Dred Pirate Roberts
29-03-2005, 19:57
Moderator Accountability Needed: Proposals for reform at end
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Despite the creation last year of an invaders manual (ATTN: INVADERS - Draft version of revised invasion rules!), I and many other invaders still have considerable concerns about the partisanship of the moderators and their lack of accountability to anyone in the game but themselves. This lack of accountability still manifests itself in ways that frequently rules against invaders, and many of these problems have had a detrimental effect in the ability of invaders to conduct their business. After documenting some of these abuses in accountability, I offer some proposals for your consideration for how we might move forward together and improve this essential part of Nation States.
Specifically, moderators have avoided accountability in the following ways:
Arbitrary creation and/or modification of invasion rules
Arbitrary un-enforcement of invasion rules
Inappropriate interference in invasions by moderators
Arbitrary enforcement of definite rules
Ambiguous definitions necessary for invasions
My comments are made in the spirit of offering constructive criticism, consistent to the criticism welcomed by Neutered Sputniks, a former moderator, during the formation of the invader’s handbook. I mean no disrespect, but I do wish to express my sincere frustration with many of what I and others perceive to be unjust moderation and the lack of accountability for these actions due to your positions as game moderators. My comments are followed by proposed reforms, meant to strengthen the need for moderators to be accountable to the invasion rules.
The arbitrary creation of invasion rules by moderators, not found in the unofficial invasion manual:
Despite the creation of an “un-official” invader handbook, which was created through the consultation of invaders, defenders and moderators, the moderators are still unilaterally creating rules. This means that the moderators act as if they are not accountable to the written rules found in the invader handbook.
The arbitrary creation of rules destabilizes the ability of invaders to invade regions. The arbitrary creation of new invasion rules mean that, although invasions are legal, the moderators still have the power to decide which invasions are legal. Their ability to create and change at their personal will means that invader nations can never predictably know the rules of the game and therefore never confidently play it.
I can cite a specific example of moderators arbitrarily inventing rules. For example, in the thread "Delegate Should Be Granted Founder's Powers" started by Jjuulliiaann, Cogitation clearly is inventing in posts #16 and #18 by declaring that invaders can not force nations in an invaded region to endorse the invading delegate. Even Crazy Girl, a well-known defender, admits that she “never knew” (#17) that rule existed. When Cogitation is called on the unilateral rule change, Cogitation simply declares (#20) that common policy was being "re-iterat[ed]." But if that was common policy, then how come no one knew it existed prior to Cogitation's declaration?
The moderators’ position that the invasion rules are strictly "unofficial" allows the moderators to avoid enforcing rules they don’t wish to enforce.
It is the common experience of nationstates invaders to confront the moderators, whether via the “Getting Help” page, or by Mirc, and cite to them passages and rules in the invaders handbooks, only to be turned away by moderators who insist that the invader handbook is “un-official only.” Again, the practical ramification of this is that there are no official invasion rules other than the rule in the FAQ that says clearly that invasions are legal. However, with no official rules, it is still left to the arbitrary opinion of the moderators which invasions are legal. It also means that the entire exercise of appealing to nationstates players when constructing the handbook is a complete waste and a fraud. If none of the players’ contributions actually help to construct the rules of the game, then the entire 16 pages of player contributions is an exercise in futility. The moderators ought to have considered the experience of players and used those experiences to create a fairer and more complete conception of the rules of the game.
The reality is that, in the invader handbook, there are many player observations and experiences cited by experienced invaders that the moderators do not give sufficient consideration. For example, Cosmo Kramerica observes (#56) that some invaders deliberately eschew the UN simply to avoid ejection from regions that are battleground type regions. Second, Martian Puppets (#122) proposes a series of definitions and rules that seem extraordinarily fair to invaders and defenders alike, and that require the moderators to be accountable for their actions. Unfortunately, these definitions and rules were never given the sufficient consideration they deserved and are currently not an official part of the game play. Beachcomber (#128) suggests “if a nation has been in a region for X days, it is a native.” Unfortunately, the moderators never agreed to use such a definition, and no specific time frame was ever accepted or adopted officially. However, the definitions the moderators are currently using regarding “invader delegate” and native delegate are excessively vague and arbitrary. More on this later.
