NationStates Jolt Archive

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10912406&postcount=7
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10912711&postcount=39
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10912789&postcount=45

He just went into the thread to do some homophobic trolling, and then urged someone to kill themself.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10912831&postcount=48
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10912849&postcount=53

And the flaming continues.

I believe a temporary forum ban is in order, and a formal warning.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?p=10913646&posted=1#post10913646

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10913646&postcount=77

Perhaps I am being either a bit soft or gullible, but as I recall I've seen a thread or two where a poster introduced the thread by saying they were contemplating suicide, to which many, if not a majority of the replies were something like 'Then do it already, we won't miss you.'

I was wondering how moderation would differentiate these two scenarios, if at all. Obviously the 'go kill yourself' comment was off-topic in the latest thread, but what would a ruling be for a topic on suicide in which the posters said in the same spirit and the same words the exact same thing that Strasse II did?

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10912711&postcount=39


Yay Fass!

Perhaps I am being either a bit soft or gullible, but as I recall I've seen a thread or two where a poster introduced the thread by saying they were contemplating suicide, to which many, if not a majority of the replies were something like 'Then do it already, we won't miss you.'

I was wondering how moderation would differentiate these two scenarios, if at all. Obviously the 'go kill yourself' comment was off-topic in the latest thread, but what would a ruling be for a topic on suicide in which the posters said in the same spirit and the same words the exact same thing that Strasse II did?
Suicide contemplation threads tend to be pretty stupid attention-whoring, so it is no surprise if people's replies are insensitive. Off-topic "go kill yourself" stuff is clearly a more serious matter than when the original poster places himself or herself into that position deliberately.

Suicide contemplation threads tend to be pretty stupid attention-whoring, so it is no surprise if people's replies are insensitive. Off-topic "go kill yourself" stuff is clearly a more serious matter than when the original poster places himself or herself into that position deliberately.

How so clearer? I'd think the repercussions of a person contemplating suicide being told to 'kill yourself, we don't care' is far more 'serious' than an off-topic (and entirely inapproriatte) flame of the same words to a mentally stable person.

How so clearer? I'd think the repercussions of a person contemplating suicide being told to 'kill yourself, we don't care' is far more 'serious' than an off-topic (and entirely inapproriatte) flame of the same words to a mentally stable person.
We do not deal with people's real-life circumstances.

We do not deal with people's real-life circumstances.

It's still not clear to me...

It's still not clear to me...
Well, let me spell it out...


Situation 1

Player A: Should I crawl off and die?

Player B: Yeah go on, we don't give a fuck.

Me: Meh.

Situation 2

Player A: [Asinine comparison of their willingness to give up their last Rolo to a stranger on a bus with the self-sacrifice of Jesus]

Player B: Go crawl off and die.

Me: *Bitch-slaps Player B for being a dick*


Clear on it yet?

OK, that makes sense thanks, although I don't think NS is a very healthy place for suicidal people to be. (maybe we could offer such people link to a site whose user would give a more say 'compassionate' reply? But that would prbly be going above and beyond, and might require too much effort)

I know what I say means nothing but...I'd think someone who tells someone who is suicidal to go kill themselves should be punished too. You call it attentionwhoring, but obvious that person does have some serious issues. To say you don't deal with someone's real life is an easy opt out. It's still an inapropiate comment, and not very unlike the other.

OK, that makes sense thanks, although I don't think NS is a very healthy place for suicidal people to be.
The internet isn't. Come to think of it, the world. That stuff is for the individual to sort out.

Well, let me spell it out...

Situation 1

Player A: Should I crawl off and die?

Player B: Yeah go on, we don't give a fuck.

Me: Meh.

Situation 2

Player A: [Asinine comparison of their willingness to give up their last Rolo to a stranger on a bus with the self-sacrifice of Jesus]

Player B: Go crawl off and die.

Me: *Bitch-slaps Player B for being a dick*

Clear on it yet?

Wait, isn't Player B "being a dick" in the first scenario as well?

Wait, isn't Player B "being a dick" in the first scenario as well?

No - Player B is being disinterested in another person's activities or thoughts (or just refusing to indulge them) in Situation 1, whereas in Situation 2 they are actually advocating (whether they 'mean it' or not) suicide for the original poster.

if he's not interested, no need to post

if he's not interested, no need to post

The same could be said about someone making suicide claims.

If they really ARE contemplating suicide, starting a thread (on the 'general' forum board of a political-simulation game) about it might not be the MOST constructive thing someone could do.

Also - of course, there is always the potential that Situation 1 is part of a debate, just as Situation 2 could be (and was, in the 'real life' example). Thus - Player B might have been addressing a lot of good points (and, thus - already responding), and just decided "meh, whatev" on the suicide-threats.

