NationStates Jolt Archive

I am asking this question because it has now happened to me on a couple of occassions and I have seen it happen to others...

Now, I would like to Preface this by stating that I have NO PROBLEM with Moderators posting their OPINION on any Forum they choose to voice an OPINION on. I would question whether it is a smart thing to do with the same "persona" that is used to Moderate, but that is not my concern with this Thread and can be left aside as the ISSUE I would like to address is not directly related to that issue...

What HAS disturbed me with the three incidents I have had with Moderation(there were several more "contacts" during these issues, but I believe I have only been addressed three times, so far, specifically by Moderators on any matter), is that in EACH of these MATTERS, each with different Mods, it has been their OPINION on some things, despite empirical evidence to the contrary, that have decided the ISSUE and closed numerous Threads (many here in Moderation) simply because they wouldn't either address the Issue being asked about or couldn't be "bothered" to look into it further...

Now here is the question...

Is it ok in these Forums for a Thread to be closed simply because a Moderator doesn't like what is being discussed and or the manner in which it is being discussed? Because I came here ASKING to have People just ASKED to stay on Subject, and when that failed here and I went back to address such things myself, in the VERY SAME MANNER that a MODERATOR had previosly CONDONED of others in the VERY SAME THREAD, then that same Moderator closes the Thread because it was supposedly "Off-Topic" for several pages, when in FACT the last few posts had even QUOTED THE FIRST POST in ORDER TO GET BACK TO THE ISSUE!

Just before it was LOCKED for being "Off-Topic" for several pages...

Can someone explain this to me, please?

Or do I need to POST links to EACH of the events I have described in this post, in order to have them EACH addressed?

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8479511&postcount=40
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8479533&postcount=45
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8479559&postcount=47
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8479798&postcount=61
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8479836&postcount=64
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8480232&postcount=80
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=406218&page=40&pp=15

Regards,
Gaar

Perhaps you should post the links to each example that you provide. It'd be much easier for a moderator to judge from there.

Perhaps you should post the links to each example that you provide. It'd be much easier for a moderator to judge from there.
Don't bother. There were 600 posts in the thread that I locked, and damn near half of them were trolling and/or flamebait.

Urantia II, you were baited in that thread, but you gave every bit as good as you got. Several moderators have been following it, and we all pretty much agree that your posting style in your constitution thread was abrasive to the point of trolling. Not necessarily enough to warn over, but certainly enough to lock over.

If you want to open that can of worms, I fully expect you and several others to get official warnings out of it. If you want to go there, go ahead. I'll even recuse myself as an involved party if you prefer. It's entirely up to you.

Urantia II, you were baited in that thread, but you gave every bit as good as you got. Several moderators have been following it, and we all pretty much agree that your posting style in your constitution thread was abrasive to the point of trolling. Not necessarily enough to warn over, but certainly enough to lock over.

If you want to open that can of worms, I fully expect you and several others to get official warnings out of it. If you want to go there, go ahead. I'll even recuse myself as an involved party if you prefer. It's entirely up to you.

I gave, AFTER I get...
EDIT: And YOU Fris had CONDONED the beginning of that "giving" and so I took that as some sort of, "This is allowed", should I have not?

And I think I will link to some of the discussions I have had with other Mods, doing even worse...

Then we can see all the Rulings YOU would like.

I just hope that EVERYONE is held to the SAME STANDARDS, including the Moderators, when expressing an OPINION.

Regards,
Gaar

I gave, AFTER I get...
Irrelevant. If somebody flames you and you flame back, you both get warned. Retailiation is not a permitted response.
I just hope that EVERYONE is held to the SAME STANDARDS, including the Moderators, when expressing an OPINION.
When I post in my moderator persona, I sign my posts with my name and title in this color to indicate that I am making a Moderation judgement, not an opinion. I don't beleive I have ever responded to a non-Moderation post of yours without it being an official Moderation opinion. I don't always sign my posts here, because this is the MODERATION FORUM. You may assume that I am always posting here as a moderator, unless I expressly state otherwise.

Just so you're not confused ...