Moderators have inappropriately interfered with invasion gameplay:
Even after the creation of the invasion handbook, moderators have still interfered with on-going and active invasions. Moderator interference of invasions has raised uncomfortable questions about the objectivity of the moderators on invasions, despite invasions being a legal part of the game. There is anecdotal evidence of improper moderator intervention against invasions of Massachusetts and in China. In both Massachusetts and China, the moderators revived a deleted founder and that revived founder defeated the invasion. The thread Injustice in Japan documents the re-activation of the founder of Japan to defeat an invasion in Japan. In North Pacific, Cogitation removed the invader delegate for “griefing” the region. However, the invader delegate of the region ejected only defenders who were trying to remove the invader delegate from power during a late-night raid. The invader delegate was deleted for “not complying” with the moderator’s ruling, although the invader delegate actually complied the first moment the ruling was received. This is documented in the thread North Pacific: Fiction and Fact
Arbitrary refusal of the moderators to enforce definite rules
Invaders cite instances of the refusal of moderators to enforce well-known and long-established rules. This often happens during instances in which enforcing the rules would mean that the invaders win.
A situation in North Atlantic involving spamming the regional happenings (Help Me! [merged w/Regional Happenings being Spammed]) is a perfect example. Last February, the Isle of Skye claims that Taxachussetts griefed the region “North Atlantic” by ejecting him from North Atlantic. Taxachussetts claims that, by returning and exiting the region so often within such a small space of time, that The Isle of Skye griefed the regional happenings. In the thread “Clarification Requested in North Atlantic,” Cogitation says that an ejected nation who repeatedly returns to the region he was ejected from is spamming the regional happenings. But despite there being a ruling that should have been instructive on the specific situation, the moderators made no ruling in the case and the players were left to resolve the situation on their own. At the time, Taxachussetts was considered an “invader delegate” by the moderators.
More recently, on March 19, 2005, the nation Anstan created a thread in the moderator’s forum I’m Tired of the Spammers to express concern over spamming in The Colonial Entente. Although Cogitation responded to the thread and acknowledged that private warnings were possibly made, no official action was taken in the region on the subject and the spamming continued. During the following week, Anstan and four additional players brought the issue to the attention of the moderators via the forum, complaining that the problem was still unresolved.
Ambiguous definitions of central rules, and the refusal of the moderators to clarify those definitions
There are a number of terms and concepts in Nationstates that are common throughout the game but have remained undefined, and often those definitions are critical in order to invade regions. Such terms and concepts include (but are not limited to): “native,” “founder,” “spamming,” and “recruiting.” The moderators’ refusal or inability to define these concepts has impeded the ability of invaders to conduct and conclude their operations and have often put invaders in opposition to the moderators. The lack of definitions in these circumstances have also made it difficult for non-invaders (and non-defenders) to achieve objectives that are not related to invasions.
The thread "Delegate Should Be Granted Founder's Powers" contains a perfect example of the moderators refusing to resolve disputed definitions. Within an hour and fifteen minutes, four players express their strong support for the creation of a clear definition of native status, and a request for a process in which a native delegate might become a founder. Cogitation (post #5) immediately expresses disapproval of this idea and promises that “I will strongly recommend against this idea” if it were formally proposed. However, Taxachussetts (#14) makes strong arguments that the lack of definition for natives may actually promote griefing by preventing any concrete process for becoming a founder. Cogitation refuses even to comment on this point.
