly the same topic? Pwease, Coggy? :)

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=405754

Should the above thread be merged with this one, given that it's on exactly the same topic? Pwease, Coggy? :)
Normally, I would merge threads; I thought about this very question at the time I locked that topic, but decided against it. I want [violet]'s response to be as close to the start of this thread as possible and a merge would place a lot of other posts ahead of [violet]'s post, so I'm not going to merge in this case.

Merely linking to that topic should suffice.

--The Modified Democratic States of Cogitation
NationStates Game Moderator

if it aint broke dont fix it. :headbang: :headbang:

']Interesting post. :)

First I'd like to congratulate you on presenting a well-thought out plan, with actual ideas for improving the site. Thank you for it.

I thank you too, [violet], for appreciating our ideas, and for taking the time to post a detailed plank-by-plank analysis.

Mods are friendly and courteous, and have good senses of humor, too. Unless you repeatedly spam the forum or call your nation "Kill All Jewz" or create half a dozen UN nations that all endorse each other, in which case they become less friendly, compassionate, and tolerant. I have seen the odd occasion in which a mod loses his/her cool and responds more aggressively than he/she should, but no more than any rational human being would in their place, so I don't think we have a problem here.

Yes, I have received feedback that this wasn't the best introductory blurb, but it was all I could think of.

Yet your group contains members I would find it hard to describe as anything else. One or two have taken extraordinary steps to disrupt NationStates, which required extraordinary steps from moderators and/or me to shut them down. Welcoming them back is not the kind of tolerance I want for this site.

I admit, this is a liability for the movement.


No doubt, but when a moderator is more tolerant of a griefer, and this person offends again, who benefits? Not the players, who are on the receiving end of a spammed region or flamebait thread; not the moderator, who has to clean up; only the griefer.

A very small number of committed trouble-makers can take up enormous amounts of moderator time. I am certainly interested in exploring ways to make NationStates moderation more effective, but I don't believe that giving even more leeway to such people is the way to do it.

Again, that wasn't the best introductory blurb possible.

Many players, including ourselves are also interested in making NS moderation more effective. I sincerely hope that you, and the admin/mod team, will take our ideas into consideration. I also sincerely hope that you and the team will be appreciative of our ideas, regardless of what you think of them.

Personally, I believe that "more effective moderation" means:

- more moderators
- in the case of flaming, a shift of focus from punishing flamers to preventing flaming and encouraging those involved in flaming to resolve their differences
- greater user involvement in the moderation process
- reaching out to users: the draconian image is not healthy

More moderators is not necessarily more effective. A smaller group means it's easier for everyone to communicate, and stay on the same page. A larger group, on the other hand, means a larger security risk: a higher chance that we'll get a moderator who acts against the best interests of the site.

That aside, I don't see how specifying absolute numbers of moderators will mean anything. Sometimes one mod will be performing ten times as much work as another -- it all depends on how much time various people have.

If the mods feel there's a need for more help, they say so; and if I thought the list of Help Requests was getting out of hand, I would suggest we appoint more. But neither is the case right now. Adding five moderators, as you propose, would be largely pointless as there wouldn't be much for them to do.

More moderators mean a wider diversity of opinions, more reflective of player opinion at large. More moderators will also decrease workload. But of course, you will be more familiar with this than I am: I don't have access to insider information.

And of course, the problem is not so much as more moderators as finding quality candidates

Well, this would be lovely, but where are we to obtain these Perl gurus willing to write code for free and never abuse the system access they are given?

I saw a few offers to help code NS2, which was curtly (in my opinion) turned down because Jolt has the coders. Of course, I couldn't guarantee that they're quality candidates, but at least you could have looked at their resume? And perhaps be a bit appreciative of their help?

After this, I became convinced that there are players hidden out there who would make quality candidates for game admin.

This I completely oppose. I will not create a NationStates sub-game where the aim is to outwit moderators by discovering clever loopholes in precedents and case law.

The fact is NationStates has a very simple set of rules, as outlined in the "Etiquette" section of the game FAQ: you can't post content that is obscene, illegal, threatening, malicious, defamatory, or spam. Because everything is subjective, moderators have made more detailed rulings about what constitutes spam, or what makes a post malicious flamebait, etc. For most people these aren't necessary, but for some they help. For some others, they are still not enough: they want more detailed explanations of each of those posts, and when they get that, they want further clarifications, and so on. The only truly comprehensive solution is a massive compendium that describes every possible situation that could be illegal in NationStates, and doesn't forget to include a single one. We're not going to do that.

And if we did, nobody would read it. Most people don't bother to read the FAQ; I'm not sure how we could expect them to wade through a huge "Criminal Code" and "precedent-setting cases."

For the record, this is actually a refinement of an idea originally proposed by former moderator Stephistan. From my experience, it is also the plank which has the most support from players.

Like you said, for some, it helps. Also, in my opinion, it's unfair that moderators have a easy record of every judgement made which they can use to rule against a player, but players don't have this easy record to use in an appeal.

In my opinion it's simple to stay on the right side of moderators: you use your common sense to avoid breaking the site rules, and if you think you might be sailing close to the wind with something, you ask a mod before you do it. If you take a chance and cop an official warning, you know you'd better be more careful in the future.

In my opinion, that's like taking the Ten Commandments and Golden Rule and saying that's all the law a country needs.

Circumstances are never the same, at least in somebody's eyes. For example, quite a lot of people protest that they share a computer with a sibling and they both want UN nations. We can't tell how many different people use a computer, so it is impossible to allow this without also allowing every player in the game to have multiple UN nations, which would destroy an integral part of NS gameplay. However, from the player's perspective, we are simply not being fair: we are failing to take into account their individual circumstances.

I'm not talking abouit UN multies. I'm really talking about things such as the corcumstances where countries are deleted, for example. All I hope are less Draconian mods.

This is a nice concept, but I don't see how it could work in practice. I presume by "elected" you mean "create a thread and whoever happens to see it can vote in it." This would give us a vote that is decided by about 1% of the NationStates player base, and highly subject to bias from a motivated voting bloc.

A game-wide vote, on the other hand, would result in most players choosing amongst three potential moderators they've never heard of.

Also, a player's popularity is not necessarily a good indication of how effective a moderator they'd be.

Certainly this bloc would be larger than 18 mods and admin, and the fact that candidates are chosen by current mods/admin means that quality is assured. There will probably be little, if any difference in the candidates chosen: this will be a largely symbolic move, but we can all claim that Nationstates involves its users in the moderator selection process and is therefore user-friendly. Some are concerned about bureaucracy, but I don't see how one extra thread and one extra week will hurt much.

Another nice concept with some practical difficulties. First there's the issue of how exactly such people are elected. Then, what do I do when someone posts a thread about the corrupt Player Representatives who won't take their particular problem to the moderator review?

In principle, I quite like the idea of players being able to periodically take a small number of issues that trouble them in particular, and get a more comprehensive mod response on them -- it would clear up quite a few issues and misunderstandings, I'm sure. But I'm unclear on how it could work.

This is not my idea: it's a refinement of a proposal to have "civilian overseers just like they do in the millitary".

This already happens, as far as is practical. Moderators regularly consult with and take feedback from players, in both IRC and the forums, on a range of issues.

But there is, of course, no such thing as a "consensus" in a game with almost 100,000 unique players. In the end, we have to use our own judgement as to what is best for the game.