~ Frisbeeteria ~
NationStates Forum Moderator

Irrelevant. If somebody flames you and you flame back, you both get warned. Retailiation is not a permitted response.

When I post in my moderator persona, I sign my posts with my name and title in this color to indicate that I am making a Moderation judgement, not an opinion. I don't beleive I have ever responded to a non-Moderation post of yours without it being an official Moderation opinion. I don't always sign my posts here, because this is the MODERATION FORUM. You may assume that I am always posting here as a moderator, unless I expressly state otherwise.

Just so you're not confused ...

~ Frisbeeteria ~
NationStates Forum Moderator

So YOU don't believe that saying it is ok to question whether I have given a cogent reply because YOU haven't seen one, is YOU being a Moderator, or YOUR OPINION?

EDIT: Actually, they didn't just question it, they stated it as fact, just as YOU seemed to be doing by condoning it.

That IS the REASON the insults started to fly on that Thread, after YOU seemed to CONDONE them in that manner...

Regards,
Gaar

That IS the REASON the insults started to fly on that Thread, after YOU seemed to CONDONE them in that manner...
Ah. So that's your argument.

Post your links. I'll let other mods respond.

~ Frisbeeteria ~
NationStates Forum Moderator

Ah. So that's your argument.

Post your links. I'll let other mods respond.

~ Frisbeeteria ~
NationStates Forum Moderator

They are ALREADY in the first post.

EDIT: I am particularly interested in this response from you...

"Whether the flaw is on the side of the reader or the writer is not my job to judge, but I haven't been able to pick out your meaning from the responses either. Given that, I'm ruling it isn't a flame."

Regards,
Gaar

I'm reviewing the references posts now. A ruling is pending.

--The Modified Democratic States of Cogitation

Can I get a Ruling on these too, please...

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8411137&postcount=1
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8411465&postcount=25
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8412926&postcount=38
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8415295&postcount=44
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8415329&postcount=45
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8415511&postcount=50
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8415533&postcount=52
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8416042&postcount=53
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8416125&postcount=55
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8416554&postcount=56
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8416582&postcount=57
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8416648&postcount=58
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8416648&postcount=59
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8416648&postcount=60

Okay, my ruling is as follows:

Manual signatures are perfectly legal. I've spoken to Frisbeeteria on this particular point and explained to him that signatures, both manual signatures and automatic signatures, do not require Moderator attention unless they constitute flaming, flambaiting, are ridiculously large, or violate the NationStates Terms and Conditions in some other manner.

I've also explained to him that he needs to be a bit more clear when distinguishing his statements as a Moderator from his statements as an ordinary player (for example, the signature issue).

Aside from those two points, I concur with the remainder of his judgment.

"Urantia II" is the moniker you chose for yourself for your use on NationStates. Nobody else chose that moniker for you (I assume). While you may request that other players call you "Gaar", they are not required to do so and may legally address you as "Urantia II".

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8479559&postcount=47
Or is it ok for some to question my Education and call me an Idiot but not ok for me to question their understanding?
It is not acceptable for anyone to call anyone else an 'idiot'. However, insults like 'idiot', 'moron', and 'jerk' are considered mild enough that only an informal statement from a Moderator (like "Knock it off" or "Cease and desist") is required. An official warning is not given for mild insults like these unless it develops into a pattern of behavior by that player (which needn't be directed at one individual repeatedly to get an official warning; it might be once each at many different individuals on different occasions).

"Questioning your education" is too vague a statement. I need a link to a specific post. This doesn't appear to be included in the posts you hyperlinked.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8479674&postcount=55
Your hypothetical question has been responded to at least five times and you've not yet made a cogent reply to any of the responses or their follow-ups.And yet I believe I HAVE and am left to wonder how this is not considered a "flame" towards me, deserving of a warning from the Moderator?
It is a statement about your actions in debate. It is not an insult against you.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8479836&postcount=64
So asking what people may not understand after having answered the question IS a flame...

But SAYING someone has not made a "cogent" reply is not.
Asking what people may not understand after having answered the quesiton is not a flame, so long as it is done civilly. You, on the other hand, tend to capitalize entire words for emphasis. This is generally interpreted by many as raising one's voice. The manner in which you have been emphasizing words has been interpreted as being confrontational, uncivil, angry, attempting to provoke a fight, or some combination thereof. Thus, you have been flamebaiting.

