NationStates Jolt Archive

I have seen a couple of times (it's happened twice to me, once from Scolo and once from Fris) where a thread got closed in moderation but the last post by a moderator sparked some questions or maybe just elicited a response. Now to start a new thread about it even for the purpose of better understanding the rules is posting around a lock. If one wants to explore the rules with a moderator in order to better understand them or just get a question answered about how a ruling was reached or why is there an alternative to starting a thread that amounts to posting around a lock. I'm not talking about continuing an argument that was in another thread or bitching about a decision, just fishing through questions that perhaps the mod closing the thread isn't aware of.

You seem to want to respond to many Moderation topics with your own two cents on the topic. Here's a guideline for you.Moderation is not a general discussion forumOnce a mod has posted an official ruling, there is no need for further player interpretation of what the mod really meant. We're quite capable of writing what we really meant, and usually do so. Adding your own interpretation not only irritates the subject of the ruling, it irritates us as well.

If no mod has yet responded, and if the poster hasn't specified "Mods Only", helpful player input is fine. This includes posting links to prior rulings, pointing out the relevant section of the One Stop Rules Shop, or directing someone to a sticky or the correct forum. We're fine with players helping other players. We're not fine with players castigating other players.

If there is legitimate wiggle room in the question, we'll sometimes invite player comment. Most of the time and in most topics, we're only really interested in two types of responses: polite and reasonable rebuttal from the player who is directly involved in the ruling, and possibly addition mod postings for clarification. Note that I specifically exclude comments from players not directly involved in the ruling. In almost every case, that means YOU.

Does that clarify it enough for you?

You seem to want to respond to many Moderation topics with your own two cents on the topic. Here's a guideline for you.Moderation is not a general discussion forumOnce a mod has posted an official ruling, there is no need for further player interpretation of what the mod really meant. We're quite capable of writing what we really meant, and usually do so. Adding your own interpretation not only irritates the subject of the ruling, it irritates us as well.

If no mod has yet responded, and if the poster hasn't specified "Mods Only", helpful player input is fine. This includes posting links to prior rulings, pointing out the relevant section of the One Stop Rules Shop, or directing someone to a sticky or the correct forum. We're fine with players helping other players. We're not fine with players castigating other players.

If there is legitimate wiggle room in the question, we'll sometimes invite player comment. Most of the time and in most topics, we're only really interested in two types of responses: polite and reasonable rebuttal from the player who is directly involved in the ruling, and possibly addition mod postings for clarification. Note that I specifically exclude comments from players not directly involved in the ruling. In almost every case, that means YOU.

Does that clarify it enough for you?

Yes, that is quite clear. And obviously, I know what you are referring to (and, of course, you're correct). In the case, you're referring to, they appeared impatient and I offered a reply when a mod had not yet given one. It's not uncommon. You posted while I was composing my reply and I admitted that my response was unnecessary (in a post where I stated that I was 'too late'.) The only other response was in response to a point directed specifically at me, and in retrospect I shouldn't have replied. That thread is what sparked me to ask this, but I wasn't suggesting I disagree with what you said to me in there or that the question is directed at that thread. I just wanted an answer to a question. So I'll reword.

So would general be the appropriate place to discuss rules? Or would it be more appropriate to start a new thread in moderation? Obviously in the case you're referring to the original poster (and the poster he was referring to) got upset with non-mod input, so it seems like a new thread would prevent such problems. Is it weird to be interested in the rules? I understand that you all are very overtasked and perhaps exploring the rules in such a way is simply inappropriate. I'm just of the impression that the better understood the rules are, the less you all will have to enforce them. I would guess the vast majority of the user base has no interest in crossing the mods.

From the One Stop Rules Shop:
Comments

If you have suggestions, recommendations, or seek clarification on any of these rules, please click the link below for the comment thread. All comments will be read and appropriate edits made where needed. Thanks for your input.

The One-Stop Rules Shop Comments Thread ( http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=416022)

From the One Stop Rules Shop:

Ha. I guess I should have found the answer elsewhere. Accepted. Sorry. I honestly wasn't trying to frustrate you or waste your time.

By the way, thanks for your time, Fris. I totally see your point and exactly how I could and should have better handled the situation you were referring to, as well as where the appropriate place to discuss rules is.