I think a better comparison is how we are allowed to address someone's person in an argument when they introduce themselves as evidence, but not allowed to do so when they are simply posting points.

Person A: I want to have sex with children.
Person B: Well then you're a sick bastard. Children are damaged by such activities and you are hurting them. You should be put in jail.
(Not good, but not likely to get addressed).

Person A: Here is the incidence of having sex with children and the outcomes. I think there is no evidence that people having sex with children is bad for them.
Person B: Well, then you're a sick bastard. THe evidence is clear.
(Much more likely to get in trouble, because it's just an ad hominem and a flame).

In the first scenario Person A used themselves as an example making it necessary to address their activities and give our opinion of it (though I would try to be more tactful). We've all seen more leniency in the first scenario than the second.

In TG's scenario the first poster asked for people to give opinions on whether they should live and got replies that were addressing that very topic. In the second scenario, the first poster did draw their person into the conversation and that makes the comment one that comes out of left field.

This rationalization is so engrained in us it is hard to overcome.

There was a time when it was believed anytime a person said, "Shove off and die asshole" it was not merely unnecessary, but wrong. I don't know if it is our apathy or our sub-conscience obsession with death that made us think otherwise.

But let's say instead of this:

Player A: Should I crawl off and die?

it was this:

Player A: My life has been horrible recently etc. I have been thinking of killing myself but I'm looking for help.

Would the same response of:

Player B: Yeah go on, we don't give a fuck.

Be acceptable?

BTW if this is the wrong forum might be a good idea to move this, but I'm not sure what forum would be the correct place to have a discussion like this.

If someone actually needs help, looking to a pack of mostly annonymous people on some net board that isn't dedicated to suicide help is silly, and irresponsible if you get right down to it. Not to say there aren't some nice people out there, or that no one might have the qualifications to offer some solid advice. Still.

If they really want help, there's ample avenues for it. Posters and help lines are up in schools all over the place last I looked. Advertisements on tv and radio and all the internet resources (which they obviously have access to, what with posting online). Visit the doctor for a referral if needed. Talk to parents or friends or the like. A school counselor or teacher. Church contacts. Something other than a public 'pity me' or cry for help that generally is more to soothe the ego or make them feel better than be any actual help. It's an appeal to the bleeding hearts to make with the 'oh you poor thing' comments, and an automatic target for the jerks to start taking digs at, which they never fail to do.

But to just toss up a post on a forum on a game that was never designed to be a 'solve all your ills' resource?

Not the place, folks.

If you just want to talk about your misery or your own particular issues, there's loads of blogs/live journals/your own forums you can set up, for free.

Granted, doesn't mean people ought to be unpleasant, but in all honesty - the forums like these out there tend to be full of juvenile behaviour and rants and nastiness. You put yourself out there like that knowing full well what gets dished, best be prepared for what comes of it.

Not intending to sound heartless, but that's the facts. People who really need help need to spend their energies actually getting that help, not just making a public show of it for whatever reason.

Well said.

Let us not lose sight of reality - that this is the forum of a text-based satirical political web game, which a guy put together years ago because at the time he felt like doing something other than writing his latest novel.

Let us also not lose sight of the fact that the Moderation staff are primarily here to get rid of the porn.

No-one has any true responsibility towards anyone. It is simply not within the remit of this site.

And yes, people are entitled to say they do not care, even if it is a hostile response in the context. Silence can be interpreted as acquiescence. One can always reply in the negative, so long as the boundaries of reasonable conduct are observed. Mild rudeness is something people just have to tolerate. If you ask people for an opinion of your situation, you accept the consequences. Not all, but expect to take a few knocks. That's life.

I see, so telling someone who is suicidal to go kill themselves is fine. Perfectly fine.

I agree with Crazy girl and Bjornoya here.

Being told to 'go die' is unnacceptable no matter what the circumstances are. There has to be equal punishment.

I see, so telling someone who is suicidal to go kill themselves is fine. Perfectly fine.

If they were suicidal, they would be killing themselves. Instead, they post on an Internet forum seeking attention. :rolleyes:

Look, some of you expect too much of the mods.

Someone starts a topic asking people's opinion of suicide. People give their opinion of suicide some of which inevitably includes people saying that suicidal people should go ahead and do it already and stop attention-whoring.

At that point the mods have three options.

1. Close the thread and all threads like it (because otherwise someone will be here complaining it's unfair as people are now). And now people who are actually looking for real advice get none. The current situation allows a person genuinely seeking help to weed it out among the more ridiculous replies.

