NationStates Jolt Archive

Try the United Nations, Gameplay, NationStates, International Incidents, Technical, and Moderation. I don't believe she's been a Generalite, but as the newbie Forum Mod ... she will be.
If you call 13 posts on the forum since December 2005 being an IIer, then I guess I'm a Generalite.

Still, I don't know why this, or the fact that there are no mods who post regularly on II, or the fact that there has never been a mod from II who didnt also post on NS and immediately leave II on promotion, surprises IIers like TSS. None of the original mods come from the II board and looking after your own is hardly restricted to RL pursuits. Maybe one day...

Still, I don't know why this, or the fact that there are no mods who post regularly on III have my theories, but I'll keep them to myself...

None of the original mods come from the II boardTo be fair, the original mods predate the creation of II.

And don't feel bad... only one Mod has come from NS2 and none have come from the Jen Gov forum, either.

I have my theories, but I'll keep them to myself...
Yes, yes - you believe that IIers are inferior to you and your NS/Generalite/UN friends. That is exactly the point I was trying to make.

And don't feel bad... only one Mod has come from NS2 and none have come from the Jen Gov forum, either.
These forums have almost no activity and no regulars who will only post regularly on them. II, on the other hand, is only just behind General as the second most active forum on the boards, and is three times more active than its next nearest rival, NationStates. Despite not having been there as long. This "defence" of the status quo is verging on the ridiculous.

Maybe take your complaints elsewhere instead of cluttering Archoille's thread?

If you believe the discussion to be inapproriate then please do report me, but seeing as The Most Glorious Hack joined my discussion instead of telling me to move it elsewhere, you would have to report him, too.

Yes, yes - you believe that IIers are inferior to you and your NS/Generalite/UN friends. That is exactly the point I was trying to make.

You mean they aren't? /sarcasm

Meanwhile, aren't we past the whole conspiracy against certain nations/forums thing?

If you think someone should be considered for modhood, recommend them. If you think the mods are being unreasonable about the fact that people are or are not involved in II present some evidence that isn't circumstancial.

"They haven't so they won't" isn't really going to hold water among a group that is pretty well-versed in logic. It simply isn't.

Modding is a hard job and they are unpaid. I assure you that they aren't avoiding accepting good moderators out of prejudice. The idea that they'd make their job harder just to carry out some vendetta you've not given a reason for is patently ludicrous.

What's their motive? Where's the evidence that this is even an issue? Who have you recommended that they didn't accept?

In other words, the conspiracy theories are tiresome. If you're seriously going to accuse someone of bias, please bring more to the table than "but I really, really want it to be this way."

Maybe take your complaints elsewhere instead of cluttering Archoille's thread?

For every new Mod, there are ten people who feel aggrieved that it wasn't them.

Perhaps there's also something about needing a very different type of moderation skills for something like II than General or UN. Perhaps there's something about the fact that all mods need to be able to moderate debates - disassociating with their own opinions on the matter. Perhaps there's something about the mods having a much harder time evaluating how one operates on II for the qualities needed for a mod than they have on, say, General, Moderation, Technical or United Nations. Perhaps it's as simple as no IIer has ever actually nominated one of their fellow IIers. Who knows why?

Whatever the case, it is irrelevant to the issue at hand. This is Ard's thread. While I know that the mods have certainly allowed questions about their policies and actions in the past, it doesn't really belong on a thread recognizing another's contribution. Perhaps you are right and that there is an IIer that deserves to be modded, but the fact of the matter is that Ard has earned this position. Her hiring ISN'T necessarily saying there aren't better people out there but rather she's meets the qualifications they have, and it certainly isn't saying that there isn't an IIer with the qualifications.

And if you read the rules, you should know that we aren't supposed to report someone on moderation for something that happened on moderation.

Do you disagree that Ard's earned this position? If so, perhaps that belongs here. However, if that isn't what this is about, if it's just sour grapes that one of your friends didn't get a promotion himself, perhaps you should take it elsewhere.

Since you want an open thread to bitch, I've split your threadjacking to a new topic.

A quick review of your posts in moderation quickly demonstrate that you've been dissatisfied with mod behavior for several years now, and there's not a damn thing that any of us can ever say to you that you won't disagree with. Pardon me if I don't particularly want to get into that morass again.

