NationStates Jolt Archive

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?p=9508021&posted=1#post9508021

Flamebaiting against the french.
Also the thread degenerated.

could we please lock it?

In my opinion, the subject of Lance doping or not was fine. But the way Eutrusca went about titling the thread and calling the French losers etc, does amount to flamebait. Of course that will be the mods decision. But I think it was flamebait.. what does the French being losers have to do with Lance doping?

Yeah, and if an American research bureau discovered it, he'd go like "oh no Lance I never thought he'd really do it :( :(!" Why not call them losers? I'd say it's flamebait, knowing his record of being blunt and borderlining on flaming/baiting numerous times.

If that's not flamebait I don't know what is.

Yes, let's all lynch Eutresca for daring to call himself a centrist ;)


I've seen much worse things that were undeniably flamebaiting, and yet they weren't actionable. Who's to say this is?

Yes, let's all lynch Eutresca for daring to call himself a centrist ;)


I've seen much worse things that were undeniably flamebaiting, and yet they weren't actionable. Who's to say this is?
The mods, obviously. This is why I post it in moderation and let them decide for themselves.

And let's not mix his so-called centrism with his flamebaiting. Where did I mention his centrism in either the original thread or in this thread?

Yes, let's all lynch Eutresca for daring to call himself a centrist ;)


I've seen much worse things that were undeniably flamebaiting, and yet they weren't actionable. Who's to say this is?I don't know, he's getting FlAK for his comments and premature assumptions (and the taunts (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9508040&postcount=26)) and not for saying he's centrist.

Yes, let's all lynch Eutresca for daring to call himself a centrist ;)


I've seen much worse things that were undeniably flamebaiting, and yet they weren't actionable. Who's to say this is?

So your reaction in the thread is to flamebait me too? This is how you respond, here in mod, not by posting things like this (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9508666&postcount=103) , given you were not even around when I was a mod. Think about it, if I had wanted him gone when I was a mod, he would of been. Don't talk about things you haven't a clue about. You don't exactly have the best record when it comes to trolling yourself.

Now, I will go back to trying to ignore this.

It'd be a really good idea if people waited for a moderator ruling and stopped sniping at each other in MODERATION of all places.

I've locked the linked thread pending Moderator review.

Stephistan and Eutrusca: The bickering between the two of you will stop. If either of you has a problem with the other's conduct, then file a complaint. Forum complaints normally go in "Moderation", but anyone may use the Getting Help page if a confidential complaint is desired. Given the amount of drama, here, I strongly advise filing a confidential complaint. As always, links to specific posts are preferred.

Again, the linked thread is pending a Mod review.

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

Cog, it's kewl. I just wish Eutrusca would stop posting threads that he has to clearly know will anger people. Other than that, I have no complaint. I will cease and desist.

Cog, it's kewl. I just wish Eutrusca would stop posting threads that he has to clearly know will anger people. Other than that, I have no complaint. I will cease and desist.
Well, considering how Stephie never, ever posts anything whatsoever that could even remotely be considered something that might anger Americans ....

Yeah. Right. :rolleyes:

We're getting tired of you two dancing around the lines, flamebaiting, and generally causing problems. Now that this has been made explicit, we fully expect you two to knock it off so that we don't need to take official action and give you time to think about proper forum behavior away from the forums.

Just thought I'd throw in my two cents...
I was around when Stephistan was a mod. (under a different name of course)
I don't believe she has ever had any complaint about any of the dozens and dozens of anti-US, anti-conservative, anti-republican threads that I see on this forum every day. In fact, I remember at least one of those that she started herself. It seems to me that its only considered “flamebaiting” if the thread is anti-liberal, anti-democrat, or anti-any other country besides USA. To sum it up in three words, this is hypocrisy.

To be fair, I haven't read every single one of her posts, but I just don't see where a person who has started at least one flamebait thread has room to complain about anyone else doing it. Especially when that person is/was a mod.

Sheer Stupidity, its probably best off not getting involved with arguements between Stephistan and Eutrusca. But now that SalusaSecondus has stepped in himself, lets drop the subject. Hopefully, both users will grow up from such immature bickering.

Just thought I'd throw in my two cents...
I was around when Stephistan was a mod. (under a different name of course)
I don't believe she has ever had any complaint about any of the dozens and dozens of anti-US, anti-conservative, anti-republican threads that I see on this forum every day. In fact, I remember at least one of those that she started herself. It seems to me that its only considered “flamebaiting” if the thread is anti-liberal, anti-democrat, or anti-any other country besides USA. To sum it up in three words, this is hypocrisy.

To be fair, I haven't read every single one of her posts, but I just don't see where a person who has started at least one flamebait thread has room to complain about anyone else doing it. Especially when that person is/was a mod.

Sheer Stupidity, your input was not wanted, needed, appropriate, useful, nor insightful. In the future, I would give a second thought before posting in moderation threads that don't concern you.

Sheer Stupidity, your input was not wanted, needed, appropriate, useful, nor insightful. In the future, I would give a second thought before posting in moderation threads that don't concern you.
I know how it is. Mods like to stick by each other, right or wrong. Believe me, I've been putting a lot of thought into how I was going to say that, because its something that needed to be said for a long, long time. For some reason, though, I was actually expecting an adult to respond. It looks like I was wrong. You go ahead and insult me some more if you want. Maybe it will help prop up your cute little ego.

