NationStates Jolt Archive

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9154225&postcount=7

Apparently, FairyTinkArisen got forumbanned for the above. As I understand it, the title of the thread referred to a style of music that Tink isn't particularly fond of. I don't understand what about the above post saying showing a poster that says emo music is crap can be considered flaming. Personally, I hadn't heard of emo music until Emo Kids showed up, but many others have. Is there some rule that makes stating your opinion of the music (however vehemently) disallowed because someone used it for their name?

Personally I think you mods do an excellent job of keeping the forums civil. I hate to questions your actions but I simply don't understand how this can be considered flaming. Any clarification would be appreciated.

The pic really isn't that bad. There are alot worse that this one. some admitted getting warnings.

I think, in this instance, you are taking her history of spammage and slapping her with that ban because of who she is and not what she posted. I think a review of this ruling may be in order.

my humble opinion.

Ju, they may well be taking her former history into account. Just because you get deleted and come back, doesn't mean you do so with a brand new clear record.

Ju, they may well be taking her former history into account. Just because you get deleted and come back, doesn't mean you do so with a brand new clear record.

I wasn't specifically asking about her history. I was more curious about how this qualifies as flaming.

Ju, they may well be taking her former history into account. Just because you get deleted and come back, doesn't mean you do so with a brand new clear record.
and that may be, but if it was someone else, would the pic (which is very mild and not flame material in my opinion,) earn a forum ban or a warning?

the question is, is the pic considered flaming?
considering the Thread, the pic is keeping with the posters complaints but it isn't as insulting as the "EMO SUCKS" nor the picks about decapitations on the other EMO threads...

Usually it doesn't take this long to get a reply

It might have something to do with where the pic came from. I think that somethingawful.com is one of the banned sites. Correct me if I'm wrong.

<--- No mod.

It might have something to do with where the pic came from. I think that somethingawful.com is one of the banned sites. Correct me if I'm wrong.

<--- No mod.

The One-Stop Rules shop says this for forbidden liks:

Some generally unacceptable popular sites include ebaumsworld, albinoblacksheep, and plasticnipple.

Nothing about somethingawful.

True. But allow me to quote Fris on the same 'article'.

Forbidden links: There is not, and will not ever, be a definitive list of forbidden links. Since we don't control the content of other websites, a link which was fine yesterday may be forbidden today. Each link is judged on a case by case basis, and occasionally the Mods will outlaw certain sites.

They may have chosen to forbid the site yesterday/today. I don't know. But remember that anything I say is merely speculation from my part.

I wasn't specifically asking about her history. I was more curious about how this qualifies as flaming.

It clearly is. It's obvious, really.

And if someone has a long history of questionable actions, surley it would only take a smaller action next time to get a ban than for someone with a pristine record?

And if someone has a long history of questionable actions, surley it would only take a smaller action next time to get a ban than for someone with a pristine record?

I have heard of them doing that.

Can't remember which tread it was, however.

It clearly is. It's obvious, really.

And if someone has a long history of questionable actions, surley it would only take a smaller action next time to get a ban than for someone with a pristine record?

I thought flaming had to be directed at a person and not at a style of music. Is it flaming for me to say that I think gangster rap is shit? That wouldn't be my understanding of flaming.

For the record, I am not the Moderator who handled this case.

The image in the linked post qualifies as flamebait. Also remember that images are held to a higher standard than text, so flamebaiting with an image is a more serious offense than flamebaiting with text. "A picture is worth a thousand words" and you can do a lot of flamebaiting in a thousand words.

You can say that you don't like someone elses style of music, so long as you make that statement civilly. This incident was not civil.

And if someone has a long history of questionable actions, surley it would only take a smaller action next time to get a ban than for someone with a pristine record?Correct.

We Moderators have less tolerance for players who have had nations deleted for rulebreaking than for players with no deletions on their record.

I thought flaming had to be directed at a person and not at a style of music. Is it flaming for me to say that I think gangster rap is shit? That wouldn't be my understanding of flaming. First, it's not flaming, it's flamebaiting.

Second, this would depend rather strongly upon the context. If we Mods think that you've directed that comment against another player and that you're being hostile towards that player, you could be warned for flamebait.



--The Modified Democratic States of Cogitation
NationStates Game Moderator

For the record, I am not the Moderator who handled this case.

The image in the linked post qualifies as flamebait. Also remember that images are held to a higher standard than text, so flamebaiting with an image is a more serious offense than flamebaiting with text. "A picture is worth a thousand words" and you can do a lot of flamebaiting in a thousand words.

You can say that you don't like someone elses style of music, so long as you make that statement civilly. This incident was not civil.

Correct.

We Moderators have less tolerance for players who have had nations deleted for rulebreaking than for players with no deletions on their record.