In post #13 of the same thread on founder powers, Cogitation makes an interesting point that there is a simple method the moderators use for determining whether or not a delegate is an invader or a native delegate. It seems to many invaders that a simple process, using the presently technology and setup of the game, to determine native status. In addition, it seems that regions, particularly founderless regions, ought to be able to decide democratically who is and who is not a native. In the thread entitled, Idea:Nativity determined in Regional Constitutions, it is unlikely the moderators would support a region’s ability to self-define native status, although no moderator ever directly comments on this idea during this thread.
Recommended Reforms:
A review of the use and application of the "Un-official rules" that includes a fact-finding efforts by the moderators that solicits the binding opinions of invaders and defenders of the "Un-official rules" much like the drafting of the "un-official rules themselves.
Ideally, a review of the rules would solicit opinions that game players that would then be used to create an official code of rules that would be binding on invaders and defenders and would be required of the moderators to enforce. This would mean that the solicitation of invader opinions during the formation of invasion rules would not be an exercise in futility, like during the creation of the invader handbook.
The creation of an official code of rules that is based on the result of those discussions. I personally strongly urge you to adopt the code of rules found on page 9, post #122 of the "unofficial rules thread" as the official code of rules.
Having an official, written code of rules would reduce the possibility of arbitrary moderator rules inventions and rules enforcement, and would therefore demand the game moderators to be more accountable to the invasion rules.
The creation of a committee that has binding oversight powers over the moderators. Such a committee ought to contain a mix of invaders, defenders and moderators
Allowing invaders and defenders to sit on a rules committee that had authority to review the rules and make amendments would reduce the ability of the moderators to arbitrarily enforce invent rules not explicitly stated in the proposed official binding rulebook.
A clear definition of the following: the process in which one qualified as a native in a region the process in which one qualifies as a founder of a region, clear rules on recruiting such as: the legal number of lines in a recruiting message, the ability of feeder regions to set their rules for recruiting messages.
the creation of at least one moderator who is pro-invader and therefore a counter-weight to the still-evident animus that the moderators have against invaders
This would ideally reduce the chance that the moderators would intervene inappropriately into a player invasion, and if they did, would give the invaders a supporter who could balance the considerable power that the pro-defender moderators may direct against the invaders.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Despite the creation last year of an invaders manual (ATTN: INVADERS - Draft version of revised invasion rules!), I and many other invaders still have considerable concerns about the partisanship of the moderators and their lack of accountability to anyone in the game but themselves. This lack of accountability still manifests itself in ways that frequently rules against invaders, and many of these problems have had a detrimental effect in the ability of invaders to conduct their business. After documenting some of these abuses in accountability, I offer some proposals for your consideration for how we might move forward together and improve this essential part of Nation States.
Specifically, moderators have avoided accountability in the following ways:
Arbitrary creation and/or modification of invasion rules
Arbitrary un-enforcement of invasion rules
Inappropriate interference in invasions by moderators
Arbitrary enforcement of definite rules
Ambiguous definitions necessary for invasions
My comments are made in the spirit of offering constructive criticism, consistent to the criticism welcomed by Neutered Sputniks, a former moderator, during the formation of the invader’s handbook. I mean no disrespect, but I do wish to express my sincere frustration with many of what I and others perceive to be unjust moderation and the lack of accountability for these actions due to your positions as game moderators. My comments are followed by proposed reforms, meant to strengthen the need for moderators to be accountable to the invasion rules.
The arbitrary creation of invasion rules by moderators, not found in the unofficial invasion manual:
Despite the creation of an “un-official” invader handbook, which was created through the consultation of invaders, defenders and moderators, the moderators are still unilaterally creating rules. This means that the moderators act as if they are not accountable to the written rules found in the invader handbook.
The arbitrary creation of rules destabilizes the ability of invaders to invade regions. The arbitrary creation of new invasion rules mean that, although invasions are legal, the moderators still have the power to decide which invasions are legal. Their ability to create and change at their personal will means that invader nations can never predictably know the rules of the game and therefore never confidently play it.