If you didn't like this response, keep in mind that your own snotty attitude is what brought it on. If you hadn't talked to me like that, this conversation would have ended yesterday. Also, I want you to know that I have absolutely no fear of being deleted, and will not back down, since, in this case, I know I'm right.

I know how it is. Mods like to stick by each other, right or wrong. Believe me, I've been putting a lot of thought into how I was going to say that, because its something that needed to be said for a long, long time. For some reason, though, I was actually expecting an adult to respond. It looks like I was wrong. You go ahead and insult me some more if you want. Maybe it will help prop up your cute little ego.

If you didn't like this response, keep in mind that your own snotty attitude is what brought it on. If you hadn't talked to me like that, this conversation would have ended yesterday. Also, I want you to know that I have absolutely no fear of being deleted, and will not back down, since, in this case, I know I'm right.

Sheer Stupidity, knock it off.

What part of
I've locked the linked thread pending Moderator review.

Stephistan and Eutrusca: The bickering between the two of you will stop. If either of you has a problem with the other's conduct, then file a complaint. Forum complaints normally go in "Moderation", but anyone may use the Getting Help page if a confidential complaint is desired. Given the amount of drama, here, I strongly advise filing a confidential complaint. As always, links to specific posts are preferred.

Again, the linked thread is pending a Mod review.

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

and

We're getting tired of you two dancing around the lines, flamebaiting, and generally causing problems. Now that this has been made explicit, we fully expect you two to knock it off so that we don't need to take official action and give you time to think about proper forum behavior away from the forums.

sound like anyone is being given preferential treatment?

I suggest that you stop flamebaiting with comments like "I was actually expecting an adult to respond." "You go ahead and insult me some more if you want. Maybe it will help prop up your cute little ego." (when no insult was made: just the observation that this does not concern you) and "your own snotty attitude is what brought it on" when yours has been the hostile attitude.

Sheer Stupidity, knock it off.

What part of (quote)

and (quote)

sound like anyone is being given preferential treatment?

I suggest that you stop flamebaiting with comments like "I was actually expecting an adult to respond." "You go ahead and insult me some more if you want. Maybe it will help prop up your cute little ego." (when no insult was made: just the observation that this does not concern you) and "your own snotty attitude is what brought it on" when yours has been the hostile attitude.
My intent was to leave this subject alone entirely after reading Austar Union's post. My mind was changed after reading this flaimbaiting insult: "your input was not wanted, needed, appropriate, useful, nor insightful.", and this remark that comes off sounding like a veiled threat: "In the future, I would give a second thought...".

My attitude has not been any more hostile than anyone else's here. In fact, all I was doing was being honest, and I stand by my every word.

I can't go into the forum without seeing dozens upon dozens of hateful, despicable, childish, anti-US/republican/conservative, flamebaiting threads. The board is overflowing with them, but the second the other side has anything to say, someone cries "flamebait". Ironic (but not at all surprising), coming from the side that tends to whine the most about their freedom of speech being restricted. The standard that is being made evident here is that its ok to bash one side all you want, but don't you dare say anything negative about the other. I've held my tongue about this for a very long time, knowing that the truth would not be well received since one of the people my complaint is about was a mod. I'm perfectly willing to go right back to holding my tongue about it, since it seems that nothing is ever going to change here, but you should know that just because it is rarely said, doesn't mean it isn't 100% true. Now, don't get me wrong. I can handle the flaming. All I'm saying is that one can't logically expect to constantly dish it out without having to take a bite once in a while. Think of the thread being complained about here as a little mushroom that grew under a huge pile of manure.

All I have left to say is that I'm not an easy target. Any shot one takes at me is likely to bounce back and hit them in the eye. Also, I would like for whoever tampered with my homepage to go back and check it again to make sure that the new entries are "appropriate". At this point I am prepared to step away from this subject, and let it go entirely, but if I feel I'm being attacked again, I will respond again.

In case the point has not been made clearly enough:

1) Both Stephistan and Eutrusca have been told to stop feuding publicly.
2) Neither of them is a moderator.

My intent was to leave this subject alone entirely after reading Austar Union's post. My mind was changed after reading this flaimbaiting insult: "your input was not wanted, needed, appropriate, useful, nor insightful.", and this remark that comes off sounding like a veiled threat: "In the future, I would give a second thought...".

My attitude has not been any more hostile than anyone else's here. In fact, all I was doing was being honest, and I stand by my every word.

I can't go into the forum without seeing dozens upon dozens of hateful, despicable, childish, anti-US/republican/conservative, flamebaiting threads. The board is overflowing with them, but the second the other side has anything to say, someone cries "flamebait". Ironic (but not at all surprising), coming from the side that tends to whine the most about their freedom of speech being restricted. The standard that is being made evident here is that its ok to bash one side all you want, but don't you dare say anything negative about the other. I've held my tongue about this for a very long time, knowing that the truth would not be well received since one of the people my complaint is about was a mod. I'm perfectly willing to go right back to holding my tongue about it, since it seems that nothing is ever going to change here, but you should know that just because it is rarely said, doesn't mean it isn't 100% true. Now, don't get me wrong. I can handle the flaming. All I'm saying is that one can't logically expect to constantly dish it out without having to take a bite once in a while. Think of the thread being complained about here as a little mushroom that grew under a huge pile of manure.