2. They can censor one side's opinions becuase we don't like them which as far as I know is unprecedented on NS.

3. They can leave the thread alone and allow people to give their opinion on the subject of suicide even if it's one as distasteful as recommending that people who are suicidal act and not talk.

They choose option 3 which is in complete consistency with all other mod behavior and people are complaining. People would be here complaining if they were censoring (in the form of punishment) one set of opinions or if they were censoring the entire threads. People will never be happy and this course of action is most consistent with all other mod behavior.

This isn't real.

Just go take a look at the General Forum over the last three years and see how many discussions have taken place which never would have in polite company in real life. To speak of propriety and social obligation as if the environments are equivalent, is nonsense.

If someone is just trying to talk politics and gets told that they can go and die, that's wrong - it is exceptionally rude, it is off-topic, it kills the debate. But if someone is asking for opinions as to whether they should go and die, there is no rule that their sensitive eyes must only ever see one answer. There is no rule which says that we must act to ensure that they only ever see one answer. The inevitable mix of responses are not off-topic and do not deviate from the discussion opened. But if there was a rule that said the original question could not be asked...that would be different.

Ultimately every Moderator has to make a judgement call. You know what mine is. I am not inclined to protect attention whores from the outcome of their own questions, "just in case". I would sooner consider locking suicide threads on the basis of the question rather than the responses.

This isn't real.

Just go take a look at the General Forum over the last three years and see how many discussions have taken place which never would have in polite company in real life. To speak of propriety and social obligation as if the environments are equivalent, is nonsense.

If someone is just trying to talk politics and gets told that they can go and die, that's wrong - it is exceptionally rude, it is off-topic, it kills the debate. But if someone is asking for opinions as to whether they should go and die, there is no rule that their sensitive eyes must only ever see one answer. There is no rule which says that we must act to ensure that they only ever see one answer. The inevitable mix of responses are not off-topic and do not deviate from the discussion opened. But if there was a rule that said the original question could not be asked...that would be different.

Ultimately every Moderator has to make a judgement call. You know what mine is. I am not inclined to protect attention whores from the outcome of their own questions, "just in case". I would sooner consider locking suicide threads on the basis of the question rather than the responses.

As has often been argued by the moderators, it is a bad idea to censor topics like that. People who aren't attention-whores who read those thread may get good advice for dealing with illnesses or for seeking help (as one can see in K-P's thread on suicide). Also, those that are attention-whores learn that screaming suicide every time things aren't going your way isn't necessarily the best way to get people to be more caring. They learn that the best way to get caring, reasonable responses is to be a caring, reasonable person. Or at least they are afforded a chance to learn that, which is one of the great things about this forum.

I'm not suggesting you are actually considering censoring the threads, but if you are, I think it would go against the general practice of the mods throughout the life of NS.

Yes but once we state that the same response deserves different reactions from moderation based on environmental circumstances it becomes very relativistic. What may be considered appropriatte conversation in one thread is not in another due to topic, which I agree with. However trying to define an appropriatte response is less clear as we think it is, and many times we report something that we feel is wrong (relativistic) instead of what we know is wrong (absolute). I'm merely brining up a scenario which I feel is wrong.

About censoring an 'impolite' response in an suicidal tendencies thread I would say it is highly disturbing that we value the idea (shove off and die) over the creators of ideas (the others) but this thought will never be accepted and I do not wish to pursue that path.

My question would be at what point do we draw a line? If someone made a thread in which the creator stated he was thinking about/was going to (2 different scenarios) murder someone (commit an illegal act) isn't it not only our moral but legal obligation to report the threat to proper authorities? And isn't suicide illegal as well (laws may vary for different NS users)? But then again shoplifting candy is illegal, and I don't see us reporting someone who admittedly did that to 'proper authorities.'

I'm not saying the mods have done a bad job, I think this is one of the best moderated sites I've been to. I just have a question of where would we draw the line? Right now to me it seems in contradiction to other established decisions and rules.

Murder is illegal everywhere, so we draw the line at that.

Suicide is not illegal (where is it otherwise?), and it's not as if we can do anything about it.

Suicide is illegal in several states, attempted suicide is considered illegal in several countries as well.

That brings forth a new question; if death threats from player-to-player are considered not only a bannable offense but a crime, why not view suicide in the same way (threat on a life)? Actually more important question should be does the site have any legal obligation in such a case.

And from a legal POV burglary is illegal everywhere, should admitting to or threatening to rob another player be viewed in the same light as a death threat? Or does the site have any legal obligations in response to that sort of situation?

This isn't real.