Yes it already happens, but sometimes it feels as if mods/admin do not take our ideas into consideration, or that they're not appreciative of our ideas. I hope that this is not true, and hopefully our concerns will be reduced somewhat if player representatives are implemented.

As for consensus, you could at least try...


You are welcome to do this unofficially. I don't see how it can be an official award unless I or a moderator runs it, in which case it would be howled down by calls of bias.

Again, it's not my idea,but something proposed down in the Union. I suppose that people will be more willing to participate in it if it is official, though.

This is silly.

Come to think of it, it is silly. Still, I value friendliness and courtesy. NS would be a better place if moderators were friendlier and more courteous to players. NS would be a better place if players were friendlier and more courteous to other players. The world would be a much better place if people were just a bit more friendlier and more courteous to everyone else.

Some are concerned that friendlier and more courteous mods means lax mods, but most often, it only means rephrasing what you're saying to make them less curt.

Well, first, I don't think most players would take kindly to moderators telling everyone about their case. We tend to keep it private (unless the player starts talking about it) because it's usually nobody else's business.

Second, to correct your analogy, the man you're talking about being "killed" is a convicted murderer, and he's being executed by the State. His family's feelings are not the most important thing. When a player receives a DOS (Delete on Sight order) or IP ban, it's because that player has repeatedly and wantonly broken site rules. We don't IP ban or DOS someone for fun; such things require messing around to set up and vigilance to maintain. We do it reluctantly and only when it is required to protect the rest of the site.

It's a little misleading to use the phrase "second chance," since in many cases these players would already have received more than one official warning, and often more than one official deletion. In the remainder, they have committed an offense so grievous that it's very clear we don't want this person on our site ever again.

Actually, I also mean regular deletion, but forgot to add it in to the platform. Sometimes the mods appear Draconian. Of course, without the NS Legal Library, it's difficult to offer links to support this (or anything I say, for that matter).

In the past, we have removed DOS orders and IP bans from nations after a suitable length of time has passed. Sometimes this works out. Other times, players have written heartfelt letters of apology only to erupt with vitriol again later. The lengths some of these people go to to be allowed back on the site, and the lies they tell, beggars belief. Honestly, it can taint your view of human nature. The unfortunate result is we now tend to view apologies with some cynicism.

My view of human nature is tainted after reading this: it's very unfortunate.

Also, if you've come to our site, created an account, and spammed our forum with pornography, I really don't care how sorry you say you are afterward. (And yes, this has happened more than once.) You can just get the hell off NationStates. I don't want to take the chance that you'll lose control of yourself sometime in the future; why should I?

Well, you did say that you sometimes remove DOS/IP bans after a suitable length of time. It is my hope that it'll work out more often, so you'll do it more often. Compassion and tolerance are virtues: plus, it's the nice thing to do.

What is a "review"? If you have a particular suggestion for improving the warning/deletion process, just suggest it.

A "review" is a moderator review (hopefully with player representatives) and mods actively soliciting suggestions from players.

Many of these sound reasonable to me. Some moderator rulings on what was and wasn't spam were made back on the old forum, which was barely functional due to high demand and lagged by spam-ish posts and threads. I defer to the mods' decision here. We do want to allow whimsical threads, but this must be balanced; nobody wants the forum's more sensible topics crowded out by them.

Thank you. I can propose more suggestions if we had the legal library. Although I stand by my suggestions, I perfer to leave the decision of what is fair and sensible to consensus, as far as is practical.

Very true. But we should also recognize that this site's moderators kick so much ass it's not funny, and without them it wouldn't be running at all. They do a tremendous job that goes largely unappreciated, and deserve more credit than most people give them.

You are Max, aren't you? :)

This statement needs to be taken into context. To reiterate, all I hope for here is that all members of NS (players, moderators, administrators):

- Be nice, Be considerate, think critically
- discuss with others regarding how to do so
- teach others to do so

Because NS would be so much better if everyone did that.

Personally, I believe that "more effective moderation" means:

- more moderators
- in the case of flaming, a shift of focus from punishing flamers to preventing flaming and encouraging those involved in flaming to resolve their differences
- greater user involvement in the moderation process
- reaching out to users: the draconian image is not healthy

Just who are you trying to make NS nicer for?
The average user? Rule breakers? Who?
So they act nicer and don't gort people for being asses as quickly as before. But wait, now these people are sticking around longer and still being asses. The rule breakers get a pass and the people that are actually trying to get by within the rules get the shaft.
It's a system of give and take, you shift from punishing rule breakers to "reform" and now they stick around longer and decrease the overall "niceness" for others. And don't feed us this afterschool special junk about "goodwill spreads like wildfire".


More moderators mean a wider diversity of opinions, more reflective of player opinion at large. More moderators will also decrease workload. But of course, you will be more familiar with this than I am: I don't have access to insider information.

This is likely true, but, an increase in the number and diversity of mods leads to greater inconsistancy in moderation.


Also, in my opinion, it's unfair that moderators have a easy record of every judgement made which they can use to rule against a player, but players don't have this easy record to use in an appeal.

What exactly is unfair here. You're responsible for your own actions and frankly the moderators shouldn't have to track your own behavior for you. If you can't keep track of your own behavior, then perhaps you shouldn't play.


I'm really talking about things such as the corcumstances where countries are deleted, for example. All I hope are less Draconian mods.
First, country deletions don't seem to be all that common.
Second, country deletions are hardly draconic.
So someone deleted your country, big deal. If you're not IP banned or DOS you can still play the game.


This is not my idea: it's a refinement of a proposal to have "civilian overseers just like they do in the millitary".
Civilian oversite works just fine for the military as, ultimately, the military works for the general populace and is indeed "owned" by the people.

However, this is a privately owned game.
Say it with me "Privately owned."
Furthermore you don't even pay for it. So why exactly should we as players get a say in the direction of a privately owned game. Please something more concrete than "Cuz its nice"



Yes it already happens, but sometimes it feels as if mods/admin do not take our ideas into consideration, or that they're not appreciative of our ideas. I hope that this is not true, and hopefully our concerns will be reduced somewhat if player representatives are implemented.
Again, it's not your game. They don't need to listen to any of your suggestions. As it is, the owner's been kind enough to do so (and continues to do so to my knowledge) so I don't see where the problem is.
And frankly just because a mod doesn't go "Oh gee golly guys that's a fantastic idea" doesn't mean they're not listening.


This statement needs to be taken into context. To reiterate, all I hope for here is that all members of NS (players, moderators, administrators):

- Be nice, Be considerate, think critically
- discuss with others regarding how to do so
- teach others to do so

Because NS would be so much better if everyone did that.
Yeah it would be better, but until the general populace adheres to this, I think curt mods are the least of our concerns.

See, thing is I've watched how a lot of this stuff plays out for ages now, and I think you've got your focus all wrong. (yeah, I've had other nations, but I like to experiment to keep things interesting with the issues and easter egg hunting and all that)

We got mods because players couldn't be assed to handle themselves, right? It's players what break the rules and make the fuss. It's players what go out of their way to be rude and push boundaries and see how much they can get away with. It's players fussing with other players what's causing problems more often than anything I see mods doing. And you think all we need to do is make the mods be nicer or show a kinder, gentler moderation team and things will be all hunky dory?

Whatever it is you've been smoking, pass it around, friend. Though I think it's mucking with your ability to read a lot of [violet]'s reply to you. You rehashed and kind of ignored the answers while harping on with 'NICER!!!'.