All I have left to say is that I'm not an easy target. Any shot one takes at me is likely to bounce back and hit them in the eye. Also, I would like for whoever tampered with my homepage to go back and check it again to make sure that the new entries are "appropriate". At this point I am prepared to step away from this subject, and let it go entirely, but if I feel I'm being attacked again, I will respond again.

Amen! (I'm not religous, but that's the closest thing to the truth I've read around here)
Don't let it get to you, I've had to accept the fact that this fourm is not about debate, it's about forming accepted consensus, and other opinions are not appreciated. The only question I have now is, once they manage to mod out the rest, do they feed on their own?

*pulls out lawnchair to await results concerning the thread*
>> Not a mod <<
IMHO, the thread is no more inflamatory than the others that bash Christianity/Liberals/conservatives/USA/President Bush/ect... in fact the fact that you have threads calling the US much worse than Losers and they are still going should not bring action to this thread.

however, the little flamewar between Stephistan and Eutrusca did kinda hijack the thread and degenerate it.

While I will generally stay out of Sheer Stupidity's and SalusaSecondus's conversation, I would like to point out to SalusaSecondus, that I, as a player, use the results posted in the Moderation section to find the line and not to cross it. thus all these threads in Mod are the players concerns because it helps alert the players where that line is, and if a player does percieve that line being moved, I think he/she has the right to question it.

Of course, Sheer Stupidity and Salusasecondus could have worded their posts differently and not been so confrontational.

All I can say is wow.

This is a free site and everybody thinks they have rights and can mouth off and get snotty. Never understood that.....

For the record, the mods do an exceptional job dealing with the kiddies on this site. I know I can get labeled that as well.

The mods are fair. I have argued with Melkor, Steph, Tac and never saw the abuse of power.

Kat once said something that could be questionable if you were sensitive but I label that do to getting annoyed.

People, modding is a thankless tiring job. You get to spend your free time dealling with children fighting all the time and you rarely get thanked for it.

Sheer Stupidity: Yes mods have to present a unified front. Order would be lost if they didn't. You can pretty well bet, there is a board we can't see where they go discuss matters. And I am sure they would argue over issues as well.

So for all. It couldn't hurt to thank them from time to time. A simple "thanks for the efforts" goes along way. Money, booze, and sex slaves would probably go farther! :D

Now back to our regularily scheduled entertainment.

Hey, I have nothing against the mods. I'm not trying to portray them as tyrannical dictators or anything. I understand that what they do can be very time consuming, and they do it for free.

I just object to double standards, and being talked down to in a disrespectful manner. I tried to present my opinion as respectfully as I could, and was met with a derogatory response. When that happens, I absolutely refuse to cower like a whipped dog. I had held back that particular opinion for a very long time. I was going to basically say the same thing back when Stephistan was a mod, but I suspected that the reaction would have been far more immature than the one I got all these months later. The fact that Stephistan is now being warned for her behavior supports my point quite strongly.

I have no desire whatsoever to get into personal feuds, and I have no vendetta against SalusaSecondus. Its just like I said earlier, you can't dish it out and not expect to have to take a bite. No matter what your status on this forum, or in life in general, if you don't respect others then don't expect them to respect you. His response to me was extremely disrespectful, and I let him know it. That was enough. At this point, I consider that particular matter to be settled and done.

I also have no vendetta against Stephistan. The fact that I'm bringing up her name so much now may be misleading, so I want to make it clear that I'm not trying to "go after her" or anything along those lines. The reason why I stepped into this conversation was because to lock the thread that this thread is referring to would be absolute proof of an objectionable double standard on this forum, and an insult to every member thereof. In other words, I'm not just criticizing Stephistan specifically, but rather the double standard that she so clearly advocates. I believe that people on both sides of the political fence should be granted fair and equal opportunity to make asses of themselves.

There's not much else to say without repeating myself, so I'll conclude by stating that I have nothing but respect for the mods of this forum.
That is until one of them disrespects me. When that happens, I get mean, and rightfully so.

Peace.

I just object to double standards, and being talked down to in a disrespectful manner. I tried to present my opinion as respectfully as I could, and was met with a derogatory response. When that happens, I absolutely refuse to cower like a whipped dog. I had held back that particular opinion for a very long time. I was going to basically say the same thing back when Stephistan was a mod, but I suspected that the reaction would have been far more immature than the one I got all these months later. The fact that Stephistan is now being warned for her behavior supports my point quite strongly.

See this is why I posted about this thread.

Eutrusca is asking for moderation as soon as he percieve an attack against him. Threads have been locked and people warned because they said such thing as "The Centrist speaks". Eutrusca's have been very agressive these days and has veiled flammes and flamebaits all over the place without being warned by the mods. In fact, they have warned other poster to stop harrassing Eutrusca, even when he was the instigator.

So, this time he clearly posted flamebait on the French. I even said so early in the thread. His answer? "I call 'em as I see 'em". I'm sorry but that's not just acceptable in my book. I felt he crossed the line one too many times and so I posted this thread to raise a flag.