Now, as to facts: International Incidents doesn't require a lot of moderation. Apart from spam, thread locks, and Hataria complaints, we really don't do much in that forum.
NationStates doesn't require much moderation either, apart from spam and "join my region" threads. Neither of the RP forums really have enough of an impact on total moderation time to require that someone from there be elevated to Mod.
Familiarity with RP forums isn't the issue, since we mostly work reactively to player complaints, and they're pretty straightforward to resolve. Several of us sweep both forums once or twice a day to seek unreported spam, but player reports are the most useful.
The United Nations, by virtue of its extensive internal rules, requires active moderation. We've picked players with strong UN understanding fairly often for this reason, after Enodia burned out and left the game.
General requires active moderation because of it's extremely loose format, and because it attracts more personal attacks and spam than all the others combined. We've picked mods not necessarily because they were Generalites, but because they were willing to dive into those messes and resolve them.
Now, if you want to leave your self-pity and mind-reading talents at the door, perhaps you have something to add. If not, quit thread-jacking.

Not to be annoying, but just for clarification. So it's not participation or lack thereof in II that matters, but it's that experience with the UN and general is important to the vast, vast majority of issues you deal with?

Theoretically, if someone spent the majority of their time in II, but a reasonable amount of time on the UN and general forums, they would be a good candidate for modding, no?

How do I become a Moderator?

If you make helpful posts in Moderation, Technical, and anywhere else help is needed, the Mods will notice you. If you're kind, helpful, and level-headed, you may have what it takes to be a mod. When new mods are needed, you may be asked to become a Forum Mod.
Also from that same thread is a place to nominate others as moderators. That particular feature, popular briefly when we first posted it, has been severely underused. If there are players in II or NS or General or anywhere else who we don't appear to be noticing, feel free to nominate them.

I'll point out that we have received a couple of nominations for II players, but some of them had literally no posts outside of II. There isn't enough work there to have an II-devoted FM who has no interest in the rest of game, so we tend to not pick those sorts. We're looking for someone who is (as it says above) generally helpful first, and their forums-of-choice are a distant second.

I can tell you that if you've never posted anything useful in Moderation or Technical, your chances diminish sharply. If you've never posted on the forums at all (and yeah, we've gotten nominations like that), your chances are pretty much nil. You're not going to be invited to be a NationStates Forum Mod without participating on NationStates forums.

Hack and I both spend a lot of time in Technical and UN. Erastide and Katganistan hardly ever post in those forums. Hotrodia can turn up pretty much anywhere. Melkor sticks to NS and General. It's self-determined by the mods, and we try to keep a balance of interests among the active mods. Wherever any of us post, though, we try to be generally helpful and informative. That's the job description.

Very clear. Thank you.

You mean they aren't? /sarcasm

Meanwhile, aren't we past the whole conspiracy against certain nations/forums thing?
No


"They haven't so they won't" isn't really going to hold water among a group that is pretty well-versed in logic. It simply isn't.

See, right there.



Apart from spam, thread locks, and Hataria complaints, we really don't do much in that forum.

PWNED


Now, if you want to leave your self-pity and mind-reading talents at the door, perhaps you have something to add. If not, quit thread-jacking.
This has nothing to do with self pity or mind reading. It has to do with a legitimate complaint that a lot of other people agree with.

This has nothing to do with self pity or mind reading. It has to do with a legitimate complaint that a lot of other people agree with.

If I were you guys, I'd take it as a compliment that you're so well behaved you don't require specialist moderation.

So tell me; exactly what is the nature of the complaint? These 'many people' may be upset that no one from II is being picked, but I have yet to see a reason why they should be besides "because we're a big forum".

Fris has highlighted above what they are looking for. If you see someone who meets those criteria, why not nominate them? It would certainly beat throwing your toys out of the pram because the Mods aren't mind readers, and can't pick out good Policemen from an island of nuns.

I can only offer an apology to the gods of analogies for that one.

This has nothing to do with self pity or mind reading. It has to do with a legitimate complaint that a lot of other people agree with.

It was a legitimate complaint that has now been answered and explained thoroughly. If you have a problem with the answer or feel that there is a different line of logic that should be used, raise it so that such a concern can be considered and addressed - whether in the form of a further explanation of why it is this way, an understanding of mutual disagreement on how best to run the site, or a change in mod policy (unlikely, but it doesn't mean impossible). Unless I'm mistaken, this split was done so that such concerns or complaints can be addressed without stomping on Ard's thread.

I can only offer an apology to the gods of analogies for that one.
You wouldnt be a generalite unless you sucked up to a mod in your post.

This has nothing to do with self pity or mind reading. It has to do with a legitimate complaint that a lot of other people agree with.