Read moderation, man. These guys put up with assloads of stuff all the time in here, what with insults and all sorts of rubbish that other players go apeshit over when it happens to them. They try all the time to get people to 'resolve their differences' themselves. If it was that easy, wouldn't be so much fuss on the forums.

And the whole thing on being more involved in moderation processes. What in hell do you think this whole forum is for? Get involved all you want. I don't see them stopping you or anyone else so long as you keep it civil. Just what you're pushing for, right? Nice? So start with your own stuff, and your own group. You say it spreads? Great! Start spreading. Lets see how serious players are about all the snuggley land of lollies and rainbows and such before we tell the mods to weld on some rose colored glasses and start smiling bigger.

- more moderatorsThis was already addressed by [violet]. Mentioning it again doesn't explain why, nor does it address [violet]'s points.

- in the case of flaming, a shift of focus from punishing flamers to preventing flaming and encouraging those involved in flaming to resolve their differences"Preventing flaming"? How, pray tell, are we supposed to do this? Perhaps you haven't noticed, but we do tell people when they're getting close to getting a warning and that they should calm down. It doesn't work.

- greater user involvement in the moderation processSaying the same thing over and over without giving supporting arguments doesn't help your position. And, as mentioned before, why Player X got deleted is none of your business.

- reaching out to users: the draconian image is not healthyAgain, you're giving talking points. This isn't a presidental debate, you need substance.

But of course, you will be more familiar with this than I am: I don't have access to insider information.Yes, we are.

I saw a few offers to help code NS2, which was curtly (in my opinion) turned down because Jolt has the coders. Of course, I couldn't guarantee that they're quality candidates, but at least you could have looked at their resume? And perhaps be a bit appreciative of their help?See, there's this thing called "trust". A grand total of one (1) player has been given access to the game code.

For the record, this is actually a refinement of an idea originally proposed by former moderator Stephistan.Appeal to Authority really doesn't work when talking to the site's primary Admin...

Certainly this bloc would be larger than 18 mods and admin, and the fact that candidates are chosen by current mods/admin means that quality is assured. There will probably be little, if any difference in the candidates chosen: this will be a largely symbolic moveWhich is a nice way of saying "Utterly worthless". Look at it from the canidates' point of view for a moment...

Mods: "Okay, we have five canidates that we think would be excellent Mods. Players? What do you think?"
Players: "We like Nation A!"
Mods: "Right. Nation A, you're a new mod. Everyone else? You're a perfect canidate, and if it was up to us, you'd be mods. But, the players don't like you, so better luck next time."

Talk about insulting. If we find 5 canidates worthy of being a Mod, we'll Mod them. I'm not about to tell a qualified canidate that they have to sit back down just because the players don't like them.

[...] but we can all claim that Nationstates involves its users in the moderator selection process and is therefore user-friendly.Strange definition. Most people would consider NationStates to be more user friendly if we cracked down harder on disruptive players.

Some are concerned about bureaucracy, but I don't see how one extra thread [Fav Mod Thread] and one extra week will hurt much.It would accomplish... what?

Players: "We like Cog the best!"
Me: "That's nice."

As for consensus, you could at least try...You're doing a good job of suggesting a lot of work for people who aren't you...

The world would be a much better place if people were just a bit more friendlier and more courteous to everyone else."If wishes were horses, beggars would ride."

Actually, I also mean regular deletion, but forgot to add it in to the platform. Sometimes the mods appear Draconian. Of course, without the NS Legal Library, it's difficult to offer links to support this (or anything I say, for that matter)....as opposed to doing a little leg work on your own?

Compassion and tolerance are virtues: plus, it's the nice thing to do.So is selling all your posessions and giving it to charity before joining the Peace Corps for life.

Ummm...Personally, I believe that "more effective moderation" means:[...]- reaching out to users: the draconian image is not healthyOdd. I, as well as, uh, approximately 30 or 40 other 'normal' users (Minimum) happen to have conversations with moderators on a daily basis on irc. Normal, friendly conversation or discussions about... A lot of things. Oddly enough, I never noticed the 'draconian image'. Personally, I think it sounds like a little piece of, well, propaganda by DoS players/ their non- DoS friends (DecA comes to mind) And I might note that given this daily, nonmoderation business conversations, I reaaally don't think there is a lack of 'reaching out to users', and I'm not even counting in the activity of, say, Katganistan, Myrth or Cogitation in the general forum.

It's quite odd, but not going against the Terms of Service and not suffering 'Fear of the Mod' (tm) works quite well when you want to see a human, rather than a draconian image...

Come to think of it, it is silly. Still, I value friendliness and courtesy. NS would be a better place if moderators were friendlier and more courteous to players. NS would be a better place if players were friendlier and more courteous to other players. The world would be a much better place if people were just a bit more friendlier and more courteous to everyone else.Given that moderators were introduced in June 2003 (http://www.nationstates.net/news/2003/06/06/index.html#moderators) because this principle didn't work, this does sound a little... Wishful. Not to mention that personally, I never noticed any lack of courtesy on their side... If anything, it lacked from my side (Towards other players). But maybe that's because unlike a good chunk of the people your opinion is based on (You know, the DoS cases in your forum) I didn't do something odd that made the moderation staff feel... Less friendly towards me... I dunno, perhaps it had something to do with the rules and respecting them?

Many players, including ourselves are also interested in making NS moderation more effective. I sincerely hope that you, and the admin/mod team, will take our ideas into consideration. I also sincerely hope that you and the team will be appreciative of our ideas, regardless of what you think of them.

How is it possible to appreciate a bad idea?

Personally, I believe that "more effective moderation" means:

- more moderators.

See below. More moderators does not necessarily mean more good moderators, and also it's somewhat debatable if we really need more moderators.

- in the case of flaming, a shift of focus from punishing flamers to preventing flaming and encouraging those involved in flaming to resolve their differences

If people could resolve their differences without our intervention there would be no moderation staff. It is only when players believe they cannot resolve their differences that they come to us to intervene and sort things out.

Are you seriously suggesting that we stop punishing players for violating the terms and conditions the admin set for using this forum?

- greater user involvement in the moderation process

Justify this. Why would it be a good thing? No hypothetical nonsense or talk about 'empowerment,' tell us what players who are not moderators can offer us that they do not already offer us by posting in the Moderation forum.

- reaching out to users: the draconian image is not healthy

Meaningless. This is not politics and image counts for nothing, moderation is about results.

More moderators mean a wider diversity of opinions, more reflective of player opinion at large. More moderators will also decrease workload.

More moderators also increases the risk of bad / unsuitable candidates, internal disagreements and attendant corruption allegations. Investigating such charges would create more workload for the rest of us, not less.

After this, I became convinced that there are players hidden out there who would make quality candidates for game admin.

Explain why you believe we need more than two Game Admins.

For the record, this is actually a refinement of an idea originally proposed by former moderator Stephistan. From my experience, it is also the plank which has the most support from players.

Appeal to authority and appeal to popularity. Neither of these actually provide any useful case for what you're suggesting.

Like you said, for some, it helps. Also, in my opinion, it's unfair that moderators have a easy record of every judgement made which they can use to rule against a player, but players don't have this easy record to use in an appeal.

Are you saying our players have no access to their own memories?

In my opinion, that's like taking the Ten Commandments and Golden Rule and saying that's all the law a country needs.

False analogy. A country is a hugely complex entity with a vast number of possible contingencies to plan for; this is a web forum with a very finite number of possible bad actions. If you feel we need more 'laws' than those explained in the FAQ, explain what they are and why we need them.