I'm sorry if you feel the US has been singled out in these forums, but I don't feel so. In fact, I can point to a lot of posts where the French are called surrender monkeys. I let them slide almost all the time. But, sometimes, you have to say "That's quite enough." I feel Eutrusca has crossed the line.

I know the mods have a thankless job. I disagree with a few of their calls. But I think that overall they do a good job. As far as I'm concerned, I'd send them all a slave of the gender of their choice but my finances don't allow it. I feel, however that they have been a bit too lax on Eutrusca these days. Maybe they have been on Stephistan too. I dunno, I don't tend to see her posts often.

I tried to present my opinion as respectfully as I could, and was met with a derogatory response. Eutrusca and Stephistan were ordered not to continue the bickering between each other. We Mods did not expect that anyone else would resume the bickering in their place, nor did we desire anyone else to resume the bickering in their place.

Your first post in this thread has been deemed to be a deliberate attempt to resume said bickering, thus constituting defiance of a Moderator order to cease the bickering. This is the reason for the tone-of-voice SalusaSecondus used against you: you violated NationStates rules by defying a Moderator order. I will also note that it is the job of the NationStates staff to inform players when their conduct is not in compliance with NationStates rules (and bickering falls under the "malicious" clause) and to tell such players to change their behavior. Your conduct was out-of-line and SalusaSecondus was telling you so.

No matter what your status on this forum, or in life in general, if you don't respect others then don't expect them to respect you. His response to me was extremely disrespectful, and I let him know it. That was enough. At this point, I consider that particular matter to be settled and done.

<snip>

There's not much else to say without repeating myself, so I'll conclude by stating that I have nothing but respect for the mods of this forum.
That is until one of them disrespects me. When that happens, I get mean, and rightfully so.Your response implies that SalusaSecondus was the first transgressor in this exchange. This is not correct. You attempted to resume the bickering that Salusa and I ordered to cease, thus you were the first transgressor.

In principle, I agree with you that if you don't respect others then don't expect them to respect you. However, in this case, I am of the opinion that you were disrespectful, first. Specifically, disprespectful of an order to stop the bickering.

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

I'm probably going to get scolded by the mods, but here is a suggestion. If you think that others are being allowed to flamebait in a manner that Eutrusca has been accused of, find links to those specific posts and start a thread to deal with them in moderation. I'm sorry if this will cause a lot of extra work for the mods, but it's a more constructive way to deal with questions concerning the intent of other threads.

You know, I hope that when I ask people to cease bickering and generally play nice on these forums that they do. Especially when I issue no warnings and make no permanent marks on anyone's record. I do this because I believe that most people do have respect for the forums and for others and don't actually need full official warnings to shape up. I know that this isn't always the case.

Sheer Stupidity, I stand by my original summary of your post in the thread. I was telling two people from two different "sides" to knock it off, and you go off about moderator bias (though not in those exact words). What's more, we're looking at patterns of behavior, not individual actions. So, I scarcely see how us telling them both to shape up or face consequences is either biased, or involves you.

You then say, "Mods like to stick by each other". Yeah, I'd say that's generally true, though I fail to see what relavence it has to this thread. I must take issue with your follow up of "right or wrong" though. You don't see our private forum or our private chat room. The frequency of us going to each other for advice before rulings and then questioning each other after rulings (and overturning rulings) is mindblowing to anyone not actually involved. It's not more aparant because we usually work the problems out before hand and because when we do overrule each other, it's both rare and done smoothly so that there is minimal interruption with the flow of the game. This is how things should be.

We address things when we see them and when they are reported and there are mods from all over the political spectrum. If we were so grossly biased as you accuse, I think that about half of the mods would strangle me. Same thing goes if we were biased the other way. For that matter, if I felt that we were that biased in either direction, I'd probably strangle myself. And you know what? I think that we do a pretty good job. After all, if we weren't biased, why else would we get accused of being biased for and against every single "side" at some point or another. A balanced view looks extreme to the off-centered eye.

You had a point you felt like making. Fine. You made it in a thread that's only tangentally relevant and made it poorly. Behavior like that does result in consequenses, not due to the opinions expressed, but how they are. Was my post a veiled threat? I guess that it depends on your interpretation of it. Was I warning you that further behavior like this will result in consequences for you? Absolutely. I scarcely consider that veiled.

So, finally (and this is addressed to everyone), the bickering will stop. This is not a request, or even a command. It is a statement of fact. If you have something to say, make sure that it is relevant and express it politely and well. I don't want to have to start taking official actions.

{snip}True and I aplogize if it seemed that I was Bickering. I was just interested in the outcome of the thread. Not on commenting on any bias or what not. again Apologies.

Got a question tho... not related to this... but your avatar, where is it from? Looks familiar.

Got a question tho... not related to this... but your avatar, where is it from? Looks familiar.

It's a photo that a friend took of me Freshman year of college.

You know, I hope that when I ask people to cease bickering and generally play nice on these forums that they do. Especially when I issue no warnings and make no permanent marks on anyone's record. I do this because I believe that most people do have respect for the forums and for others and don't actually need full official warnings to shape up. I know that this isn't always the case.