The self-pity and "creative reinterpretation of mod comments" bit was specifically directed at Praetonia. It has nothing whatsoever to do with whatever it is you have to say, Okielahoma. What exactly is the "legitimate complaint that a lot of other people agree with"? Prae seems to think that we refuse to give answers that meet his criteria for modly mea culpas. What's your issue?

You wouldnt be a generalite unless you sucked up to a mod in your post.

What the hell are you talking about?

You wouldnt be a generalite unless you sucked up to a mod in your post.

That didn't make even the slightest bit of sense. :p

Don't even play dumb Fris. They suck up and "apologise" and have their Generalite mod worship every time they interact with you.

Fris is the god of analogies now?

When did he get that promotion?

What the hell are you talking about?
Don't even play dumb Fris. They suck up and "apologise" and have their Generalite mod worship every time they interact with you.

You're right. Responding politely, succinctly, and without random flaming must be "sucking up". Firing off random epithets and insulting our intelligence is always a better way to get prompt action.


... and I'm guessing you're wondering why we haven't elevated you to mod yet ...

Don't even play dumb Fris. They suck up and "apologise" and have their Generalite mod worship every time they interact with you.

Ha. Yes, and the evidence for this is in the fact that Fris pointed out that the greatest need for mod attention in terms of rule-breaking occurs where? If people "wouldn't be a generalite if they didn't suck up to a mod" then why is it General where the mods are most tasked with deal with people who are essentially flipping off the site owner, mods and the rules of the site? You realize the break in logic there, no?

Meanwhile, you posted that comment in reply to a comment you clearly misunderstood since it wasn't directed towards mods in any fashion.

So here's the question, other than attacking General and the mods, what is your goal here? If your goal is to actually get your real complaints considered don't you think your behavior is counterproductive? It's not sucking up to be reasonable.

Try it. I think you'll like the results.

You mean they aren't? /sarcasm
This sort of thing is exactly my point. It is the equivalent of saying "You're a fucking idiot (only kidding)". The fact that you feel you can say it at all isn't negated by the little addendum that is only there so you dont get warned for flaming.

Meanwhile, aren't we past the whole conspiracy against certain nations/forums thing?
Considering you later go on to complain about my alleged poor logic, trying to accuse me of peddling conspiracy theories by ignoring all the supporting evidence as a means of sidestepping the issue entirely is more than a little ironic.

If you think someone should be considered for modhood, recommend them.
Ah I see, so it's my fault that the mods haven't appointed any IIers? Sorry about that, I suppose I'll just have to try harder. Or maybe it is in fact not my fault but that of the mods, who are the ones who actually select candidates.

If you think the mods are being unreasonable about the fact that people are or are not involved in II present some evidence that isn't circumstancial.
What makes you think my evidence is circumstantial? There is a rough correlation between forum activity and the proportion of mods originating from it, except for II which is the second most active forum (more active than all the others except General put together), which has only 1 mod who originated there, and that mod hasn't made a single non-mod-related post since before the search cuts out in June 2005. If you saw a political party get 95% of the vote in an election, would you dismiss suggestions of vote rigging out of hand as baseless conspiracy theories?

"They haven't so they won't" isn't really going to hold water among a group that is pretty well-versed in logic. It simply isn't.
Strawman (how ironic). My complaint wasn't that they won't appoint mods from II in the future (who can say what will happen in the future, although now you come to mention it there is absolutely no reason to suppose that their pattern of recruitment is going to change), but that they don't appoint mods from II.

Modding is a hard job and they are unpaid. I assure you that they aren't avoiding accepting good moderators out of prejudice. The idea that they'd make their job harder just to carry out some vendetta you've not given a reason for is patently ludicrous.
On what basis do you assure me of what is going on in the minds of people you have never met? What, for that matter, qualifies you to pass groundless speculation off as fact whilst dismissing strong statistical evidence of an institutionalised bias as baseless conspiracy mongering? The fact is that there are a hundred applicants for every position, and at least two of them are sufficiently qualified. The mods can quite easily pass over (or not even go looking for) meritious candidates in II without making their jobs any harder.

What's their motive?
Of the two of us, only you has claimed the ability to read minds, so perhaps you can answer? I would suggest that their "motive" is more sub-conscious than anything - they seem to hold the opinion that II is beneath contempt, and not worth wasting time over. Of course, I could be wrong, and I do not actually need to supply a motive. I am not trying to claim that there is bias against II for a particular reason, just that the bias exists. It is quite possible to do the latter without doing the former.