Also, stop saying 'in my opinion.' We know it's your opinion, who else's would it be?

I'm not talking abouit UN multies. I'm really talking about things such as the corcumstances where countries are deleted, for example. All I hope are less Draconian mods.

That is the business of the player of that nation and the moderation staff, should that player decide to make the reason public for debate there is a forum [this one] for them to do so. All of your arguments about matters of public record assume that the moderation forum doesn't exist!

Also, thanks for calling us all Draconian. You know the Draconian code was praised for it's impartiality, right?

Certainly this bloc would be larger than 18 mods and admin, and the fact that candidates are chosen by current mods/admin means that quality is assured. There will probably be little, if any difference in the candidates chosen: this will be a largely symbolic move, but we can all claim that Nationstates involves its users in the moderator selection process and is therefore user-friendly.

Symbolic moves are nice for politicians who don't realise everyone can see them for the lie they are. We don't care what a system allows us to claim as long as it works, and you yourself have just admitted that this move will be a worthless exercise in PR that will do nothing but slow down the selection process.

This is not my idea: it's a refinement of a proposal to have "civilian overseers just like they do in the millitary".

A view you couldn't defend when challenged on IRC over it. Recall, your 'overseer' has no power of their own, nobody to report to if the moderators really are corrupt and if they have any real power can use it to blackmail the moderation staff with threats of false reports if they are corrupt. An extra layer of useless bureaucracy would merely make our jobs more difficult.

Yes it already happens, but sometimes it feels as if mods/admin do not take our ideas into consideration, or that they're not appreciative of our ideas.

You seriously want us to care how the site's moderation process feels to people? Moderation is all about function over form, if it is effective and gets the job done, it can be as ugly as the devil.

I hope that this is not true, and hopefully our concerns will be reduced somewhat if player representatives are implemented.

In other words, you want us to implement player ideas just to make ourselves look better in your eyes, regardless of the quality of those suggestions or their practicality? It's that kind of senseless style-over-substance thinking that's ruining the democratic process in the real world.

Again, it's not my idea,but something proposed down in the Union. I suppose that people will be more willing to participate in it if it is official, though.

You have just been told that it will be useless if run officially by one of the Game Admins. In addition, the most popular moderator is not necessarily going to be the best one because modding involves kicking serious ass and people don't like having their ass kicked.

What's the point of it, anyway? Personally, my ego doesn't need to be stroked by having a thread waxing poetic about how wonderful I am. Which is lucky, because I'm a complete tool and nobody would make one anyway. =^_^=

Come to think of it, it is silly. Still, I value friendliness and courtesy. NS would be a better place if moderators were friendlier and more courteous to players.

Shall we shine your shoes while we're at it, noble and honoured master?

NS would be a better place if players were friendlier and more courteous to other players. The world would be a much better place if people were just a bit more friendlier and more courteous to everyone else.

'Wouldn't it be nice if everyone was nice.' Well, yes it would, but everyone isn't nice. Crack open a history book and look at what happened to nations in the past that tried to see the good in people rather than being prepared for the badasses. Try looking for the word 'annexed.'

Some are concerned that friendlier and more courteous mods means lax mods, but most often, it only means rephrasing what you're saying to make them less curt.

Style over substance fallacy. The content matters, not whether you feel warm and fuzzy afterwards. As long as the moderation staff do not themselves violate the forum rules for post content, they are allowed to be as curt or polite as they wish to be, just like any other player is.

Actually, I also mean regular deletion, but forgot to add it in to the platform. Sometimes the mods appear Draconian.

Appearances are irrelevant. The asshole who tells you 'your shoelace is untied, dumbass' on a cliff-edge will save your life, the 'nice' guy who doesn't to spare you the embarrassment will get you killed. Substance is everything and presentation is nothing, provided the mods' posts do not violate the flaming rules. Also, stop waving 'Draconian' around like it's some kind of insult, extremely harsh laws can still be justified by extreme situations.

My view of human nature is tainted after reading this: it's very unfortunate.

You poor thing.

Well, you did say that you sometimes remove DOS/IP bans after a suitable length of time. It is my hope that it'll work out more often, so you'll do it more often. Compassion and tolerance are virtues: plus, it's the nice thing to do.

Yes, let's be nice to people who've violated the rules so persistently or badly that we've had to totally remove their access to the site for it. As [violet] stated, why would we want these people back? Gullibility is not a virtue.

A "review" is a moderator review (hopefully with player representatives) and mods actively soliciting suggestions from players.

Like...Having a whole forum ( http://forums.jolt.co.uk/forumdisplay.php?f=1231) on the site for just that purpose?

Although I stand by my suggestions, I perfer to leave the decision of what is fair and sensible to consensus, as far as is practical.

Another appeal to popularity. The fact that a large number of people think something doesn't mean that it's actually a good idea.

- discuss with others regarding how to ['- Be nice, Be considerate, think critically']

Discuss how to be nice? I know how, and I assume anyone with functioning brain cells does too. Whether they chose to act on that knowledge and be nice is the issue here, not whether they are aware of how to do so.

- teach others to do so

As said, they already know but choose not to.

Because NS would be so much better if everyone did that.

Why?

You need to add a hell of a lot more substance rather than just waving your hands and saying how if everyone was nice to everyone else everything would be wonderful. Newsflash: if everyone was nice to everyone else NS would never have had a moderation staff created in the first place. It is totally invalid to base your argument on the principle that everyone will wake up and find Jesus dancing in their desk drawer.

The first rule is that People Are Assholes

They don't need a reason, explaining things to them will not work because some people are just stubborn, bloody-minded assholes. Someone who posts goatse pics with bot-registered nations constantly for hours at a time is not going to suddenly say 'oh, sorry, I'll be good' just because we explain to them that it's nasty and gross and makes our tummies turn, or because other posters think it's icky. They know, that's why they do it in the first place!

There are a lot of people we deal with who we know will never make a positive contribution to Nationstates no matter how many chances they are given, and so these people are banned. In cases where this ban is permanent, it is so because they were persistent enough in their rule violations that we know they would only do the same things they were banned for again if they did come back again.

There is no reasoning with some people. That is a cast-iron fact.

GMC Military Arms
Nationstates Moderation Staff
Excessive Engineering Division
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v453/GMCMA/Other%20stuff/Scinfaxi-small.jpg

- in the case of flaming, a shift of focus from punishing flamers to preventing flaming and encouraging those involved in flaming to resolve their differences.


How could the mods prevent flaming, other than warning people when they start resorting to ad homineum? As Smokey the NSer says, only YOU can prevent forum fires.

The fact is, deletion is necessary in some cases. Some people, no matter how many times they're warned or encouraged to hug and be friends, will still flame.

After thinking long and hard, I realized that Praetoria was right.

I still stand by everything that I said, but my focus was wrong. We should create a friendlier NS before implementing changes to moderation policy, and not the other way around as I was saying before.

I've read other posts that express a desire to "clean up" General, a desire for more efficient moderation. Yes, mods should continue to punish rulebreakers, but we should not just sit there and hope for the mods to crack down on rulebreakers and spam. We, as players, should also do something. We should all take it upon ourselves to clean up General. I have heard cases where flamers made up and were not punished as a result. While it would be unrealistic to expect that that will happen everytime there is flaming, hopefully, we can encourage that to happen more often.