Sheer Stupidity, I stand by my original summary of your post in the thread. I was telling two people from two different "sides" to knock it off, and you go off about moderator bias (though not in those exact words). What's more, we're looking at patterns of behavior, not individual actions. So, I scarcely see how us telling them both to shape up or face consequences is either biased, or involves you.

You then say, "Mods like to stick by each other". Yeah, I'd say that's generally true, though I fail to see what relavence it has to this thread. I must take issue with your follow up of "right or wrong" though. You don't see our private forum or our private chat room. The frequency of us going to each other for advice before rulings and then questioning each other after rulings (and overturning rulings) is mindblowing to anyone not actually involved. It's not more aparant because we usually work the problems out before hand and because when we do overrule each other, it's both rare and done smoothly so that there is minimal interruption with the flow of the game. This is how things should be.

We address things when we see them and when they are reported and there are mods from all over the political spectrum. If we were so grossly biased as you accuse, I think that about half of the mods would strangle me. Same thing goes if we were biased the other way. For that matter, if I felt that we were that biased in either direction, I'd probably strangle myself. And you know what? I think that we do a pretty good job. After all, if we weren't biased, why else would we get accused of being biased for and against every single "side" at some point or another. A balanced view looks extreme to the off-centered eye.

You had a point you felt like making. Fine. You made it in a thread that's only tangentally relevant and made it poorly. Behavior like that does result in consequenses, not due to the opinions expressed, but how they are. Was my post a veiled threat? I guess that it depends on your interpretation of it. Was I warning you that further behavior like this will result in consequences for you? Absolutely. I scarcely consider that veiled.

So, finally (and this is addressed to everyone), the bickering will stop. This is not a request, or even a command. It is a statement of fact. If you have something to say, make sure that it is relevant and express it politely and well. I don't want to have to start taking official actions.

I will go about this respectfully and politfully as I can. It is my opinoin that Sheer Stupidity is right. Not about the Mods, but about never seeing a anti- liberal/Any-other-country-then-US/Communist/Socialist thread, whereas frequently you see anti Bush/Republican/Capitalism/Right-wing/US/Christian threads. I please hope you start to shut them down. In fact, I think I made a thread that was locked. It was called Capitalism.

It's a photo that a friend took of me Freshman year of college.
Kewl... Thanks.

I will go about this respectfully and politfully as I can. It is my opinoin that Sheer Stupidity is right. Not about the Mods, but about never seeing a anti- liberal/Any-other-country-then-US/Communist/Socialist thread, whereas frequently you see anti Bush/Republican/Capitalism/Right-wing/US/Christian threads. I please hope you start to shut them down. In fact, I think I made a thread that was locked. It was called Capitalism.

Now, while I don't agree that we currently have unfair moderation in this way (and you better believe that I will make sure that we don't), I just want to comment that this is a reasonable way to make this comment. What's more, it has become on topic for this thread due to our other discussions.

True and I aplogize if it seemed that I was Bickering. I was just interested in the outcome of the thread. Not on commenting on any bias or what not. again Apologies.

Got a question tho... not related to this... but your avatar, where is it from? Looks familiar.



Wait...how come he gets an avatar and I don't? I wanna be a mod now, just for the picture :mad:

Wait...how come he gets an avatar and I don't? I wanna be a mod now, just for the picture :mad:
You might notice my lack of an avatar...

Eutrusca and Stephistan were ordered not to continue the bickering between each other. We Mods did not expect that anyone else would resume the bickering in their place, nor did we desire anyone else to resume the bickering in their place.

Your first post in this thread has been deemed to be a deliberate attempt to resume said bickering, thus constituting defiance of a Moderator order to cease the bickering. This is the reason for the tone-of-voice SalusaSecondus used against you: you violated NationStates rules by defying a Moderator order. I will also note that it is the job of the NationStates staff to inform players when their conduct is not in compliance with NationStates rules (and bickering falls under the "malicious" clause) and to tell such players to change their behavior. Your conduct was out-of-line and SalusaSecondus was telling you so.

Your response implies that SalusaSecondus was the first transgressor in this exchange. This is not correct. You attempted to resume the bickering that Salusa and I ordered to cease, thus you were the first transgressor.

In principle, I agree with you that if you don't respect others then don't expect them to respect you. However, in this case, I am of the opinion that you were disrespectful, first. Specifically, disprespectful of an order to stop the bickering.

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

I just have to point this out;

Monty Python; Scene 14
FATHER:
Guards! Make sure the Prince doesn't leave this room until I come and get him
GUARD #1:
Not to leave the room even if you come and get him.
FATHER:
No, no. Until I come and get him.
GUARD #1:
Until you come and get him, we're not to enter the room
GUARD #1:
We don't need to do anything apart from just stop him entering the room
GUARD #1:
Oh, I remember. Uhh, can he leave the room with us? FATHER:
N-- no, no. No. You just keep him in here and make sure he--
GUARD #1:
Oh, yes. We'll keep him in here, obviously, but if he had to leave and we were with him--
FATHER:
No, no, no, no. Just keep him in here--
GUARD #1:
Until you or anyone else--
FATHER:
No, not anyone else. Just me.
GUARD #1:
Just you.
FATHER:
Get back.
GUARD #1:
Right. We'll stay here until you get back.
GUARD #2:
Hic!
FATHER:
And, uh, make sure he doesn't leave.
GUARD #1:
What?
FATHER:
Make sure 'e doesn't leave.
GUARD #1:
The Prince?
FATHER:
Yes. Make sure 'e doesn't leave.
GUARD #1:
Oh, yes, of course.
GUARD #1:
Ah. I thought you meant him. You know, it seemed a bit daft me havin' to guard him when he's a guard.
FATHER:
Is that clear?
GUARD #1:
Oh, quite clear. No problems.
FATHER:
Right. Where are you going?
GUARD #1:
We're coming with you.
FATHER:
No, no. I want you to stay here and make sure 'e doesn't leave.
GUARD #1:
Oh, I see. Right