Where's the evidence that this is even an issue?
I think even you would have difficulty defending a policy of centralising almost completely unaccountable power in the hands of one part of a community at the expense of another. I does not take much thought to realise why this would be issue.

Who have you recommended that they didn't accept?
Why need I have recommended anybody that they didn't accept for a bias against II to exist? Again, you are trying to blame me for something over which I have no power and for which I have no responsibility. "So why didn't you do something?" is an argument much favoured by politicians because it allows them to sidestep the issue (that something they are responsible for is broken) whilst making their opponent look bad on television (because they didn't fix the thing they arent responsible for on the behalf of the person who is). Unfortunately for you, it is also a deeply illogical attack.

In other words, the conspiracy theories are tiresome. If you're seriously going to accuse someone of bias, please bring more to the table than "but I really, really want it to be this way."
This pretty much sums up your line of attack throughout the post: denigrate me as a person, suggest that I am untrustworthy, ignore all of my evidence (which you were careful not to quote) and justify this with extremely vague claims of unreliability, then try to shift the blame on to me for the problem I am complaining about. Utter nonesense.

This has nothing to do with self pity or mind reading. It has to do with a legitimate complaint that a lot of other people agree with.

"Lot of other people" being the half-dozen or so guys on irc all whinging still at what is slowly begiining to feel like every moderator decision ever made, ever since the Hogsweat Deletion fiasco.

Nationstates is not a democractically run game, it never has been, never will be. As I keep saying, and as you guys fail to take into account, it was a product marketing tool designed to sell the novel Jennifer Government.

Basically the group in question is steadily becoming what can only be described as paranoid against the moderators, and are almost beginning to reviere themselves as something special by suggesting on a near-daily basis that all the mods should be dismissed and the forum members should nominate the new mods.

This would be a pointless disaster as by sheer weight of numbers we'd have only Generalite moderators running the entirety of Nationstates.

It also strikes me that they fail to take into account that the Moderators are human beings and are neither god-like or omnipotent.

Instead of trying to work with the person behind the aliases they merely attack and pooh the ideals of the moderators that are locked in their own minds.

The moderating team is small as is for the sheer number of posts and players on this website, having a bunch of people whinge constantly about it on irc and here on the forums because it's not being done as they envision it, is not only detrimental to the community and wastes time in the system but outright arrogant in behaviour.

Stop wasting their time over something so darn petty.

This sort of thing is exactly my point. It is the equivalent of saying "You're a fucking idiot (only kidding)". The fact that you feel you can say it at all isn't negated by the little addendum that is only there so you dont get warned for flaming.

No, it isn't. It's there because I thought your comment was funny and considering it was claiming to know what Fris THINKS of II, I couldn't take it seriously. I'm sorry but if a little razzing is too much, then you probably wouldn't want to be a mod.

Considering you later go on to complain about my alleged poor logic, trying to accuse me of peddling conspiracy theories by ignoring all the supporting evidence as a means of sidestepping the issue entirely is more than a little ironic.

It's ironic that I accuse you of a conspiracy and then explain why? Do go on.

Ah I see, so it's my fault that the mods haven't appointed any IIers? Sorry about that, I suppose I'll just have to try harder. Or maybe it is in fact not my fault but that of the mods, who are the ones who actually select candidates.

Yes, it is your fault. The mods are going to notice the players they encounter the most. The fact that II is such a small portion of their work means that you're going to have make an effort to make them see someone deserving. Much in the same way that we occasionally have to report someone for flaming. They can't act if they don't see it. They're mods not gods, despite what some of them might claim.

What makes you think my evidence is circumstantial? There is a rough correlation between forum activity and the proportion of mods originating from it, except for II which is the second most active forum (more active than all the others except General put together), which has only 1 mod who originated there, and that mod hasn't made a single non-mod-related post since before the search cuts out in June 2005. If you saw a political party get 95% of the vote in an election, would you dismiss suggestions of vote rigging out of hand as baseless conspiracy theories?

What makes me think that is that you're basing your argument on coincidence rather than how things actually work. Rough correllation is circumstancial. The proven and evidenced correllation is between mod activity in a particular forum and the number of promotions that come from people active in those forums, as explained by Fris. The reasons for this are evident.

I think it's amusing that you compare forums to parties. You're ignoring that the analogy pretty much has no basis in the reality of the way forums work. For example while I can't be a democrat and a republican at the same time, I certainly can be a generalite and on the UN forum at the same time. Want a try an applicable analogy? How about if I was hiring a person who would do the majority of their policing in a certain neighborhood that I might select someone who is comfortable with that neighborhood rather than someone who refers to them as "the other party". In fact, isn't precisely why you'd like to have someone from II? Because then they'd do a better job policing II. The problem is that there are only 13 mods and II is not even remotely close to 1/13th the work.