I can cite a specific example of moderators arbitrarily inventing rules. For example, in the thread "Delegate Should Be Granted Founder's Powers" started by Jjuulliiaann, Cogitation clearly is inventing in posts #16 and #18 by declaring that invaders can not force nations in an invaded region to endorse the invading delegate. Even Crazy Girl, a well-known defender, admits that she “never knew” (#17) that rule existed. When Cogitation is called on the unilateral rule change, Cogitation simply declares (#20) that common policy was being "re-iterat[ed]." But if that was common policy, then how come no one knew it existed prior to Cogitation's declaration?
The moderators’ position that the invasion rules are strictly "unofficial" allows the moderators to avoid enforcing rules they don’t wish to enforce.
It is the common experience of nationstates invaders to confront the moderators, whether via the “Getting Help” page, or by Mirc, and cite to them passages and rules in the invaders handbooks, only to be turned away by moderators who insist that the invader handbook is “un-official only.” Again, the practical ramification of this is that there are no official invasion rules other than the rule in the FAQ that says clearly that invasions are legal. However, with no official rules, it is still left to the arbitrary opinion of the moderators which invasions are legal. It also means that the entire exercise of appealing to nationstates players when constructing the handbook is a complete waste and a fraud. If none of the players’ contributions actually help to construct the rules of the game, then the entire 16 pages of player contributions is an exercise in futility. The moderators ought to have considered the experience of players and used those experiences to create a fairer and more complete conception of the rules of the game.
The reality is that, in the invader handbook, there are many player observations and experiences cited by experienced invaders that the moderators do not give sufficient consideration. For example, Cosmo Kramerica observes (#56) that some invaders deliberately eschew the UN simply to avoid ejection from regions that are battleground type regions. Second, Martian Puppets (#122) proposes a series of definitions and rules that seem extraordinarily fair to invaders and defenders alike, and that require the moderators to be accountable for their actions. Unfortunately, these definitions and rules were never given the sufficient consideration they deserved and are currently not an official part of the game play. Beachcomber (#128) suggests “if a nation has been in a region for X days, it is a native.” Unfortunately, the moderators never agreed to use such a definition, and no specific time frame was ever accepted or adopted officially. However, the definitions the moderators are currently using regarding “invader delegate” and native delegate are excessively vague and arbitrary. More on this later.
Moderators have inappropriately interfered with invasion gameplay:
Even after the creation of the invasion handbook, moderators have still interfered with on-going and active invasions. Moderator interference of invasions has raised uncomfortable questions about the objectivity of the moderators on invasions, despite invasions being a legal part of the game. There is anecdotal evidence of improper moderator intervention against invasions of Massachusetts and in China. In both Massachusetts and China, the moderators revived a deleted founder and that revived founder defeated the invasion. The thread Injustice in Japan documents the re-activation of the founder of Japan to defeat an invasion in Japan. In North Pacific, Cogitation removed the invader delegate for “griefing” the region. However, the invader delegate of the region ejected only defenders who were trying to remove the invader delegate from power during a late-night raid. The invader delegate was deleted for “not complying” with the moderator’s ruling, although the invader delegate actually complied the first moment the ruling was received. This is documented in the thread North Pacific: Fiction and Fact
Arbitrary refusal of the moderators to enforce definite rules
Invaders cite instances of the refusal of moderators to enforce well-known and long-established rules. This often happens during instances in which enforcing the rules would mean that the invaders win.
A situation in North Atlantic involving spamming the regional happenings (Help Me! [merged w/Regional Happenings being Spammed]) is a perfect example. Last February, the Isle of Skye claims that Taxachussetts griefed the region “North Atlantic” by ejecting him from North Atlantic. Taxachussetts claims that, by returning and exiting the region so often within such a small space of time, that The Isle of Skye griefed the regional happenings. In the thread “Clarification Requested in North Atlantic,” Cogitation says that an ejected nation who repeatedly returns to the region he was ejected from is spamming the regional happenings. But despite there being a ruling that should have been instructive on the specific situation, the moderators made no ruling in the case and the players were left to resolve the situation on their own. At the time, Taxachussetts was considered an “invader delegate” by the moderators.