It just seemed there were many parallels to this thread, your post, and scene 14.


There is no need for me to share my opinion of the original thread or threads of juxtaposed opinion - the opinion I would share has been stated before well enough. The mods are doing their best - the temptation to oil the squeakiest wheel is likely more probable than any malicious conspiracy.

I also suspect I know what they are waiting for before issuing a ruling on the topic at hand. I would love to be a proverbial fly during that conversation...

IMO, quite often a Moderator, or an Admin for that matter will make a desision given their best judgement possible. Perhaps sometimes they might make a desision you would have made differently, perhaps not. Perhaps they might even be wrong in some cases -- I dont rule that out. But in the meantime, there are appropriate channels created for if you want to appeal a Moderator's desision -- one of these not to flamebait / publically argue / flame one of the Nationstates Staff. And considering the amount of power they might have over you, even if you wanted to; its not even that intelligent to do either of these things, let alone considerate of the true scenario.

When a Moderator makes a desision / comment you think is unfair, might I suggest we take a more mature approach to the situation and appeal via the Getting Help page? And then furthermore, when you get your answer (whether it be right or wrong in your opinion mind you), just let it be. Think about the fact that neither of anyone in this thread actually are Moderators (except the Mods themselves). Now think about the fact that desisions are made to their best judgement possible. Now think about the fact that you have recieved your answer for appealing the Moderators. Now shuddup and accept it -- nobody asked you to agree with it, and nobody asked for your input. Have any problems with that? Appeal via getting help. Want to argue with the Mods, in a less than mature fashion? -- Get youself deleted / warned.

Its that simple.

You might notice my lack of an avatar...

And mine...

Eutrusca and Stephistan were ordered not to continue the bickering between each other. We Mods did not expect that anyone else would resume the bickering in their place, nor did we desire anyone else to resume the bickering in their place.

Your first post in this thread has been deemed to be a deliberate attempt to resume said bickering, thus constituting defiance of a Moderator order to cease the bickering. This is the reason for the tone-of-voice SalusaSecondus used against you: you violated NationStates rules by defying a Moderator order. I will also note that it is the job of the NationStates staff to inform players when their conduct is not in compliance with NationStates rules (and bickering falls under the "malicious" clause) and to tell such players to change their behavior. Your conduct was out-of-line and SalusaSecondus was telling you so.

Your response implies that SalusaSecondus was the first transgressor in this exchange. This is not correct. You attempted to resume the bickering that Salusa and I ordered to cease, thus you were the first transgressor.

In principle, I agree with you that if you don't respect others then don't expect them to respect you. However, in this case, I am of the opinion that you were disrespectful, first. Specifically, disprespectful of an order to stop the bickering.

I've tried twice already to clarify my intentions. I've tried, to no avail, to help you understand that my intention was to discuss the matter of closing the thread, not "resume the bickering between Eutrusca and Stephistan ". Did I not clearly state in my last post that I'm not going after her? Oh, but you left that part out in your quote, didn't you? Yes, as a matter of fact, you left that entire paragraph out. The part that clarified, for the second time, what my actual intention was. I even mentioned in that paragraph how one could be mislead by my mention of Stephistan's name, that I was trying to pursue a dispute with her. I stated that I was just using her as an example to illustrate my point. Did you even read that part?

I had an issue with whether or not a thread should be closed, and I brought up that issue in the proper forum. My conduct, sir, was in full compliance with the rules of this board. It is not my fault that the three of you mods combined can't comprehend that. SalusaSecondus was, in fact, the first transgressor in this exchange. I brought up a legitimate issue, in the proper forum, and he felt he needed to insult me for that. That was what was out of line. After I responded to him in the way that he showed he deserved to be responded to, clarifying my position was no longer relevant to you, because I dared to put a mod in his place. You don't even care what my point is. That's why you left that part out of your quote. The only thing that has mattered to you from my second post on is that, when one of your mods f-ed up, some non-mod actually had the audacity to stand up for himself. This is not only disrespectful and out of line, but quite childish and asinine as well.

As you can see by reading this thread, the only people who seem to have a clue what my point is are NOT the mods. Even the guy who originally called for the locking of the thread in question understands my point. Not the mods, though. Nope. Those kids are absolutely mind-blown by the fact that someone didn't bow down and kiss their self-righteous asses. After two clarifications, they are still stuck on the fact that I don't give a flying fuck who you think you are. If you talk to me like a punk-ass little kid, I'm going to put you in your fucking place. PERIOD. Its just too bad that reading comprehension doesn't seem to be among the qualifications to be a mod on this forum.

