NationStates Jolt Archive

The posts I'm complaining about are Here (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10198891&postcount=217) and Here (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10198899&postcount=218). Here's (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=460493&page=8) the thread (posts 217 and 218).

My complaint is that rather than answering my questions and responding my concerns the two mods are getting snippy and, I feel, underhandedly insulting me.

After having read through there, plenty of people were 'snippy' in that thread, including yourself. Answers were given, multiple times, and seemingly dismissed because you didn't appear to like them. It's easy enough to get a touch oversensitive when involved in a heated discussion.

Then again, I'm not a mod so nothing I have to offer here really affects anything. Figured it was worth making some observations anyway.

Yes, Hack and especially GMC tend to use a more blunt, straightforward approach. They always have. And yes, their tolerance for bullshit and amount of patience for folks set on grinding a point past dullness is decidedly lower than many. Whether or not that's a problem is up to the admins. I know it's something that's been brought up before by folks who didn't care for their direct tendencies.

Still, I think your presentation here is perhaps a bit misrepresentitive of the overall situation, all the same. Even though you've every right to report it if you feel someone's behaviour is a problem.

I don't see the point of reporting moderators in the moderator's forum. What do you expect? Actually, I don't see the point in reporting them to [VIOLET] either, but that is just my own humble opinion. Simply make note of what happened, and than move on with your life. That is the only "real" thing that works.

I don't see the point of reporting moderators in the moderator's forum. What do you expect?
Reporting mods can be done here, or via the Getting Help page, and it's entirely appropriate. We're not tin gods here, and our behavior is subject to the same rules as everyone else. It's obvious to any long-time reader that we do not share a unified mindset with a single response to any given question. We have differences of opinion, same as any other group of indivduals.

That said, I'll take a moment a bit later to review the actual complaint. I'll probably have to consult with the hive mind for a while, so don't wait up.

I don't see the point of reporting moderators in the moderator's forum. What do you expect?
You're quite new, so I wouldn't expect you to remember why Myrth was 'relieved' of his moderator duties, following a slew of controversial judgements made on his part.

There is a point. The moderators don't protect each other. This place is where you take complaints about all players and mods aren't above the rules that they enforce.

You're quite new, so I wouldn't expect you to remember ...
You've been here longer than me, but you still don't recognize the possibility of puppet posting by long time players? Let's save the condescding tones for General, please.



Except by mods, of course. We're tin gods here. I know we are, I read it Teh Intarw3b, so it's got to be true.

*grumbles something walking by*

In all honesty I don't see much done wrong here...

I could go on a rant about it but I'm going to spare you all...

That being said, if any further incidents are required for mod review, I'd be more than happy to supply them.

Let me sum up the prior thread as I read it:

Man: Ah, Is this the right room for an argument?
Mr Vibrating: I told you once.
Man: No you haven't.
Mr Vibrating: Yes I have.
Man: When?
Mr Vibrating: Just now.
Man: No you didn't.
Mr Vibrating: Yes I did.
Man: You didn't
Mr Vibrating: I did!
Man: You didn't!
Mr Vibrating: I'm telling you I did!
Man: You did not!!
Mr Vibrating: Oh, I'm sorry, just one moment. Is this a five minute argument or the full half hour?
Man: Oh, just the five minutes.
Mr Vibrating: Ah, thank you. Anyway, I did.
Man: You most certainly did not.
Mr Vibrating: Look, let's get this thing clear; I quite definitely told you.
Man: No you did not.
Mr Vibrating: Yes I did.
Man: No you didn't.
Mr Vibrating: Yes I did.
Man: No you didn't.
Mr Vibrating: Yes I did.
Man: No you didn't.
Mr Vibrating: Yes I did.
Man: You didn't.
Mr Vibrating: Did.
Man: Oh look, this isn't an argument.
Mr Vibrating: Yes it is.
Man: No it isn't. It's just contradiction.
Mr Vibrating: No it isn't.
Man: It is!
Mr Vibrating: It is not.
Man: Look, you just contradicted me.
Mr Vibrating: I did not.
Man: Oh you did!!
Mr Vibrating: No, no, no.
Man: You did just then.
Mr Vibrating: Nonsense!
Man: Oh, this is futile!
Mr Vibrating: No it isn't.
Man: I came here for a good argument.
Mr Vibrating: No you didn't; no, you came here for an argument.
Man: An argument isn't just contradiction.
Mr Vibrating: It can be.
Man: No it can't. An argument is a connected series of statements intended to establish a proposition.
Mr Vibrating: No it isn't.
Man: Yes it is! It's not just contradiction.
Mr Vibrating: Look, if I argue with you, I must take up a contrary position.
Man: Yes, but that's not just saying 'No it isn't.'
Mr Vibrating: Yes it is!
Man: No it isn't!
Man: Argument is an intellectual process. Contradiction is just the automatic gainsaying of any statement the other person makes.
(short pause)
Mr Vibrating: No it isn't.
Man: It is.
Mr Vibrating: Not at all.
Man: Now look.
Mr Vibrating: (Rings bell) Good Morning.
Man: What?
Mr Vibrating: That's it. Good morning.
Man: I was just getting interested.
Mr Vibrating: Sorry, the five minutes is up.
Man: That was never five minutes!
Mr Vibrating: I'm afraid it was.
Man: It wasn't.
(Pause)
Mr Vibrating: I'm sorry, but I'm not allowed to argue anymore.
Man: What?!
Mr Vibrating: If you want me to go on arguing, you'll have to pay for another five minutes.
Man: Yes, but that was never five minutes, just now. Oh come on!
Mr Vibrating: (Hums)
Man: Look, this is ridiculous.
Mr Vibrating: I'm sorry, but I'm not allowed to argue unless you've paid!
Man: Oh, all right.
(pays money)
Mr Vibrating: Thank you. (short pause)
Man: Well?
Mr Vibrating: Well what?
Man: That wasn't really five minutes, just now.
Mr Vibrating: I told you, I'm not allowed to argue unless you've paid.
Man: I just paid!
Mr Vibrating: No you didn't.
Man: I DID!
Mr Vibrating: No you didn't.
Man: Look, I don't want to argue about that.
Mr Vibrating: Well, you didn't pay.
Man: Aha. If I didn't pay, why are you arguing? I Got you!
Mr Vibrating: No you haven't.
Man: Yes I have. If you're arguing, I must have paid.
Mr Vibrating: Not necessarily. I could be arguing in my spare time.
Man: Oh I've had enough of this.
Mr Vibrating: No you haven't.
Man: Oh Shut up.
(Walks down the stairs. Opens door.)
Man: I want to complain.
Complainer: You want to complain! Look at these shoes. I've only had them three weeks and the heels are worn right through.
Man: No, I want to complain about...
Complainer: If you complain nothing happens, you might as well not bother.
Man: Oh!
Complainer: Oh my back hurts, it's not a very fine day and I'm sick and tired of this office.
(Slams door. walks down corridor, opens next door.)
Man: Hello, I want to... Ooooh!
Spreaders: No, no, no. Hold your head like this, then go Waaah. Try it again.
Man: uuuwwhh!!
Spreaders: Better, Better, but Waah, Waah! Put your hand there.
Man: No.
Spreaders: Now..
Man: Waaaaah!!!
Spreaders: Good, Good! That's it.
Man: Stop hitting me!!
Spreaders: What?
Man: Stop hitting me!!
Spreaders: Stop hitting you?
Man: Yes!
Spreaders: Why did you come in here then?
Man: I wanted to complain.
Spreaders: Oh no, that's next door. It's being-hit-on-the-head lessons in here.
Man: What a stupid concept.

I won't say your complaint is baseless, because Hack and GMC did in fact respond to you in a moderately demeaning way. Though I must add that had I been a participant in the same argument, I probably would have lost my temper long before they did.

The Most Glorious Hack told you how we moderate the UN proposal queue, and you wouldn't accept his answer. It is a judgement call on a lot of them, and nobody has more experience with providing that judgement than Hack. The Rules of Proposals have quite a bit of wiggle room in addition to the very strict prohibitions, and we use that flexibility to the best of our judgement. That's why we got the job - because Max, [violet], and SalusaSecondus trusted our judgement.