--The Modified Democratic States of Cogitation
NationStates Game Moderator

I guess I can see how it was flamebaiting though I thought it was just meant to be a joke. I don't know Tink's history so I guess that might be why I thought it was so harsh. Either way, the ban is half way over anyway.

maybe cuz she said the "shit" word?

maybe cuz she said the "shit" word?Swearing, per se, is not strictly prohibited, but it can be a compounding factor in another offense. It also makes us less likely to believe that your conduct towards other players is civil.

An occassional swear word in non-malicious, non-defamatory, non-threatening contexts is not going to be a problem. Excessive swearing, or swearing in a possibly malicious, defamatory, or threatening context, is going to be a problem.

--The Modified Democratic States of Cogitation

Correct.

We Moderators have less tolerance for players who have had nations deleted for rulebreaking than for players with no deletions on their record.

First, it's not flaming, it's flamebaiting.

Second, this would depend rather strongly upon the context. If we Mods think that you've directed that comment against another player and that you're being hostile towards that player, you could be warned for flamebait.



--The Modified Democratic States of Cogitation
NationStates Game Moderator
First, Thanks for the explanation.

my problem is with this moving line. Tinks (and several others) post alot in these forums and most of these posts are ribs and tries to be light-hearted humour.
as I understand the reasoning, if I posted something like a near obscene pic, I, with no history of mod action, would get a warning.
I get several warnings and I post a non-obscene STFU pic that earns me a short forumban.
after that forumban, I find a pic similar to the one above. I examine it, it's not obscene, it's not a STFU pic, it perfectly describes my feelings about what I think the topic is (emo music) without pointing to any poster in particular... it's levels below what I've posted before, and suddenly, I'm forumbanned again because it's now considered Flame/Flamebait while other pics with STFU is posted without (apparent) mod action.

see the problem? with a moving line of tolerance, it can be crossed without even knowing it. what was acceptable before is suddenly reason for Mod action now, and without knowing where that line moves next, people who want to change are forced not to participate in polls, debates, or even attention whoring threads because suddenly, anything they post may cross the line that, again, mysteriously moved. and without creating a new history of trying to be "mod friendly," the past actions of Inappropriate postings won't go away. a Catch 22 if you will.

Thanks, will get down from the Soapbox now.

The moderators have spent a fair amount of time codifying and updating the Forum and Game Rules (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=416023) sticky. It lists the infractions, but not the punishments, because every case is unique and cumulative. That's the nature of moderation.

If your posting style is to skate the edge of what is permissible, you can expect to fall down from time to time. When that happens, better plan on losing a nation or two in the process. The "moving line" only moves because you're so close to it.

Thousands of posters manage to enjoy the forums without ever running afoul of the moderators. It's not because they're getting away with anything, it's because they don't push the limits of acceptable behaviour. If you want to avoid the possiblity of being deleted, it's easy. Just read and follow the rules sticky. It seems to work fine for other people, and I see no reason to change how we moderate based on anything I've read here.

You have to admit though, it's sometimes hard for players when the rules change from day to day sometimes, what was not flamebait last week, you could get dinged with this week. The flamebait rules have become VERY strict in a very short period of time.

It use to be as long as it wasn't directed at an NS player you were fine. Now it appears even being a tad snide or sarcastic gets you a warning. I guess it would help if the mods could stick to one set of rules and keep them! I know that in the chats on IRC with Max when asked, he has made it quite clear that he doesn't want his mods jumping into every conflict, that only as a last resort. Yet as of late we have seen people getting warnings for things only a few months ago they never would of. It does get sort of confusing boys & girls!

well look i consider the mods here to be a hell lot nicer than other forum's mods

more helpful, polite and better attitude to newbs and noobs

well look i consider the mods here to be a hell lot nicer than other forum's mods

more helpful, polite and better attitude to newbs and noobs

I don't argue that. In fact I agree. But I don't think it was ever the intent of Max for people to be warned for being sarcastic or being snide. As we who have been here a long time know, the mods themselves can be among the most snide when they get frustrated with a player. Not that I'm complaining about it. Because I think it's fine. However it does make one wonder when players are getting warnings and forum bans for doing the same things you often see the mods do. That's all. Not trying to cause trouble, Just calling it as I see it.

Just to let everyone know, there's a real band called "Fuck Emos" just in case anyone posts its name. I have all of their CDs.

You have to admit though, it's sometimes hard for players when the rules change from day to day sometimes, what was not flamebait last week, you could get dinged with this week.

No, we really don't. As mentioned before, the vast majority of players have no problem staying well within the rules and never get warned. It's only the players that seem to have some sense of entitlement, or seem to still think pushing the edges makes them cool that have problems. The core rule is still "play nice".

Perhaps if certain players would quit trying to be as hostile as possible, they wouldn't have to worry about the rules.

No, we really don't. As mentioned before, the vast majority of players have no problem staying well within the rules and never get warned. It's only the players that seem to have some sense of entitlement, or seem to still think pushing the edges makes them cool that have problems. The core rule is still "play nice".

Perhaps if certain players would quit trying to be as hostile as possible, they wouldn't have to worry about the rules.

You can say a lot of things about Tink (but don't) but none of them would have the word hostile in it.