We're done here. This is clearly not worth my time.

Not the mods, though. Nope. Those are absolutely mind-blown by the fact that someone didn't bow down and kiss their self-righteous asses. After two clarifications, they are still stuck on the fact that I don't give a flying fuck who you think you are. If you talk to me like a punk-ass little kid, I'm going to put you in your fucking place. PERIOD. Its just too bad that reading comprehension doesn't seem to be among the qualifications to be a mod on this forum.

Yes, this is quite the example of how to respond maturely to not liking the fact that you claimed mod bias despite the fact that both parties were warned, and were told politely that it really did not concern you. As long as we're making comparisons to children, I suggest you re-read YOUR responses. Rather like the tantrum one gets when one does not get his way.

We're done here. This is clearly not worth my time.

Agreed. Since you've been asked politely to knock it off several times, and and have seen fit instead to introduce MORE drama and abuse, have a 24hr vacation on us.

So, erm... Was a decision reached on the thread? Will it stay locked with no warnings issued?

I've tried twice already to clarify my intentions. I've tried, to no avail, to help you understand that my intention was to discuss the matter of closing the thread, not "resume the bickering between Eutrusca and Stephistan ". Did I not clearly state in my last post that I'm not going after her? Oh, but you left that part out in your quote, didn't you? Yes, as a matter of fact, you left that entire paragraph out. The part that clarified, for the second time, what my actual intention was. I even mentioned in that paragraph how one could be mislead by my mention of Stephistan's name, that I was trying to pursue a dispute with her. I stated that I was just using her as an example to illustrate my point. Did you even read that part?

I had an issue with whether or not a thread should be closed, and I brought up that issue in the proper forum. My conduct, sir, was in full compliance with the rules of this board. It is not my fault that the three of you mods combined can't comprehend that. SalusaSecondus was, in fact, the first transgressor in this exchange. I brought up a legitimate issue, in the proper forum, and he felt he needed to insult me for that. That was what was out of line. After I responded to him in the way that he showed he deserved to be responded to, clarifying my position was no longer relevant to you, because I dared to put a mod in his place. You don't even care what my point is. That's why you left that part out of your quote. The only thing that has mattered to you from my second post on is that, when one of your mods f-ed up, some non-mod actually had the audacity to stand up for himself. This is not only disrespectful and out of line, but quite childish and asinine as well.

As you can see by reading this thread, the only people who seem to have a clue what my point is are NOT the mods. Even the guy who originally called for the locking of the thread in question understands my point. Not the mods, though. Nope. Those kids are absolutely mind-blown by the fact that someone didn't bow down and kiss their self-righteous asses. After two clarifications, they are still stuck on the fact that I don't give a flying fuck who you think you are. If you talk to me like a punk-ass little kid, I'm going to put you in your fucking place. PERIOD. Its just too bad that reading comprehension doesn't seem to be among the qualifications to be a mod on this forum.

We're done here. This is clearly not worth my time.

Perhaps you would get respect if you didn't jump off with insults and attacks. Your first post in this thread accused mods of flamebaiting and hypocrisy. According to you that's not disrespectful. Selusa responded to the tone of your post in a similar fashion. Neither of these two posts was flaming or flamebaiting. They were just a bit snarky. Your reaction to his post that reflected the tone of your original post is to flamebait and flame and become increasingly hostile. I'm amazed by the amount of patience the mods continue to show you. They have asked you for any amount of respect that they don't ask you to give everyone. That is, they REQUIRE you not to flamebait or flame, a request you've been unable to follow. That's not asking you to 'bow down and kiss their self-righteous asses'. It's asking you to operate above the line every poster on the forum is required to operate above.

I'm not a mod. I've never met a mod. And it's lucky for you I'm not. Their unpaid jobs should not require them to listen to you calling them hypocrites, childish, asinine, kids, self-righteous, unable to comprehend your posts, and a second question of their reading comprehension. You claim that it's those mods sticking together. Well, here's a non-mod, former military, pro-USA, generally conservative individual who totally disagrees with both the content and the style of your posts. Your claim that you posted respectfully when you said the mods were biased, practiced flamebaiting and hypocrites (in your first post). You didn't. And you were called on by another poster before Salusa said anything to you. You are selectively reading and selectively remembering the posts on this thread. NOTICE how I made it through the entire post without calling you names, insinuating you deserve to be called names, insulting you or any of the things you've managed to do in every one of your posts aimed at the mods. Now, I'm sure we'd all be a little happier if you'd FINALLY head the mods warnings and cease and desist.

Yes, this is quite the example of how to respond maturely to not liking the fact that you claimed mod bias despite the fact that both parties were warned, and were told politely that it really did not concern you. As long as we're making comparisons to children, I suggest you re-read YOUR responses. Rather like the tantrum one gets when one does not get his way.



Agreed. Since you've been asked politely to knock it off several times, and and have seen fit instead to introduce MORE drama and abuse, have a 24hr vacation on us.

Your patience in this matter is impressive. I've been following this thread since it started (I often read the moderation forum to better understand what is and is not acceptable). I try to stay out of mod matters in general unless some posts a question I also have, but watching this treatment is so frustrating. It's almost amusing that you are being accused of requiring special treatment of the mods, because I'd imagine if Sheer Stupidity was posting these in General addressed to any other poster, the ban would have been sooner and longer.