Ultimately every Moderator has to make a judgement call. You know what mine is. I am not inclined to protect attention whores from the outcome of their own questions, "just in case".
Even though Tactical Grace has been doing most of the answering, his answers reflect the basic philosophy of NS moderation. I officially concur with the above post.

This internet site is largely anonymous. While there are undoubtably players who know other players in real life, we zealously protect private player information specifically to avoid silly legal challenges like the ones above. We do understand that players often reveal bits and pieces about themselves or others, and consequently take any "I'm going to hunt you down and kill you" threats seriously, though only in the sense that we will deny such players the venue to place such posts and the right to participate in our game.

There have been one or two instances where mods or admins have taken real-world action, but for the most part we are not interested in being specialists in international law. We're volunteers, for Pete's sake, and none of us is (to my knowledge) currently employed in any legal field. I know for certain that none of us is paid by Max Barry for the purpose of protecting the legal rights of players. If you want to play at being internet lawyers, have at it, but don't expect us to join in.

So anyone posting here they have plans of killing themselves are attentionwhores, so feel free to tell them to go kill themselves. I guess that's clear then.

So anyone posting here they have plans of killing themselves are attentionwhores, so feel free to tell them to go kill themselves. I guess that's clear then.

Crazy Girl, you obviously disagree with the official stance, but I don't think being bitter (or sounding bitter... if you aren't, I apologise) will change things.

It's just a matter of fact that currently most people believe that mentioning suicidal tendencies or thoughts is 'attention whoring'. Until a lot more people experience depression and suicidal thoughts first hand, this is pretty much the attitude from others that we'll have to put up with. You'd be better off bringing a discussion to General about your views on why 'attention whoring' isn't a bad thing, but the natural response of a large number of depressed people (after all, if they felt they had a natural support group to go to like friends, family or professionals, they'd be much less likely to be depressed). More productive, and you might get some people thinking - though, if General is anything like I remember, you might not want to hold your breath on that :p

On the other hand, expecting the moderators to take any legal stance seems silly to me. I would like to see a few more unofficial 'knock it off' comments when people are telling depressed people that suicide is a good idea, just because... well, that's a personal opinion. But then again, I was terribly depressed for almost all the time I used to spend on NS, and suicidal quite a few times back then, and I can't recall NS (or moderation methods) ever making that worse. If anything, people advocating people kill themselves just made me angry, which was a good thing at the time.

...Anyway, sorry to ramble on in an officially answered thread, mods. My first post back here in what feels like years, so I'm a bit over-zealous.

So anyone posting here they have plans of killing themselves are attentionwhores, so feel free to tell them to go kill themselves. I guess that's clear then.

Oh come on. The moderators have explained their position, several times. Look, it's an internet forum board called 'General'. What exactly can people who do post about feeling suicidal expect? There will be people who will give kind information, but the majority either won't care or will flame. It's a forum, for crying out loud; hardly the best place to seek help really. Going to see a professional or talking to friends and family is a much better idea. Posting here will obviously draw out the flamers and trolls and the just plain apathetic.

So anyone posting here they have plans of killing themselves are attentionwhores, so feel free to tell them to go kill themselves. I guess that's clear then.

Look. If you're thinking of suicide, you don't cry out for help to an internet board. Many people who really want to commit suicide don't say anything at all, but even those that do want somone to stop them aren't looking to people who CAN'T stop them to do it. You want the mods to be responsible for these people. They aren't. They can't. Most times it's just someone who's a teenager and upset so they come one here so they can here how it would be such a loss to lose them, or who doesn't mind any attention even negative attention.

I think the people who say the things that get said in those threads are cruel. However, what do you suggest the mods do? Keep the threads from being created so no advice ever gets said? Censor only one side of the discussion? (and yes, it's one side of the discussion. If I ask if I should die there are only two sides to that discussion).

They do what they always do. They allow leeway as to our interaction with one another when the interaction, however bad, is a necessary part of the discussion. They leave open threads that we may not like because in the end when you censor you leave the extreme positions to continue forward.

You've seen this for years, CG. I've seen you in the threads. The mods make an effort to let us discuss things that are controversial because it's better than allowing those positions we don't to sit in the dark places in the world. They allow us to shine the light on them and expose them and I, for one, appreciate it.

These people aren't making death threats to suicidal people. They are answering a question posed by someone claiming to be suicidal. You don't like the answer. Fine. But the mods have told you they aren't willing to censor because some people don't like it.

We do not deal with people's real-life circumstances.

There's plenty of room for you in the Bush administration.

This topic is done. Everyone has heard many explanations, descriptions, justifications. Moderators will continue to moderate as they have in the past. If you have a problem with a future thread, then bring it up in Moderation, but this topic is done.