Strawman (how ironic). My complaint wasn't that they won't appoint mods from II in the future (who can say what will happen in the future, although now you come to mention it there is absolutely no reason to suppose that their pattern of recruitment is going to change), but that they don't appoint mods from II.

I'm sorry that you misunderstood the quoted text, but "they haven't so they won't" refers to because it hasn't happened that it's because they are unwilling to allow it to happen, rather than the more reasonable "perhaps there's a particular criterium that most IIers don't meet or at least haven't demonstrated." But, hey, why apply reason when you'd rather sit on a coincidental "rough correllation". You do know correllation <> causation, no?

Amusingly, if your "rough correllation" were true there would, of course be people from II who were mods. Fortunately, the mods choose other mods based on criteria necessary to the job rather than what forum one is from.


On what basis do you assure me of what is going on in the minds of people you have never met? What, for that matter, qualifies you to pass groundless speculation off as fact whilst dismissing strong statistical evidence of an institutionalised bias as baseless conspiracy mongering? The fact is that there are a hundred applicants for every position, and at least two of them are sufficiently qualified. The mods can quite easily pass over (or not even go looking for) meritious candidates in II without making their jobs any harder.

Hmmm... on the basis that they're people and that in my world I don't assume a conspiracy without evidence. Amusing that you'd accuse me of groundless speculation since I simply adopted the default position and you're accusing them of a particular attitude toward II (and have since your entry into the thread). A hundred applicants for every position where two are qualified? Evidence, my friend? Wouldn't want any groundless speculation.

You don't have strong statistical evidence. You have a rough correllation. You should spend more time in general. If you practiced debate you'd recognize the folly of calling rough correllation "strong statistical evidence". Rough correllation and strong statistically evidence almost offends me by being in the same sentence.



Of the two of us, only you has claimed the ability to read minds, so perhaps you can answer? I would suggest that their "motive" is simple more sub-conscious than anything - they seem to hold the opinion that II is beneath contempt, and not worth wasting time over. Of course, I do not actually need to supply a motive. I am not trying to claim that there is bias against II for a particular reason, just that the bias exists. It is quite possible to do the latter without doing the former.

Ha. Did I? I wasn't aware I called myself a mind-reader. I thought that was you calling me that. I'll ask you the same question I've asked Okie - what do you hope to accomplish that is aided by unqualified attacks on anyone who disagrees with you?

I do find it amusing that I made a generalized comment about people and you made a very specific comment about the contempt that the mods have for II and I'm the "mind-reader". You keep mentioning irony. The word definitely applies here, though I think you'd didn't place it appropriately.


I think even you would have difficulty defending a policy of centralising almost completely unaccountable power in the hands of one part of a community at the expense of another. I does not take much thought to realise why this would be issue.

Except it's not centralized in one part of the community. It's given to people who are active in the forums they will be working in. Is this strange to you?


Why need I have recommended anybody that they didn't accept for a bias against II to exist? Again, you are trying to blame me for something over which I have no power and for which I have no responsibility. "So why didn't you do something?" is an argument much favoured by politicians because it allows them to sidestep the issue (that something they are responsible for is broken) whilst making their opponent look bad on television (because they didn't fix the thing they arent responsible for on the behalf of the person who is). Unfortunately for you, it is also a deeply illogical attack.

It's also an argument favored by people who are exceptionally busy and unpaid. You want someone to be a mod, then why don't you point this out to the people selecting the mods? By the same token, I can't get away with complaining that someone wasn't modded for flaming, if I didn't report the flame. Unsurprisingly, when you want actions from the mods relying on luck doesn't particularly work. And, yes, if you don't let them know you want someone to be modded, you're relying on luck. I'm not big on luck, but, hey, if you think that'll work try it out. I mean, relying on luck has gotten you this far hasn't it.

And, again, that's not an attack. It addresses your claims. I'm sorry that you'd prefer omniscience in your mods. I recognize them has human beings. Fallible even.

This pretty much sums up your line of attack throughout the post: denigrate me as a person, suggest that I am untrustworthy, ignore all of my evidence (which you were careful not to quote) and justify this with extremely vague claims of unreliability, then try to shift the blame on to me for the problem I am complaining about. Utter nonesense.