Saying that someone has not made a cogent reply is not a flame, so long as such a statement is made in a straightforward, calm, matter-of-opinion (or matter-of-fact) manner.

Addendum: It took a while for this post to finally go through, and I need to go to bed. I will not review the additional links just provided by Urantia II right now.

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

Would it be possible to find out why it isn't ok to discuss THIS AT ALL...

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=404661
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=404654
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=404650

As well as not be able to discuss how one might Report such things, if they believe them to be happening...

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=404663

Thanks,
Gaar

Aside from those two points, I concur with the remainder of his judgment.

"Urantia II" is the moniker you chose for yourself for your use on NationStates. Nobody else chose that moniker for you (I assume). While you may request that other players call you "Gaar", they are not required to do so and may legally address you as "Urantia II".

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8479559&postcount=47


Understood...

However, I have never said I don't like to be called Urantia II, merely pointed out that I also have a name and I don't mind people knowing and/or using it instead of Urantia II.

It is not acceptable for anyone to call anyone else an 'idiot'. However, insults like 'idiot', 'moron', and 'jerk' are considered mild enough that only an informal statement from a Moderator (like "Knock it off" or "Cease and desist") is required. An official warning is not given for mild insults like these unless it develops into a pattern of behavior by that player (which needn't be directed at one individual repeatedly to get an official warning; it might be once each at many different individuals on different occasions).

"Questioning your education" is too vague a statement. I need a link to a specific post. This doesn't appear to be included in the posts you hyperlinked.


This could get to be a long list...

Do you really want it? Because I am more than happy to not use any such terms in my discourse and only resorted to such after I had seen it not only done and asked of a Mod, but even (in my opinion) by a Mod themselves.


http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8479674&postcount=55

It is a statement about your actions in debate. It is not an insult against you.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8479836&postcount=64

Asking what people may not understand after having answered the quesiton is not a flame, so long as it is done civilly. You, on the other hand, tend to capitalize entire words for emphasis. This is generally interpreted by many as raising one's voice. The manner in which you have been emphasizing words has been interpreted as being confrontational, uncivil, angry, attempting to provoke a fight, or some combination thereof. Thus, you have been flamebaiting.

Ok, then I am left to ask if "bolding" words is considered the same thing? If not, why not? And then I would "wonder" where using quotations fit in this and Capitalizing just the first letter of a word not normally capitalized?

EDIT: I would also like to know what type, if any, of "limitations" are put on the use of "Smilies" and how that use "could" also be looked at as being against the "Rules".

Saying that someone has not made a cogent reply is not a flame, so long as such a statement is made in a straightforward, calm, matter-of-opinion (or matter-of-fact) manner.

Addendum: It took a while for this post to finally go through, and I need to go to bed. I will not review the additional links just provided by Urantia II right now.

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

And what about a Moderator "confirming" that a "cogent" reply has not been forthcoming, is that not just an "opinion" that shouldn't be expressed by an "authoritarian" figure on the Board?

I really am just trying to understand the "Rules", and if and where they may differ for Mod's versus just us regular people, if such distinctions exist and are applied...

Thank you for your time.

Regards,
Gaar

This one is just from the Constitution-UnConstitutional Thread...

If there is a need, I will go through each of the other Threads I have been involved with also, since there have been far worse things said elsewhere.

Some of these are a bit tame, but raise examples of thing that can be considered either way...

First off, I would like to say that this Thread was began so the discussions I present in the opening post can happen here, instead of many of the other Threads they were beginning to be discussed in, so that I wasn’t accused of “Hijacking” anyone else’s Thread…

Secondly, if you go through the Thread, you will see many posts that have been outright deleted. Now I am not saying all of them, but I myself saw a few of them before their deletion and they were outright insults. After Cat-Tribe came to the Board and warned them, many were deleted and I no longer can give reference. But I have seen it said here in the Moderation Forum before that just posting something offensive and removing it doesn’t mean there wasn’t an offense, although I can no longer prove there was.