I can't speak for the rest of the squad, but I generally don't delve through all 137 passed resolutions (and the thousands of deleted resolutions that the game doesn't record) when digging through 16 pages of crap. I take out the ones I consider easy, spend a bit of thought on half a dozen others, send a few warning telegrams, and move on to other things. I don't have the luxury (or interest) in spending my entire moderation life checking and corss-checking every detail of every proposal. They get maybe 20 minutes, every couple of days. When asked afterwards for an explanation, I can expound further than my original thought process ... but when I'm looking at one, I'll pause long enough to type "no UN army" and move on. Most of them aren't real tough.

As for the "National Sovereignty isn't a reason for deletion" argument, I'll leave that for another post (or let someone else step in ... gladly).

As for the "National Sovereignty isn't a reason for deletion" argument, I'll leave that for another post (or let someone else step in ... gladly).

As noted in the thread here (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?p=10203197#post10203197), Powerhungry Chipmunks' whole argument was based on an unsupported claim that the moderators must screen proposals according to their own ideology if they screen them for glaring factual errors. Since the thread already contained the real wording of the objectionable part of the proposal in post #58 and I had read the proposal when I deleted it, his lecturing me on misusing my power and overstepping my mandate based solely on what he thought the wording of the proposal may have been, then going on to debate entirely hypothetical non-proposals and simply deny the moderators have the powers they do have struck me as more like trolling than anything else.

Bottom line, if you make up the entire basis of a serious allegation and go on to lecture people with lines like

It's simply not the mods mandate to delete based on how "invalid" or "incorrect" they see an argument as.

you shouldn't be surprised if they're rather quick to point out the support you claim for your argument doesn't exist. The resolution said it would do something it would not do. Any resolution that says it will do something it will not do is out on the basis of factual inaccuracy, be it a gun control: tighten that says to give everyone guns, or a repeal that says it's going to do something it isn't going to do. Glaringly false arguments ['We should repeal 'Gay Rights' because it's wrong to execute Muslims'] will also be killed.

That's the way it's always been done, and that is the way it will continue to be done.

As for the Natsov argument, it strikes me as a cop-out. Any repeal could be worded 'Because it should be left up to national governments,' and it's simple laziness: re-worded, it's 'We should repeal the resolution because we should repeal the resolution,' an absolutely circular argument. With a second mod's approval, no: I'd say the one-sentence natsov repeal is out. If it's part of a larger repeal, fair enough, but 'it should be left up to national governments' is repetition of 'it should be repealed,' not justification.

My complaint is that rather than answering my questions and responding my concerns the two mods are getting snippy and, I feel, underhandedly insulting me.I did answer your questions and I did respond to your concerns. The problem was when you decided that arguing semantics was appropriate or effective.

Just because you decided to ignore my points doesn't mean I didn't make them.

I did answer your questions and I did respond to your concerns. The problem was when you decided that arguing semantics was appropriate or effective.

Just because you decided to ignore my points doesn't mean I didn't make them.
No, you never responded to the points I made. You never differentiated between not deleting "Solar Panels" and deleting a repeal that misinterprets a resolution. That, if you hadn't been paying attention, is my point: what is the limitation of "factual incorrectness" as a deletion excuse? I'm not interested in debating whether it's in the rules to delete the latter--I'm not that stupid: I know it is.

But I do expect you to work and define where that power ends. Which, so far, you have dodged out of doing.
As noted in the thread here, Powerhungry Chipmunks' whole argument was based on an unsupported claim that the moderators must screen proposals according to their own ideology if they screen them for glaring factual errors. Yes (though it's hardly unsupported), my point is that in my mind the right to "delete based on factual errors" would include the Solar Panels proposal and others that have passed and even lauded.

My point is that "deleting proposals because they misinterpret past resolutions or UN rules" is different than "deleting factually incorrect proposals". The former fits into the latter, most likely. But that doesn't mean they're the same thing.

But I do expect you to work and define where that power ends.

Have fun with that. When you pay us a salary you can order us around.

Yes (though it's hardly unsupported), my point is that in my mind the right to "delete based on factual errors" would include the Solar Panels proposal and others that have passed and even lauded.

What goes on in your mind has nothing to do with this discussion because you're not the one making the calls, and your hypothetical situations do not reflect our policy. Your argument boils down to 'I'd make a better mod than you,' and is based entirely on semantics, unsupported allegations of massive corruption, the slippery slope fallacy and rules-lawyering.

Someone can unlock this if they want to add anything, but to be honest there's nothing here but insults, baseless allegations and attempts to order the moderation staff around.