I hope that we, as players, can take on the role of "arbitrators" and "love ambassadors" more often. I hope that we can create more displays of friendliness and courtesy on the forums (lilke the "Pass the Love On" thread). I hope that we can encourage more people to read tips on how to resolve online conflict. You may call me all wishy-washy, but we can at least try... Most importantly, I hope that moderators will not punish us for "impersonating a moderator" or "spamming the forums" if we do choose to take on this role.

As for the "snuggley land of lollies and rainbows" that Praetoria mentioned, I have found it: it's called Paradise Beach.

NS would be a friendlier place if it was more like Paradise Beach.

In light of all of this, I have decided to resign from NS Local 8976. Since I am now the only member of the NSRP to begin with, I declare the NSRP and the NSRA dead. From now on, I will "sit" as a Independent Pro-Reform Player.

I have heard cases where flamers made up and were not punished as a result.
So now you're saying that if somebody says something in the heat of anger, realizes their mistake, and apologies for it with no hard feelings, we still need to bring the Hammer of Mod down on their heads? What does that say about your "love ambassadors" approach to human nature? "Learn from your mistakes, don't learn, we don't care - we'll still slap ya"?

With every post, I'm more and more convinced that you have absolutely no idea what Moderation means, or what it is we actually do. Everything you've suggested seems to involve creating more work for us with no tangible benefits for the forums. Why don't you just leave the whole thing alone, now that you've disbanded your whatever-it-was organization, and let things muddle along like before.


And it's Paradise Club, not Paradise Beach, for Pete's sake. It's been that name for the last 53 iterations, over nearly a year.

I have heard cases where flamers made up and were not punished as a result. While it would be unrealistic to expect that that will happen everytime there is flaming, hopefully, we can encourage that to happen more often.
So now you're saying that if somebody says something in the heat of anger, realizes their mistake, and apologies for it with no hard feelings, we still need to bring the Hammer of Mod down on their heads? What does that say about your "love ambassadors" approach to human nature? "Learn from your mistakes, don't learn, we don't care - we'll still slap ya"?
[Section in green was quoted by Frisbeeteria. Section in blue was not quoted by Frisbeeteria.]

With all due respect, Frisbeeteria, I think you misunderstood Sandpit's post. He's saying that players should be encouraged to resolve their differences and make up while getting Moderators involved as little as possible.

And it's Paradise Club, not Paradise Beach, for Pete's sake. It's been that name for the last 53 iterations, over nearly a year.
Again, with all due respect, I believe that my associate is confused. The repeated threads are called "Paradise Club". There is a region with associated offsite forums called "Paradise Beach", if I remember correctly. Sandpit may be referring to the region and the offsite forum.

--The Modified Democratic States of Cogitation
"Think about it for a moment."

So now you're saying that if somebody says something in the heat of anger, realizes their mistake, and apologies for it with no hard feelings, we still need to bring the Hammer of Mod down on their heads? What does that say about your "love ambassadors" approach to human nature? "Learn from your mistakes, don't learn, we don't care - we'll still slap ya"?

With every post, I'm more and more convinced that you have absolutely no idea what Moderation means, or what it is we actually do. Everything you've suggested seems to involve creating more work for us with no tangible benefits for the forums. Why don't you just leave the whole thing alone, now that you've disbanded your whatever-it-was organization, and let things muddle along like before.


And it's Paradise Club, not Paradise Beach, for Pete's sake. It's been that name for the last 53 iterations, over nearly a year.

I guess you can say that I'm a hippie, Fris.

And I'm talking about Paradise Beach, the region.

Yeah, yeah, Coggy, points made. :D However, I still maintain that ...I have heard cases where flamers made up and were not punished as a result. While it would be unrealistic to expect that that will happen everytime there is flaming, hopefully, we can encourage that to happen more often.... can be interpreted the way I read it as well as the way you did. The bolded that could be either punishment or making up.


Paradise Beach, huh? Isn't that the offsite forum where DoS serial spammers went to live? I can't speak for everyone, but that's not what I'm looking for in NationStates. "Sharing the Love" and fluffle threads don't stretch my mind. Politics, religion, and UN discussions do. Seems to me that's more the purpose of a nation simulation game.

NS would be a friendlier place if it was more like Paradise Beach.

If NS ever becomes like Paradise Beach, I'll kill myself. :rolleyes:

I like it. My older nation was deleted before...apparently I was griefing a region, however all that happened was I voted for the wrong delegate. Little did I know he was going to eject everyone, including myself. Then I was deleted despite about 5 other nations proposing against it and actually telling the mods what happened. I didnt appreciate them going off on my old nation without even bothering to investigate what happened.

If NS ever becomes like Paradise Beach, I'll kill myself. :rolleyes:

Max, [violet] and the rest of us would have gone insane and been committed before NS becomes like Paradise Beach.

We'd have taken up classical flute playing before that happens.

Max, [violet] and the rest of us would have gone insane and been committed before NS becomes like Paradise Beach.

Hehe! I can believe it! ;)

Paradise Beach is a tangible example of what I've been talking about: where everyone is friendly and courteous to everyone else, despite their differences. Where there are little or no problems.

They're like a online hippie commune, and the closest thing we have to a NS utopia.

Nasicournia is also like that to some degree, but they're more of a serious RPing-based region, as opposed to Paradise Beach, which is more of a place to relax, chat, and mellow out.

Unless anyone can tell me otherwise...

And just a clarification: although I have resigned from NS Local 8976, they have not disbanded.

Paradise Beach is a tangible example of what I've been talking about

Good for them.
Too bad this forum is a whole different kettle of fish. You can hardly play a forum with admin validation and a handful of users against an open forum with hundreds/thousands of users.

And just a clarification: although I have resigned from NS Local 8976, they have not disbanded.

Will we retain the forum at PCRA central?

Good for them.
Too bad this forum is a whole different kettle of fish. You can hardly play a forum with admin validation and a handful of users against an open forum with hundreds/thousands of users.

Of course they're different.

What I'm saying is, NS can learn from it's offsite forums. And we can all learn to be friendlier, more courteous, and to mellow out. Seeing a particular post complaning that a thread has been locked...

*shakes head and sighs*

People can learn to be so much politer...
(Update: Some people do know how to calm down. That's wonderful.)

And of course, so much problems can be solved if NS had a spam forum...but that's another story.

Paradise Beach is a tangible example of what I've been talking about: where everyone is friendly and courteous to everyone else, despite their differences.

Oh, really?

Have you been to their forums before InvisionFree told them to delete all the flaming? Have you seen any of the horrible threads they've created saying ghastly things about myself and the moderators?

Yeah, let's let NS be like Paradise Beach then knowing that's what breeds over there... I've been there, you obviously haven't.

And of course, so much problems can be solved if NS had a spam forum...but that's another story.

Jolt has a spam forum, which is just screwed up. Full of people whose only aim is to increase their postcount. A 'social spam' forum may be a good idea, though...

Jolt has a spam forum, which is just screwed up. Full of people whose only aim is to increase their postcount. A 'social spam' forum may be a good idea, though...

Also, the Jolt moderators and administrators don't seem to mind so much the rudeness, flaming and other inappropriate natures of the people who post in the other forums.

What I'm saying is, NS can learn from it's offsite forums. And we can all learn to be friendlier, more courteous, and to mellow out.

Well sadly, until everyone on this forum stops flaming eachother, your little utopian society isn't going to exist. Moderators were appointed for a reason: people just aren't responsible enough to moderate themselves.

And of course, so much problems can be solved if NS had a spam forum...but that's another story.

You mean this (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/forumdisplay.php?f=29) one? There is a spam forum. It is there for people to use. If they don't want to use it that's their problem, not ours.