Death threat…
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8480037&postcount=76

And this is the first post to this Thread by this person…

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8482696&postcount=211
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8482870&postcount=215

my response…
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8482897&postcount=218

and then we see how it just escalates after Cat-Tribe joins in…
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8482970&postcount=223
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8483136&postcount=233
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8483138&postcount=235
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8484745&postcount=265
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8497368&postcount=422
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8498182&postcount=430
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8498740&postcount=448
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8498774&postcount=450
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8502491&postcount=456
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8502596&postcount=462
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8502611&postcount=463
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8502696&postcount=467
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8502796&postcount=474
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8502882&postcount=478
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8506488&postcount=528
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8506879&postcount=539
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8512943&postcount=549
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8513020&postcount=554
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8513163&postcount=556
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8513461&postcount=563
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8514190&postcount=571
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8517515&postcount=576
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8518120&postcount=577
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8519747&postcount=588

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.p...6&postcount=211
Was referenced above by urantia.

Particularly
"Uratania II is a tar-baby that tries to trap you into these inane discussions.

Rational arguments are responded to with irrationalities and thinly veiled insults until Uratania gets bored or you ignore his/her/its posts. Then Uratania goes off to irritate in another thread.

Don't fall for it. "

Cat's contention is borne out quite well by all of urantia's posts in that thread.
To begin with, the premise of the discussion - "can a constitutional amendment be unconstitution" is inane and nonsensical.

When this was explained to urantia, irrationalities were used as responses. A nice one is "Just because an amendment is in the constitution does not mean it is constitutional" and another is the quote in my sig. Also lots of verbatim logical fallacy spam.

The thinly veiled insults have been previously noted by the mods.


I still maintain that this is some high-order trolling on the ali-g-show model of "the humor lies in asking stupid questions to people who try to provide intelligent answers."

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.p...6&postcount=211
Was referenced above by urantia.

Particularly
"Uratania II is a tar-baby that tries to trap you into these inane discussions.

Rational arguments are responded to with irrationalities and thinly veiled insults until Uratania gets bored or you ignore his/her/its posts. Then Uratania goes off to irritate in another thread.

Don't fall for it. "

Cat's contention is borne out quite well by all of urantia's posts in that thread.
To begin with, the premise of the discussion - "can a constitutional amendment be unconstitution" is inane and nonsensical.

That's not what it says, and why are people able to "misquote me" and then make an argument against something I have never said?

Here is the first post...
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8479233&postcount=1

Would you please show me where I have said exactly what you quote me as saying?

When this was explained to urantia, irrationalities were used as responses. A nice one is "Just because an amendment is in the constitution does not mean it is constitutional" and another is the quote in my sig. Also lots of verbatim logical fallacy spam.

The thinly veiled insults have been previously noted by the mods.

I still maintain that this is some high-order trolling on the ali-g-show model of "the humor lies in asking stupid questions to people who try to provide intelligent answers."

When this was said, I attempted, time and again, to explain that they were "giving me an opinion" and asked if they wouldn't mind addressing what I have "actually said" and not what they have said for me, just like is happening here now.

Is this Debate opening up again here, to be decided by the Mods?

If not, why is someone posting anything to this Thread trying to "re-argue" any points made in the Thread?

Regards,
Gaar

My interest in this Thread is not to re-debate any issue in the discussion, or even to have any of the insults and/or other discourse "reviewed" by Moderation. I only supplied those links because I was asked to by the Moderator who is evaluating the situations I have pointed out.

I could continue with many more links from many of the other Threads, in which I have been involved, to continue to emphasize what I believe to be behavior beyond the realm of the Rules, but that is not what I am asking to have Ruled on here.

I am asking about these situations as they pertain to the Rulings given by the Moderators as well as any role they may have played in the incident itself.

If it is deemed that these other posts are considered offenses by Moderation and they decide to take action, that is their prerogative and I suggest no authority in the matter, on my part, what-so-ever. I am merely doing as the Moderator has asked...

I am also curious if it is still required for me to supply additional links in order to have the 2 remaining instances I have described Ruled on?