I love when people can't seperate themselves from the argument. I never attacked you as a person. Not once. Never denigrated you. Not once. I attacked your argument, because frankly your argument has no basis. I haven't said YOU were untrustworthy. I said your argument has no merit. Now, you on the other hand have mentioned me as a person several times, such as accusing me of being a "mind-reader" rather than addressing the point.

Seriously, if you get this upset over this, then maybe you should take a breath and walk away for a minute. I haven't attacked you once, but you're reacting like I made fun of your mother.

You know what? I propose that each faction get exactly what it deserves.

Make Hataria the mod of II and watch the tears flow.

You know what? I propose that each faction get exactly what it deserves.

Make Hataria the mod of II and watch the tears flow.

Seriously, as much as Hataria might make his bed, randomly insulting him really isn't fair. He's got feelings and it must be frustrating to have people react the way they do to him. Not to mention it's a mild flame.

I'm not trying to insult Hataria, but rather, pick a canidate for II mod that is about as far from the ideal as possible. =p

Really, the problem with selecting a mod from II is that most of the people there who post a lot and have been there a couple years tend to be highly opinionated or in cliques (I place myself in this category as well for the sake of honesty =p). Thus, virtually anyone who was selected would not be as unbiased as one could like.

The one person I think would really make a good choice, AMF, doesn't really have the time to do the job well from what I know.

Again, a thorough explanation has been given. If you have a problem with the explanation, what is it? If you have a suggestion on how to improve the system, give it. Continuing to harp over what might or might not being going on in mods minds or bitching about conspiracy theories does NOTHING to solving a problem clearly at the core of this. If you don't know what the problem is or how such a problem was not satisfactorily answered by Fris's statement, perhaps you should backup and figure that part out first.

Dividing this into a General vs II issue will get us no where except create more animosity and further divide these forums. Setting aside suspicions and asking questions might actually resolve something.

I'm not trying to insult Hataria, but rather, pick a canidate for II mod that is about as far from the ideal as possible. =p

Really, the problem with selecting a mod from II is that most of the people there who post a lot and have been there a couple years tend to be highly opinionated or in cliques (I place myself in this category as well for the sake of honesty =p). Thus, virtually anyone who was selected would not be as unbiased as one could like.

The one person I think would really make a good choice, AMF, doesn't really have the time to do the job well from what I know.

I have a problem with broad generalizations (which is why I responded sarcastically the broad generalization by Prae). I don't think you can say "everyone" in most cases.

You could say the same thing about the way most long time posters on General or the UN or any forum end up in clique-ish groups. We make friends and we tend to agree with some people more than others. It's kind of the nature of things.

I think it's more about experience than it is about people's ability to reasonably be a mod. Mods are chosen from people who active in situations where a mod is useful. As Fris pointed out this is often in the forum of a helpful tip or rules claification in Moderation or the UN. It might be making a helpful suggestion to a couple of posters to calm down in General. Or it might be an attempt to resolve a personal problem peacefull in II as I saw you do. And if they notice that happening, they respond appropriately.

The problem here is that they are more likely to see that behavior in the mod forum or in General or even the UN forum because of the necessity for mod intervention in those forums. If people don't point out threads like yours in II where you really were trying to encourage reason in a situation that pretty much was wasting everyone's time, then it's not that likely they'll see it in II.

And that's not speculation. That's blatantly what Fris just said.

(By the by, I mentioned that thread in II twice, Fris, because if you're looking for someone who showed patience in the face a pretty heated situation and someone who did much to improve that situation, you should check out that thread.)

Again, a thorough explanation has been given. If you have a problem with the explanation, what is it? If you have a suggestion on how to improve the system, give it. Continuing to harp over what might or might not being going on in mods minds or bitching about conspiracy theories does NOTHING to solving a problem clearly at the core of this. If you don't know what the problem is or how such a problem was not satisfactorily answered by Fris's statement, perhaps you should backup and figure that part out first.

Dividing this into a General vs II issue will get us no where except create more animosity and further divide these forums. Setting aside suspicions and asking questions might actually resolve something.

Other than a couple of posters is there really a general animosity between those forums? I know that's the idea that this claim rests on, but I'm not aware of anyone in General really caring at all about the posters in II. Why would there be animosity? What did II ever do to affect General and vice versa.

There are tons of people who complain about the mods, but that's the nature of the job. What does that have to do with the feelings of the average poster, though?

That would be the first thing I would recommend to anyone from II OR General who thinks the other "party" is out to get them. I'm a pretty well-known Generalite but I read II with awe. I think the level of detail that some of the posters in there come up with and track is nothing short of inspiring. As a writer, I am thankful to have so many other aspiring and inspiring writers around. And I don't think I'm all that unusual among Generalites.