More recently, on March 19, 2005, the nation Anstan created a thread in the moderator’s forum I’m Tired of the Spammers to express concern over spamming in The Colonial Entente. Although Cogitation responded to the thread and acknowledged that private warnings were possibly made, no official action was taken in the region on the subject and the spamming continued. During the following week, Anstan and four additional players brought the issue to the attention of the moderators via the forum, complaining that the problem was still unresolved.
Ambiguous definitions of central rules, and the refusal of the moderators to clarify those definitions
There are a number of terms and concepts in Nationstates that are common throughout the game but have remained undefined, and often those definitions are critical in order to invade regions. Such terms and concepts include (but are not limited to): “native,” “founder,” “spamming,” and “recruiting.” The moderators’ refusal or inability to define these concepts has impeded the ability of invaders to conduct and conclude their operations and have often put invaders in opposition to the moderators. The lack of definitions in these circumstances have also made it difficult for non-invaders (and non-defenders) to achieve objectives that are not related to invasions.
The thread "Delegate Should Be Granted Founder's Powers" contains a perfect example of the moderators refusing to resolve disputed definitions. Within an hour and fifteen minutes, four players express their strong support for the creation of a clear definition of native status, and a request for a process in which a native delegate might become a founder. Cogitation (post #5) immediately expresses disapproval of this idea and promises that “I will strongly recommend against this idea” if it were formally proposed. However, Taxachussetts (#14) makes strong arguments that the lack of definition for natives may actually promote griefing by preventing any concrete process for becoming a founder. Cogitation refuses even to comment on this point.
In post #13 of the same thread on founder powers, Cogitation makes an interesting point that there is a simple method the moderators use for determining whether or not a delegate is an invader or a native delegate. It seems to many invaders that a simple process, using the presently technology and setup of the game, to determine native status. In addition, it seems that regions, particularly founderless regions, ought to be able to decide democratically who is and who is not a native. In the thread entitled, Idea:Nativity determined in Regional Constitutions, it is unlikely the moderators would support a region’s ability to self-define native status, although no moderator ever directly comments on this idea during this thread.
Recommended Reforms:
A review of the use and application of the "Un-official rules" that includes a fact-finding efforts by the moderators that solicits the binding opinions of invaders and defenders of the "Un-official rules" much like the drafting of the "un-official rules themselves.
Ideally, a review of the rules would solicit opinions that game players that would then be used to create an official code of rules that would be binding on invaders and defenders and would be required of the moderators to enforce. This would mean that the solicitation of invader opinions during the formation of invasion rules would not be an exercise in futility, like during the creation of the invader handbook.
The creation of an official code of rules that is based on the result of those discussions. I personally strongly urge you to adopt the code of rules found on page 9, post #122 of the "unofficial rules thread" as the official code of rules.
Having an official, written code of rules would reduce the possibility of arbitrary moderator rules inventions and rules enforcement, and would therefore demand the game moderators to be more accountable to the invasion rules.
The creation of a committee that has binding oversight powers over the moderators. Such a committee ought to contain a mix of invaders, defenders and moderators
Allowing invaders and defenders to sit on a rules committee that had authority to review the rules and make amendments would reduce the ability of the moderators to arbitrarily enforce invent rules not explicitly stated in the proposed official binding rulebook.
A clear definition of the following: the process in which one qualified as a native in a region the process in which one qualifies as a founder of a region, clear rules on recruiting such as: the legal number of lines in a recruiting message, the ability of feeder regions to set their rules for recruiting messages.
the creation of at least one moderator who is pro-invader and therefore a counter-weight to the still-evident animus that the moderators have against invaders
This would ideally reduce the chance that the moderators would intervene inappropriately into a player invasion, and if they did, would give the invaders a supporter who could balance the considerable power that the pro-defender moderators may direct against the invaders.