Regards,
Gaar

From my limited reading of the posts in question, I have to agree with moderation judgment that "you haven't made a cogent reply yet" comment is specifically an attack on your argument, not on you as a person. Such is also an opinion whether explicitly stated as such, ie "in my opinion" or it's simply implicit as it is in this case. I haven't been following the thread and I doubt I will start, but that's just my observation as a non-moderator who is reading THIS thread.

You and I both seem to suffer from a hypersensitivty toward perceived slights, whether they are to ourselves or (in my case) to people I genuinely consider friends. Perhaps you should just take a moment to step away from the computer and think about what you're responding to before you hit the reply button. You may find that more often than not, you decide it's just not worth the extra hassles and not post.

From my limited reading of the posts in question, I have to agree with moderation judgment that "you haven't made a cogent reply yet" comment is specifically an attack on your argument, not on you as a person. Such is also an opinion whether explicitly stated as such, ie "in my opinion" or it's simply implicit as it is in this case. I haven't been following the thread and I doubt I will start, but that's just my observation as a non-moderator who is reading THIS thread.

Yes, but then the Moderator went beyond that as a Ruling, which I could have accepted, and had to state their "opinion" that it was a "correct" judgment, not just that it wasn't their place to judge such things...

Which begs the question of whether they should inject their "opinion" in any matter in which they are Ruling as a Moderator?

You and I both seem to suffer from a hypersensitivty toward perceived slights, whether they are to ourselves or (in my case) to people I genuinely consider friends. Perhaps you should just take a moment to step away from the computer and think about what you're responding to before you hit the reply button. You may find that more often than not, you decide it's just not worth the extra hassles and not post.

I actually do that very thing at times...

But I have even continued on in a manner that I have been asked to here and I am still berated by such attacks, have reported them in the manner I have been told to here, and still gotten no response from Moderation.

Like this one I reported today...
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8529314&postcount=176

I don't appreciate being called an idiot when I am unable to respond in kind. I reported this incident to...
http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/target=help

Is that not the correct procedure?

The second Issue cited in this post has been on the Moderator Thread now for almost 2 weeks, during which time I have had 2 additional "run-ins" with Moderators and I feel they each exhibited tendencies I wouldn't mind having addressed at some point.

And since it seems I am going to be critiqued in even a bit of a subjective manner, I feel I must now point out all of the abuses, which I was just letting go of until I am now being accused myself...

So, let's see where this takes us. I am very curious to see what difference there may be in the decorum required of Moderators versus the rest of us, as well as their ability to just "shut down" certain subjects which don't seem to be breaking any of the "stated" Rules.

We shall see.

Regards,
Gaar

It is not acceptable for anyone to call anyone else an 'idiot'.

I'm rather sure a mod once said that calling someone an idiot because their argument is idiotic is legal. His example was that "Your arguement is idiotic, therefore you are an idiot" is legal, but "You are an idiot, therefore your arguement is idiotic" is illegal. His (assuming since I can't remember. Melkor, Hack, or maybe even Myrth come to mind) point was that as with everything, if you can back up your accusation, it becomes fact and not opinion.

For example, if I were to call Osama Bin Laden a terrorist, is not flaming him, for in fact he is one. If I called you a terrorist, Cog, it would be, because I have no proof that you are.

Does this moderator ruling still stand or not?

I'm rather sure a mod once said that calling someone an idiot because their argument is idiotic is legal. His example was that "Your arguement is idiotic, therefore you are an idiot" is legal, but "You are an idiot, therefore your arguement is idiotic" is illegal. His (assuming since I can't remember. Melkor, Hack, or maybe even Myrth come to mind) point was that as with everything, if you can back up your accusation, it becomes fact and not opinion.

So who is it that decides whether a cogent argument has been made?

And doesn't something like this have "abuse" from one side on another written all over it? Like the instance with Frisbee, I believe I had and did offer a cogent argument, and actually even cited things that people, who were saying I was wrong, were saying that seemed to back my position. The things that "looked" to be me not answering were the instances I have cited where people gave me an opinion that I soon stopped responding to. I explained how they were incorrectly quoting me once and didn't feel the need to continually address that same misnomer, is that a fault of mine or those quoting me incorrectly?