Well, I don't always agree with your decisions at times, I am continually impressed with the patient way you deal with the majority of posters on this board.

I wish I could think of something snarky to say just so I don't seem to be kissing your butts. Um, those are some really ugly shoes.

/me cries

But I LOVE those shoes!!!!

http://www.bakersshoes.com/images/us/local/products/detail/11621068_PINK.jpg

Perhaps time to do the locky thing?

Probably so, Stephistan.

iLock, until more information is available on the original topic of this thread.

With apologies to Katganistan, I'm going to post through the lock to explain something.

I've tried twice already to clarify my intentions. I've tried, to no avail, to help you understand that my intention was to discuss the matter of closing the thread, not "resume the bickering between Eutrusca and Stephistan ". Did I not clearly state in my last post that I'm not going after her? Oh, but you left that part out in your quote, didn't you? Yes, as a matter of fact, you left that entire paragraph out. The part that clarified, for the second time, what my actual intention was. I even mentioned in that paragraph how one could be mislead by my mention of Stephistan's name, that I was trying to pursue a dispute with her. I stated that I was just using her as an example to illustrate my point. Did you even read that part?

I had an issue with whether or not a thread should be closed, and I brought up that issue in the proper forum. My conduct, sir, was in full compliance with the rules of this board.As Sheer Stupidity has been forumbanned, this response is primarily directed at the remainder of the NationStates community as an example of how not to raise an objection.

Sheer Stupidity claims that he merely had an objection to the locking of the linked thread. I counter that the objection was not presented at all until late in this thread and not presented properly to begin with.

I was around when Stephistan was a mod. (under a different name of course)
I don't believe she has ever had any complaint about any of the dozens and dozens of anti-US, anti-conservative, anti-republican threads that I see on this forum every day. In fact, I remember at least one of those that she started herself. It seems to me that its only considered “flamebaiting” if the thread is anti-liberal, anti-democrat, or anti-any other country besides USA. To sum it up in three words, this is hypocrisy.In this section of post #14, a double standard is alleged, but no mention of an objection to locking the linked thread is made. Given the posts preceding it, this appears to be an attempt to continue the bickering against Stephistan, especially since the comments seemed centered around Stephistan.

Post #17 mentions nothing whatsoever about double standards or an objection to locking the linked thread and contains only attacks against SalusaSecondus.

I can't go into the forum without seeing dozens upon dozens of hateful, despicable, childish, anti-US/republican/conservative, flamebaiting threads. The board is overflowing with them, but the second the other side has anything to say, someone cries "flamebait". Ironic (but not at all surprising), coming from the side that tends to whine the most about their freedom of speech being restricted. The standard that is being made evident here is that its ok to bash one side all you want, but don't you dare say anything negative about the other. I've held my tongue about this for a very long time, knowing that the truth would not be well received since one of the people my complaint is about was a mod. I'm perfectly willing to go right back to holding my tongue about it, since it seems that nothing is ever going to change here, but you should know that just because it is rarely said, doesn't mean it isn't 100% true.In this section of Post #19, a double standard is again discussed, but no mention made of an objection to locking the linked thread.

I also have no vendetta against Stephistan. The fact that I'm bringing up her name so much now may be misleading, so I want to make it clear that I'm not trying to "go after her" or anything along those lines. The reason why I stepped into this conversation was because to lock the thread that this thread is referring to would be absolute proof of an objectionable double standard on this forum, and an insult to every member thereof. In other words, I'm not just criticizing Stephistan specifically, but rather the double standard that she so clearly advocates. I believe that people on both sides of the political fence should be granted fair and equal opportunity to make asses of themselves.

There's not much else to say without repeating myself, so I'll conclude by stating that I have nothing but respect for the mods of this forum.
That is until one of them disrespects me. When that happens, I get mean, and rightfully so.[Emphasis mine.] This section of Post #24 is the first-ever mention by Sheer Stupidity in this thread of any objection to the linked thread being locked. It is his fourth post in the thread, his third post where he complains about a double standard, but the first time that an objection to the linked thread being locked is ever mentioned. No such objection was mentioned before this point and it was surrounded both before and after by flamebait.

So, at the point where Sheer Stupidity claims "I've tried twice already to clarify my intentions", he had succeeded only once, and that was admist a long series of other comments. Sheer Stupidity implies that we Moderators are lacking in reading comprehension, however I counter that if there is only one mention of the alleged main point (namely, an objection to locking the linked thread) within a dozen or so paragraphs of other criticisms, then I would consider this a failure of writing composition.

A more appropriate way to raise this objection would have been to say:
"I object to the locking of the linked thread on the grounds that it seems to me that only anti-liberal threads are being locked." No attacks or bickering against other NationStates players and it gets straight to the point.

Now, the case example of "How not to raise an objection" being over, I will address the objection, itself.

I locked the linked thread pending a Moderator review. To my knowledge, no Moderator has reviewed the thread, as yet, so no decision has been made on whether to unlock the thread or to keep it locked or who should recieve official warnings for conduct in the linked thread.

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