(By the by, I mentioned that thread in II twice, Fris, because if you're looking for someone who showed patience in the face a pretty heated situation and someone who did much to improve that situation, you should check out that thread.)

Que? Which thread?

In your email, be sure to include the following information: (Note that fields marked with a * are required if you want us to look at your nomination!)

****List of links to threads/posts by your nomination that you think supports your reasons****
Any other assorted information you feel should be mentioned regarding the nomination
Clearly, the wielder of the Sword of DEAT is open to the concept that we don't know or see everything. Some of the submissions to the Nominate mailbox have been quite informative. I know I don't have time (or interest) to sift through 1.7 million posts to look for the gems, but I'll click any forum link and at least give it a look.

If you want us to know about someone, tell us. In case you hadn't noticed, we're reactive, rarely proactive. If we haven't been told it's happening, you've got just a small random chance that one of us will stumble upon it.

Why arn't you guys hiring mods with psychic powers yet http://img95.imageshack.us/img95/2475/emotcolbertlv3.gif

Other than a couple of posters is there really a general animosity between those forums? I know that's the idea that this claim rests on, but I'm not aware of anyone in General really caring at all about the posters in II. Why would there be animosity? What did II ever do to affect General and vice versa.

There are tons of people who complain about the mods, but that's the nature of the job. What does that have to do with the feelings of the average poster, though?

That would be the first thing I would recommend to anyone from II OR General who thinks the other "party" is out to get them. I'm a pretty well-known Generalite but I read II with awe. I think the level of detail that some of the posters in there come up with and track is nothing short of inspiring. As a writer, I am thankful to have so many other aspiring and inspiring writers around. And I don't think I'm all that unusual among Generalites.

Honestly, I don't know, I don't care. The two most vocal about mod issues have tried to make this a General vs II issue and whether it is a sign of the wider community or not, them making it just a General vs II issue is going to increase their own problems with General as a whole instead of resolving the issue. I'm part of neither II nor General and, really, I tend to avoid both.

On a similar note, someone who's not entirely aware of the community makeup but is a part of General and has figured out that these two are II might bristle a bit at the fact that they make accusations about "typical Generalites" and the counter is certainly true. A well versed person such as yourself which has dabbled in a little of everything probably won't have troubles shrugging it off as the vocal minority completely misrepresenting the majority, but their words are certainly ones that carry the essence of polarization. I'm more interested in stopping that - regardless of what the consequences are if they don't stop (since, let's face it, they're not going to sit down and have a reasoned debate until they stop).

I'm not trying to insult Hataria, but rather, pick a canidate for II mod that is about as far from the ideal as possible. =p

Really, the problem with selecting a mod from II is that most of the people there who post a lot and have been there a couple years tend to be highly opinionated or in cliques (I place myself in this category as well for the sake of honesty =p). Thus, virtually anyone who was selected would not be as unbiased as one could like.

The one person I think would really make a good choice, AMF, doesn't really have the time to do the job well from what I know.


I can sort of agree with this, but there are still a few who can differentiate between playing the game and responsibility to the community. But for the most part, picking a mod from the II forum should definately be done carefully.

Though I would disagree with your last point. Time is all I have. ;)

Oh, well, in that case, AMF for II mod.

Que? Which thread?


Clearly, the wielder of the Sword of DEAT is open to the concept that we don't know or see everything. Some of the submissions to the Nominate mailbox have been quite informative. I know I don't have time (or interest) to sift through 1.7 million posts to look for the gems, but I'll click any forum link and at least give it a look.

If you want us to know about someone, tell us. In case you hadn't noticed, we're reactive, rarely proactive. If we haven't been told it's happening, you've got just a small random chance that one of us will stumble upon it.

Sorry, I actually didn't note the thread because it was the subject of a moderation topic so I assumed you saw it, but looking back, the mod topic was just a lock request. I'll put in a proper recommendation with the link.

I assume the rest of that is not really directed at me since I've agreed with that point several times.

I can sort of agree with this, but there are still a few who can differentiate between playing the game and responsibility to the community. But for the most part, picking a mod from the II forum should definately be done carefully.

Though I would disagree with your last point. Time is all I have. ;)
I fully back this thinly veiled self-nomination for II mod.

Oh, well, in that case, AMF for II mod.

BTW - if you think someone is a good candidate for Mod but think there might be some RL issues that could limit their candidacy, perhaps you should just submit the nomination anyways. After all, the final decision after the job is offered rests with the nominee.