Also, what many were "refuting" was the "example" and not the assertion. So I changed the example several times, even resorting to "Real World" examples so they could not say they were not "real".

So would someone please explain how an argument using several examples as well as empirical evidence to support can be considered "not cogent" even if you don't agree with it?

For example, if I were to call Osama Bin Laden a terrorist, is not flaming him, for in fact he is one. If I called you a terrorist, Cog, it would be, because I have no proof that you are.

Does this moderator ruling still stand or not?

Well, I think it would first depend if Osama was a member of the Board, because I have seen people call Bush much worse and it is allowed because he is not here to be offended. At least that is my understanding in the matter...

But I am going to wait for a Moderator to "Rule", but thanks for your "opinion", I guess.

Regards,
Gaar

SB: Here (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=7955739&postcount=6), it was GMC that posted that. If you read GMC's post though, it does that that stuff like this is decided on a case by case basis so I don't think anything is really changing.

SB: Here (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=7955739&postcount=6), it was GMC that posted that. If you read GMC's post though, it does that that stuff like this is decided on a case by case basis so I don't think anything is really changing.

Thank you.

UII, I wasn't trying to contribute to either side of the argument. I was simply asking Cog a question in regards to something he, a moderator, said. Your long, nitpicking post was worthless and a waste of time. Normally I'd apologize for putting you through this, but since you decided to be a smartass, I really don't care. Just for clarification though, my question, in no way, could be taken as an opinion. Frankly, you don't want my opinion on the matter.

Thank you.

UII, I wasn't trying to contribute to either side of the argument. I was simply asking Cog a question in regards to something he, a moderator, said. Your long, nitpicking post was worthless and a waste of time. Normally I'd apologize for putting you through this, but since you decided to be a smartass, I really don't care. Just for clarification though, my question, in no way, could be taken as an opinion. Frankly, you don't want my opinion on the matter.

I guess I am a bit annoyed that some people are feeling free to ask questions in "my Thread" that I have stated on more than one occasion are not the reason for this Thread.

So if I seem a bit short, it's because I feel like my Thread's Issue is being "hijacked" by people who have other Issues they would like discussed.

Regards,
Gaar

I guess I am a bit annoyed that some people are feeling free to ask questions in "my Thread"

This isn't "your thread".

This isn't "your thread".

I apologize for the reference and was only hoping for it to stay on Topic so that the issues I have raised, for almost 2 weeks now, might be addressed at some point.

Is there a reason these people could not start another Thread to have their Issues addressed?

Regards,
Gaar

EDIT: Should this be regarded as an "ok" from Moderation that anyone can Hijack this Thread from it's stated original purpose?

I apologize for the reference and was only hoping for it to stay on Topic so that the issues I have raised, for almost 2 weeks now, might be addressed at some point.

Is there a reason these people could not start another Thread to have their Issues addressed?

Regards,
Gaar

What catches me about this incident is that a Moderator has now taken the time to "correct" me in a reference I make to wanting to keep this Thread "On Topic", but didn't bother to take the time to look into or even comment on my report earlier as noted within this very thread, as well as referenced.

I would ask why this is?

I incorrectly call this "my thread", but I have yet to see anyone do anything about a Death Threat, which is referenced as well as someone calling me an idiot this evening, again something referenced just recently.

Is this not further evidence of the very thing I am asking about in this Thread?

Regards,
Gaar

EDIT: I would also like to add that, my reference was to only signify that I had started the Thread and had stated, on more than one occassion, the Issue I was addressing and had said that the others were not significant to what I was asking. Not because I felt like I had any type of ownership.

The moderators are very busy, Urantia II. Sometimes, they don't have time to look into a situation that has already developed quite a lot. Catching up with these posts, as well as the entire situation itself is, I'm sure, going to take a decent amount of time. I'm sure that the moderators are discussing what needs to be done here, so give it some time.

The moderators are very busy, Urantia II. Sometimes, they don't have time to look into a situation that has already developed quite a lot. Catching up with these posts, as well as the entire situation itself is, I'm sure, going to take a decent amount of time. I'm sure that the moderators are discussing what needs to be done here, so give it some time.