Oh, really?

Have you been to their forums before InvisionFree told them to delete all the flaming? Have you seen any of the horrible threads they've created saying ghastly things about myself and the moderators?

Yeah, let's let NS be like Paradise Beach then knowing that's what breeds over there... I've been there, you obviously haven't.

That's the conflict between being too serious and mellowing out. When you trying to stop people from relaxing and chatting, obviously they will get agitated.

And what about Nasicournia? We can all learn from Nasicournia, too.

And what about Nasicournia? We can all learn from Nasicournia, too.

Or to be more realistic, we could learn from another forum of a similar size: SomethingAwful. Introducing a $10 fee to sign up and banning accounts without warning for breaking the rules has worked pretty well for them.
You should count yourself lucky that NationStates is as forgiving as it is.

Jolt has a spam forum, which is just screwed up. Full of people whose only aim is to increase their postcount. A 'social spam' forum may be a good idea, though...

Exactly.

In my opinion, the reasons why people don't use the Jolt Spam Forum are:

1) It's degrading to mix "social spam" up with "postcount +1" spam
2) It's obscure: it's not right there on the NS forum page
3) It's not a circle of friends from NS anymore: worse, the others from the Jolt spam forum may not be as friendly and courteous. It's like moving goldfish from their small little pond to the great big ocean. With sharks too.

That's the conflict between being too serious and mellowing out. When you trying to stop people from relaxing and chatting, obviously they will get agitated.

Oh, so, you're saying that it's perfectly acceptable to be made fun of because I'm a lesbian on their off-site forum? That it is a proper way to let off steam? Right... you know, in the real world, that's a mild form of a hate crime... so, basically, you're saying you condone hate crimes just because I don't like spam.

Thanks for bringing that to light, Sandpit, at least we all know where you stand. :rolleyes:

From what I've heard, "our" spammers don't like Jolt's Spam (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/forumdisplay.php?f=29) forum because the spammers there "are too hardcore". If you can't stand the heat ...

Aside from the Spam forum, Jolt also has a Chat (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/forumdisplay.php?f=373) forum. I don't know why more people from here don't use it, as it would seem to be ideal for a lot of them - maybe, as you've suggested, it's not visible enough. Feel free to link to it in your sig or something.

As for your number three, well, isn't it good to get outside one's little clique, meet new faces? There might be wonderful friendly people over in Chat or Spam who you've never met.

But I don't think that replicating either of those in the NS section is a valid idea, since there are already forums for them elsewhere.

~ Tsar the Mod.

There is also a Jolt "Serious Discussions Forum" Why not take your discussions and debate there?

There is also a Jolt "Serious Discussions Forum" Why not take your discussions and debate there?

Um... you realize this is a POLITICAL SIMULATION GAME, right? It REVOLVES around serious discussions. :rolleyes:

Paradise Beach is a tangible example of what I've been talking about: where everyone is friendly and courteous to everyone else, despite their differences. Where there are little or no problems.

They're like a online hippie commune, and the closest thing we have to a NS utopia.

And so you reveal your bias. Let me let you on on a little hint, 'pit:

NOT EVERYONE WANTS NS TO BE A DAMN HIPPIE COMMUNE

But thanks for showing everyone that you don't give a shit about anyone but yourself. You only want these changes so NS is better for you; not so that it's better for everyone else.

Not that I'm terribly surprized. You did a good job of steamrolling the Union (largely by using "Word Games" who was too stupid and desperate for spam to say 'no') and absorbing them into your little "Reform Party". Which really amused me, since before the Union was absorbed, the Reform Party's membership was... um... you.

I honestly feel sorry for most of the members of the Union. They're like lost little puppies on your forum (which had some pretty vile things). The Union members who posted on your forum before the take over were very telling too. A disgruntled ex-mod, an IP banned player, and a serial spammer.

The Union members should look around that MDSC portion a little. Most of the incriminating evidence was purged, of course, so you won't see the IP Banned player telling another player to commit suicide, but I'm sure there's plenty of hateful stuff still there. And at the top of the core forum, you'll be able to see the Pit lie and twist to avoid any real accountability.

Player input on what the mods do always seemed like a good idea to me. That's why they gave us this forum. If you want to organize and present a combined front for your suggestions, I doubt they'll complain.

But linking yourself with Pit is a bad idea guys. He's dead weight. Several of you mentioned that you didn't agree with all of the "platform". This has been his platform from the beginning, so you can see how much he values your input.

Finally, this thread does a great job of show Pit to be the hollow shell he is. When the players and mods called him on his utter lack of substantial ideas, he turned tail. All he cares about is his own agenda, and he doesn't even care about that enough to spend the time supporting his own ideas.

Just like a fucking hippy. Wants the world to change for him, but can't be bothered to lift a damn finger.

And so you reveal your bias. Let me let you on on a little hint, 'pit:

NOT EVERYONE WANTS NS TO BE A DAMN HIPPIE COMMUNE

But thanks for showing everyone that you don't give a shit about anyone but yourself. You only want these changes so NS is better for you; not so that it's better for everyone else.

Not that I'm terribly surprized. You did a good job of steamrolling the Union (largely by using "Word Games" who was too stupid and desperate for spam to say 'no') and absorbing them into your little "Reform Party". Which really amused me, since before the Union was absorbed, the Reform Party's membership was... um... you.

I honestly feel sorry for most of the members of the Union. They're like lost little puppies on your forum (which had some pretty vile things). The Union members who posted on your forum before the take over were very telling too. A disgruntled ex-mod, an IP banned player, and a serial spammer.

The Union members should look around that MDSC portion a little. Most of the incriminating evidence was purged, of course, so you won't see the IP Banned player telling another player to commit suicide, but I'm sure there's plenty of hateful stuff still there. And at the top of the core forum, you'll be able to see the Pit lie and twist to avoid any real accountability.

Player input on what the mods do always seemed like a good idea to me. That's why they gave us this forum. If you want to organize and present a combined front for your suggestions, I doubt they'll complain.

But linking yourself with Pit is a bad idea guys. He's dead weight. Several of you mentioned that you didn't agree with all of the "platform". This has been his platform from the beginning, so you can see how much he values your input.

Finally, this thread does a great job of show Pit to be the hollow shell he is. When the players and mods called him on his utter lack of substantial ideas, he turned tail. All he cares about is his own agenda, and he doesn't even care about that enough to spend the time supporting his own ideas.

Just like a fucking hippy. Wants the world to change for him, but can't be bothered to lift a damn finger.

Of course I know that not everyone wants NS to be hippie commune. I just used that to mean "a placewhere people are friendlier and more courteous to one another". Certainly we all want friendliness and courtesy?

Once again I sincerely apoligize for the incidents at MDSC. They have convinced me that I do not want to be any mod, NS or otherwise. As for the platform, I left it sitting there for days as I was writing it, and after I finished writing it. I tried to gather feedback, but received very little. However, I did implement changes based on the feedback I received. As for not implementing changes due to suggestions from this thread, it's called a platform for a reason: once you release it, you don't change it. At least for a significant period of time. Otherwise, it's called "flip-flopping".

But it doesn't matter anyway. Although I still stand by everything I say, I have decided to put reform of moderation policies on the the back burner (and that's why I'm an "Independent" now).

Right now, what we need to address are the "Two Great Schisms"

1) Between the "Serious" faction and the "Fluffle" faction.
Why is that they always have to view the other as infringing on their rights? Why is "fluffle" viewed so negatively? And why is it that people think that they can only do one or the other?

2) Between the "Good" faction and the "Asshole" faction.
Certainly, in order to clean up General, we need to control the "Assholes", but I do not think that we should stop there. We should try to convert them as well. Of course, it would be unrealistic to expect to convert each and everyone of them, but I believe we should increase our efforts in trying.

And I believe that all members of NS (players, administrators, and moderators) should be addressing this issue.

Right now, what we need to address are the "Two Great Schisms"

1) Between the "Serious" faction and the "Fluffle" faction.
Why is that they always have to view the other as infringing on their rights? Why is "fluffle" viewed so negatively? And why is it that people think that they can only do one or the other?

I have no idea. I tend to post "Serious" things for the most part, but I have no problem with this so-called "Fluffle" faction. "The Fluffle Faction" sounds like a great title for a film, by the way. :D

2) Between the "Good" faction and the "Asshole" faction.
Certainly, in order to clean up General, we need to control the "Assholes", but I do not think that we should stop there. We should try to convert them as well. Of course, it would be unrealistic to expect to convert each and everyone of them, but I believe we should increase our efforts in trying.

And I believe that all members of NS (players, administrators, and moderators) should be addressing this issue.

Some of us are already trying, and have been for a long time.

I do agree that many posters need to start being more friendly and understanding. I just don't see that the Mods or Admin can realistically do much better than they are in addressing this issue.

I still stand by everything that I said, but my focus was wrong. We should create a friendlier NS before implementing changes to moderation policy, and not the other way around as I was saying before.

In other words, you're not going to address any of the staggering array of problems with your platform, just harp on about how it fixes everything some more? Colour me surprised.

I've read other posts that express a desire to "clean up" General, a desire for more efficient moderation. Yes, mods should continue to punish rulebreakers, but we should not just sit there and hope for the mods to crack down on rulebreakers and spam. We, as players, should also do something. We should all take it upon ourselves to clean up General. I have heard cases where flamers made up and were not punished as a result. While it would be unrealistic to expect that that will happen everytime there is flaming, hopefully, we can encourage that to happen more often.

Woolly-minded nonsense. Didn't you read my last response?

'If people could resolve their differences without our intervention there would be no moderation staff. It is only when players believe they cannot resolve their differences that they come to us to intervene and sort things out.'

Your habit of ignoring criticism and simply restating your arguments over and over may seem like a brilliant tactic, but it's not.

I hope that we, as players, can take on the role of "arbitrators" and "love ambassadors" more often. I hope that we can create more displays of friendliness and courtesy on the forums (lilke the "Pass the Love On" thread).

As stated already, such displays are useless at combating the genuine badasses because they don't care.

I hope that we can encourage more people to read tips on how to resolve online conflict. You may call me all wishy-washy, but we can at least try...

We did try, we tried until June '03 when Klamath, Perrier and Zoland spammed the ever-loving fuck out of our forums in quick succession and we realised such a system was totally worthless. I once stood against the idea of moderators because I felt it would screw with RP.

But I was wrong.

Most importantly, I hope that moderators will not punish us for "impersonating a moderator" or "spamming the forums" if we do choose to take on this role.

Spamming is a ToS violation and impersonating a moderator allows several serious rule violations. You will never be allowed to do either.

As for the "snuggley land of lollies and rainbows" that Praetoria mentioned, I have found it: it's called Paradise Beach.

Then what the hell are you doing here?

NS would be a friendlier place if it was more like Paradise Beach.

Useless statement. How would we achieve this, ban 9/10s of our users from the game to make up for the massive difference in membership?

In light of all of this, I have decided to resign from NS Local 8976. Since I am now the only member of the NSRP to begin with, I declare the NSRP and the NSRA dead. From now on, I will "sit" as a Independent Pro-Reform Player.

'Commanders sitting behind the front lines lose touch with the war that's being fought. They become too optimistic, decisions are made which have no real bearing on what the facts of the battle might be; and this is even more true if the war is being lost.'

Paradise Beach is a tangible example of what I've been talking about: where everyone is friendly and courteous to everyone else, despite their differences. Where there are little or no problems.

They're like a online hippie commune, and the closest thing we have to a NS utopia.

That's odd, it's not my impression of a utopia, which would be a place where people would be willing to debate posts containing flames on their merits and have some good ol' flaming fun while they're at it, like, say, stardestroyer.net's debate forums. The trouble is, that's not what this site is all about, so if I want that kind of 'utopia' I'll go to another site to get it.

Learn from this: one man's heaven is another man's hell.

People can learn to be so much politer...
(Update: Some people do know how to calm down. That's wonderful.)

No, some people cannot learn how to be so much politer because it's not in their nature. In any case, if everyone was polite it would not raise the quality of NS debate, because being nicer isn't the same as being smarter.

And of course, so much problems can be solved if NS had a spam forum...but that's another story.

NS is not a game about spamming. Spammers are free to set up their own forums or go to other forums if they wish. The fact that they are not welcome in this tiny corner of the internet is not our problem.

And what about Nasicournia? We can all learn from Nasicournia, too.

How about you try explaining what we can learn rather than just making random statements?

GMC Military Arms
Nationstates Moderation Staff
Excessive Engineering Division
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v453/GMCMA/Other%20stuff/Scinfaxi-small.jpg

Of course I know that not everyone wants NS to be hippie commune. I just used that to mean "a placewhere people are friendlier and more courteous to one another". Certainly we all want friendliness and courtesy?I've lost count, but do you actually remember any of the other instances where people pointed out to you that Moderation is based on function over form ?

In even more clear speaking, that means getting things fucking done as against just making sure we have our pinkies raised when we sip our cups of tea, oh so nicely, of course.

Once again I sincerely apoligize for the incidents at MDSC. They have convinced me that I do not want to be any mod, NS or otherwise.First I doubt you'd have ever been in serious consideration for that role here, second I'd be in fear of site sanity if you were now. And that is a observation based only on that off-site affair.

And might I say, does it ever occur to you that since the MDSC or what-ever it was site Moderation was such a fucking great fiasco it might just be why people might just consider you to know fuck all about running an effective Moderation position or system of Moderation, let alone on a site a couple dozen orders of magnitude greater then yours in size and scope ? Jesus wept. Do you understand that grave concern at all ? For all your lofty ideas and wooly thinking and " can't we all just get along " sentiments, no one is going to really give a toss when they stop and see you've stood up to the plate and been found un-worthy by fate, as it were.As for the platform, I left it sitting there for days as I was writing it, and after I finished writing it. I tried to gather feedback, but received very little.Maybe people didn't all care for it that much.However, I did implement changes based on the feedback I received. As for not implementing changes due to suggestions from this thread, it's called a platform for a reason: once you release it, you don't change it. At least for a significant period of time. Otherwise, it's called "flip-flopping".No, its called " adaption ". It kind of stops the same old rubbish being thrown about and lets us actually get some-where. What you've doing is known as " beating a dead horse ". Mind you, your getting very close to putting bullets into the poor animals brain at this rate.But it doesn't matter anyway. Although I still stand by everything I say, I have decided to put reform of moderation policies on the the back burner (and that's why I'm an "Independent" now).Well, something in this thread I can give a heart-felt " go for it " to. Right now, what we need to address are the "Two Great Schisms"Oh lordy, this better not be a case of out of the frying pan and into the fire ...1) Between the "Serious" faction and the "Fluffle" faction. Why is that they always have to view the other as infringing on their rights? Why is "fluffle" viewed so negatively? And why is it that people think that they can only do one or the other?Sadly I don't have a clue what a " fluffle " is. So I'm just going to point out that a lot of people don't like being grouped together and labelled. just so you know.2) Between the "Good" faction and the "Asshole" faction. Certainly, in order to clean up General, we need to control the "Assholes", but I do not think that we should stop there. We should try to convert them as well. Of course, it would be unrealistic to expect to convert each and everyone of them, but I believe we should increase our efforts in trying.I've only ever thought of arseholes as being good for two things, but that is not here nor there. Might I point out that a lot of the " assholes " set out to be " assholes " rather then be a " good " ... that is kind of what makes most of them " assholes ".And I believe that all members of NS (players, administrators, and moderators) should be addressing this issue.And I believe no noe died and crowned you ( Or Moderation Staff ) king of deciding what we should be doing. If your looking for " Sandpits coming, everyone look busy " your going to be dissapointed. Moderation is for Moderation. Not 1984'esque thought control of the mases to makes things " nice ".