I understand that they are busy.

The original Thread that was sent here to be looked into, was sent nearly 2 weeks ago, so it's not like I wasn't/am not being patient, my reason for stating such a thing was to further identify my reasoning for staying on Topic (which we now seem to be running down the track as fast as we can away from) while trying to keep the posts here to a minimum, so they don't become difficult to reference, as they are becoming.

Is it that difficult to try and keep things "on Topic" even in the Moderators Forum?

Regards,
Gaar

EDIT: I guess it shouldn't surprise me that some Moderators wouldn't want this Thread to stay on Topic.
EDIT II: I also find it quite interesting that I have been confronted by a Moderator for asking to keep the Thread on Topic because of a mis-reference on my part, which I duly accept and acknowledge, but no one has been even asked to take their Off-Topic discussions elsewhere and hence the reason we are seeing increased numbers of Off-Topic posts. It has basically been condoned by Moderation in this Thread now, is it not? Nothing was said to the first poster who even decided to start re-arguing the Thread here, why is that?

I guess I'm not surprised that you're looking for more reasons to be pissed off, either. This thread has been on topic that I've been able to see. You brought up questions and threw around a lot of accusations, other folks have offered their takes on it all. Nothing off topic about it. This is, after all, a public forum. Expect the public to participate as they see fit. If any of us get out of line, I'm certain the mods will let us know in no uncertain terms.

In my time on NS watching the ebb and flow of how these sorts of things go, I've noticed a few things.

Mods handle things on a case by case basis using the evidence they have on hand. While there are certain things that go without saying - porn, nasty links, outright flaming, etc - they have stated time, and time, and time again that they are not going to try and outline every piddling little possible 'offense' that may happen to pop up on the forums. Case by case, pattern of behaviour, etc. Not all situations have the same dynamics, even if certain elements in them may be similar now and then. One can't expect the exact same results on account of that.

You don't have to like it. You don't have to agree with it. However, the bottom line is they're the 'law' around these parts, and when you created your nation here, you agreed to abide by said laws. To put it plainly, I'd say your options are to deal or find somewhere else to crusade.

Oh yes. One tends to get better responses from folks if one asks with some measure of civility and keeps the combative stances to a minimum. I tend to think of the whole mirror analogy - we tend to reflect back that which we are shown.

Best of luck getting whatever remaining answers you seek, given the moderators have already given you quite a bit to start on.

I guess I'm not surprised that you're looking for more reasons to be pissed off, either. This thread has been on topic that I've been able to see. You brought up questions and threw around a lot of accusations, other folks have offered their takes on it all. Nothing off topic about it. This is, after all, a public forum. Expect the public to participate as they see fit. If any of us get out of line, I'm certain the mods will let us know in no uncertain terms.

And I guess I shouldn't be surprised that even more Off-Topic posts will continue, given they have been condoned by Moderators here.

Mods handle things on a case by case basis using the evidence they have on hand. While there are certain things that go without saying - porn, nasty links, outright flaming, etc - they have stated time, and time, and time again that they are not going to try and outline every piddling little possible 'offense' that may happen to pop up on the forums. Case by case, pattern of behavior, etc. Not all situations have the same dynamics, even if certain elements in them may be similar now and then. One can't expect the exact same results on account of that.

And hence the reason I started this whole thing by stating that such things were NOT the intent of this Thread and instead wanted to discuss the Moderators "roll" in such things...

You don't have to like it. You don't have to agree with it. However, the bottom line is they're the 'law' around these parts, and when you created your nation here, you agreed to abide by said laws. To put it plainly, I'd say your options are to deal or find somewhere else to crusade.

Understood, and hence my reason for wanting to understand what "roll" they play "Authoritively" versus what Roll they play as just an individual with an opinion, like myself.

Oh yes. One tends to get better responses from folks if one asks with some measure of civility and keeps the combative stances to a minimum. I tend to think of the whole mirror analogy - we tend to reflect back that which we are shown.

Best of luck getting whatever remaining answers you seek, given the moderators have already given you quite a bit to start on.