Moderation is for Moderation. Not 1984'esque thought control of the mases to makes things " nice ".

I'm sorry, sir. I'm going to have to take you away for that. It wasn't very nice.

*hauls Komokom off*

I haven't been on NS for very long, but as a reasonably experienced moderator elsewhere (Beliefnet), I can say that these issues where posters feel that they know a "better way" to moderate a forum than the current mods/admins seems to be almost ubiquitous. Typically, the ones most ardently saying the mods "aren't nice enough" are the ones who are the least restrained when it comes to violating the site rules.

So, for what it's worth, moderation can be real hell from time to time, and the last thing that NS's mods need is more grief. And surprisingly enough, not everybody feels like plastering a fake smile on their face when dealing with a problem (post OR poster). I personally have yet to see a moderator lose his or her cool when posting, even in the presence of strongly inflammatory material, so I congratulate them on their personalities as they are.

I'm sorry, sir. I'm going to have to take you away for that. It wasn't very nice.

*hauls Komokom off*Okay, two things you should know,

1) Its not rats, its heterosexuality, :rolleyes:

2) YOU'LL NEVER MAKE ME EARN MY BULLET.

I'm too fucking stubborn, :p

( Is dragged away now )

As I read the original "platform", one thing did stick out as paticularly...well....silly, and that was the bit about the mods being nicer, more courteous and giving offenders another chance?

While reading that, a picture came into my mind of a NS Mod (I won't mention which one :D) sitting there, with a huge grin on his/her face, singing Kumbaya as they hit the big red button and delete yet another rule breakers nation.

I don't know about the mods here, but on the site I supermod, I'm usually humming Another one bites the dust, when I ban someone, and I don't do temp bans. If you do something bad enough to make me want you off the forum, you stay off.

From what I've read on this forum (don't post here much, even with my old nation, but do read it a lot), the mods are already nice and curteous, except when dealing with someone who, quite frankly, seems to have worn their patience down to a raw nerve.

I think the rules on NS are pretty broad compared to other sites I'm a member of and have lurked on as a guest. People get a lot of chances here, and you have to do some pretty bad things to get banned from the site all together. The mods here are also very patient considering some of the situations I've seen them dealing with over the last two years. The fact is that they're not here to be nice and hand out love and flowers, they're here to do a job on a huge politics based forum. A job that most of us, me included, would'nt touch with a ten foot pole.

It's late at night and I'm getting ready to go catch some direly needed Zs, and several folks have already done point-by-point rebuttals, so I'll be brief.

Sandpit, you haven't a clue what moderating this game is like. While it'd be absolutely lovely if people could resolve their differences and be all "LOVE AND PEACE! ^o^", the reality is that's just not happening.

The moderators have a very specific mission objective in mind: Enforce the rules and make sure the game doesn't get bogged down by the people who come here for the sole purpose of being assholes. (A phenomenon that has been studied by professionals and neatly summarized by webcomics (http://img.penny-arcade.com/2004/20040319l.jpg).)

Our mission is NOT "make the world a better place, reform the misguided, angry flamers", etc etc. We are here to kick ass and take names. Being "nice" doesn't fit very well with that job description. Our resources, largely time, are not infinite, so the job is mostly function over form. Some of us try to sugarcoat it when we have to deal with people who are, to be blunt, absolute idiots and/or assholes. But I think we've made it abundantly clear in numerous ways that we are not supposed to play nice with people, we're supposed to be the enforcers, the bastards, the OMG EVUL that smites the rulebreakers. No more, no less.

Idealism is great, but quite often it's just not plausible given circumstances, time, resources, etc. This is, after all, just an online game! It's not our job to try and reform people who have some burning need to make other people's lives miserable by screwing up their gaming experiance. It's our job to deal with those people so that they don't continue to be a detriment to the game and the players who have the sense of how not to run afoul of the rules.

Try to change the real world first, because if you want people to play nice, it's got to start in the real world before it has a snowball's chance in hell of lasting in any large online community.

http://rpstudios.ian-justman.com/junk/CGgoods/Modsig2.JPG
~Evil Empress Rep Prod the Ninja Mod
~Master of the mighty moderation no-dachi Kiritateru Teikoku

As for not implementing changes due to suggestions from this thread, it's called a platform for a reason: once you release it, you don't change it. At least for a significant period of time. Otherwise, it's called "flip-flopping".


The concept of flip-flopping has always confused me. As long as you follow through on your promises, there should be nothing wrong with 'flip-flopping'. If someone points out a significant flaw in your platform, what's wrong with correcting it?


As for the platform, I left it sitting there for days as I was writing it, and after I finished writing it. I tried to gather feedback, but received very little.

I think you would have got a better respose if you'd posted it on NS for us to look at. Only about 5 members have joined the PCRA Central forum and they probably check it far less than NS.

Oh, by the way, I don't think you should have called it the NSRP/NS local 8976 platform without more input from the members of 8976. NS local 8976 is miles away from coming up with such a platform, assuming we ever will. Look at the summary (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8374546&postcount=5) of our first meeting. It took the entire membership meeting to come up with those few ideas, which all need more discussion (and I think the majority of them will be scrapped for various reasons).

If I may, for brevity's sake, summarize what seems to be the pervading opinion of most players, at least 8 moderators, and [violet] herself:

"No."

Coincidentally, that is also my opinion.

My £0.02:

It's a good idea, but just unfeasible in such a large community. Size is the main problem. If you want these rules, implement them in your own game.

(Drat, this cost me £0.027!)

(Drat, this cost me £0.027!)
Next time, call NS collect!
^_^

My £0.02:

It's a good idea, but just unfeasible in such a large community. Size is the main problem. If you want these rules, implement them in your own game.

(Drat, this cost me £0.027!)That would be my argument, but the Sandpit General with his toy soldiers proved (to me, at least) that he is wholly unqualified to do such a thing. Let's just say that if we modded like he "did" in the MDSC, then posters really would be rioting in the streets and they'd have reason.

Oh, and 'pit--there is a reason why the admin banned Sheol. I guess you figured that one out, eventually, neh...

No, wait. Sheol disappeared of his/her/its own accord. You stuck your head in the sand, hoping for the problem to go away, and lucky lucky you, it did for once. Good job there, Captain Inaction.

As an engineer, I wouldn't accept advice on my calculations from someone who failed arithmetic. As a moderator, I won't accept advice from someone who can't keep fifteen people, much less one hundred thousand, in line.