Understood.

And we get the answers we are looking for when we are able to remain "On-Topic".

Regards,
Gaar

There seems to be some type of concerted effort here to make this Thread as Off-Topic and varied as possible in order to further confuse the Issue being asked about as well as increase the amount of time it would take to look into these events...

I was hoping that the Moderators would see that I had a legitimate concern and allow it to be looked into without their interference.

I believe that the Moderator condoning the Off-Topic posts was an attempt to get me to become more and more upset about the Issues I have been asking about for weeks now.

I wonder why it couldn't have also been suggested, while chastising me for my reference, that there actually is an Issue that the Thread is looking into and that continuing a conversation that wasn't germane to said Issue would be diluting the Threads original intent?

If it is that we are going to have a discussion in this Thread of the individual postings that should be looked at and not just those that the Moderator has asked for, then perhaps my question about posting other Threads concerns could have been answered also?

Or is it we are just going to allow others to discuss such things here and once I do I will be warned for going Off-Topic?

Regards,
Gaar

Perhaps when we are able to be clear ourselves in what we are asking, such as the difference between 'roll' and 'role', we will get better answers as well.

Or, we could just continue maundering on endlessly, thinking we have the superiour intellect etc, much to the amusement of others, til some mod or other decides the thread has run its course ...

Since he feels the need to be persecuted, why don't we just beat him up and steal his lunch money? It'd be quicker, save us all time, and help relieve those stresses that build up in the body.

And, yes, the above is intended to mock.

Urantia, if you had a case, I'm sure the mods would listen. But they feel you don't. So, they're probably just tolerating you on this issue. And considering the mod, I doubt you'll have a case.

Since he feels the need to be persecuted, why don't we just beat him up and steal his lunch money? It'd be quicker, save us all time, and help relieve those stresses that build up in the body.

And, yes, the above is intended to mock.

Urantia, if you had a case, I'm sure the mods would listen. But they feel you don't. So, they're probably just tolerating you on this issue. And considering the mod, I doubt you'll have a case.

And it continues...

I wonder how many are faulting me now for responding to the continued attacks that are off Topic?

I believe this Thread is waiting for a Ruling by Cogitation on the two remaining outstanding Issues, if I am incorrect in this assumption I wish someone would tell me so that I don't have to endure the constant attempts to provoke here in Moderation...

I get enough of that in General.

Please Mods... Can "anyone" try and keep this from getting out of hand? Or am I out of line in asking to stay on the Topic I started this Thread for, would someone please explain?

Or is it "Open Season on Urantia II" because he has questioned Moderator decorum?

Regards,
Gaar

EDIT: So now it starts with spelling... What next, grammar?

Please Mods... Can "anyone" try and keep this from getting out of hand?

Sure. Locked pending Cogitation's final answer.

Okay, I've reviewed the beginning part of the Constitution thread.

You keep trying to argue how a section of the Constitution can be de facto legally overturned by public disobedience. Various posters have replied to you with responses that this isn't possible, why it isn't possible, and how the closest possible thing might be accomplished (namely, such popular support driving a Constitutional amendment).

Now, we dont censor political opinions, regardless of how dumb, but in your case, not only have you persisted in arguing a position that seems devoid of logic, but you have also done so in a manner abrasive and disrespectful of other NationStates posters. A lot of the posts you're complaining about were caused by your own conduct. Now, rulebreaking doesn't justify rulebreaking, and some official warnings do need to be issued to some people that responded to you. Nevertheless, you are directly responsible for a heavy workload on the NationStates Moderators, myself included, just to deal with your offenses and the offenses you provoked from others. This is not something we appreciate.

You act in a manner wholly inconsiderate of the other NationStates players, you have been unjustifiable hostile towards some of those players (your behavior towards Pantera comes to mind, accusing him of trying to act macho and snidely insinuating that he's been jailed), and on top of that, some of your complaints were about posts that you took out of context.

You are either a deliberate troll or grossly negligent. Either way, you have been forumbanned for three weeks. Any further violations of NationStates rules, regardless of how trivial, will result in your deletion.

This thread will remain locked.

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