And certainly, getting a little prod from the mods saying "hey, we think you're mod quality" is certainly not an insult or something someone wouldn't want to hear.

Oh, well, in that case, AMF for II mod.

I'd second that. He's fair and he knows what he's doing.

I put in my nomination for AMF, he knows what he's doing.

Honestly, I don't know, I don't care. The two most vocal about mod issues have tried to make this a General vs II issue and whether it is a sign of the wider community or not, them making it just a General vs II issue is going to increase their own problems with General as a whole instead of resolving the issue. I'm part of neither II nor General and, really, I tend to avoid both.

On a similar note, someone who's not entirely aware of the community makeup but is a part of General and has figured out that these two are II might bristle a bit at the fact that they make accusations about "typical Generalites" and the counter is certainly true. A well versed person such as yourself which has dabbled in a little of everything probably won't have troubles shrugging it off as the vocal minority completely misrepresenting the majority, but their words are certainly ones that carry the essence of polarization. I'm more interested in stopping that - regardless of what the consequences are if they don't stop (since, let's face it, they're not going to sit down and have a reasoned debate until they stop).

Yeah, I'd say that's right. Given that they've chosen to hold themselves up as representatives of II, this certainly could give people the impression that 'all' of II has a similar attitude toward General.

I'll state categorically that I've seen that is is not only not true, but the overwhelming attitude of anyone toward a forum they don't frequent is indifference, including that of IIers who don't frequent General. Why wouldn't be.

I hope people don't see me as a representative of General, but if they do, please note that I took issue with an argument. I have no issue with the individuals who made them nor with II as a whole.

I'd second that. He's fair and he knows what he's doing.

If all of you are serious, then I'd follow the note from RR via Fris. Find examples of AMF being helpful. Keep in mind there isn't really a need for a mod dedicated to II, so you'd have to show AMF has more broadly applicable qualities.

If all of you are serious, then I'd follow the note from RR via Fris. Find examples of AMF being helpful. Keep in mind there isn't really a need for a mod dedicated to II, so you'd have to show AMF has more broadly applicable qualities.
More broadly applicable qualities? He ran the CyberNations forum for over a year, successfully too, might I add.

More broadly applicable qualities? He ran the CyberNations forum for over a year, successfully too, might I add.

So did Euroslavia, from what I heard. Not especially relevant, but worth mentioning.

If you want to make a nomination, use the official process as described in the sticky. This isn't a popularity contest, it's a job interview. Don't post any more 'nominations' in this thread, please.

More broadly applicable qualities? He ran the CyberNations forum for over a year, successfully too, might I add.

You know, not everything's an argument. The point is that you'd want to show that he's a candidate with abilities that aren't only applicable to II as you can note in the message from Fris about how they choose mods. I'm just trying to point you in the right direction.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12628690&postcount=9

I have no opinion on whether or not AMF would be a good mod. Now whether they make decent Harley-Davidson's is a whole other issue...

I'm not trying to insult Hataria, but rather, pick a canidate for II mod that is about as far from the ideal as possible. =p

And I thought _I_ was the least ideal candidate. Oh well.

I don't really see what the big deal is about moderatorship anyway and I really don't see the big deal about where they frequent. In the final analysis, it matters about two percent. Besides that, I don't know why someone would WANT to be a moderator with all the work involved and the likelihood that you'd end up losing friendships with players as a result of some of your moderator decisions.

Over the time I've been on NationStates, the only time I've seen International Incidents really needing intervention is when people go in and do their random spamming, such as n00bs declaring war on the world, flaming, etc. I've seen some stuff going on in NationStates that could merit more attention (especially the World Cup discussion thread), but General and the UN are really where the majority of the problems are on these fora.

To be honest, I really don't see why you're complaining about this Praetonia, and I'd like to think I know you pretty well from our history RPing in the same threads and talking over various instant messengers. Then again, perhaps semi-retirement is suiting me a little too well.

You wouldnt be a generalite unless you sucked up to a mod in your post.

wrong , you really don't know how things work do you :rolleyes:

Possibility One: The Conspiracy is a fact.

In this case, it seems very unlikely that the whining of a dozen or so strong clique out of a userbase measured in tens of thousands will amount to, oh, anything at all.

And given that you're evidently and undoubtedly conspired against, I think it's safe to say that your best course of action is to boycott the corrupted mess that is NS, and cease playing the game (I mean, you already tried that once - surely you'll manage it the second time around). Surely it can't be fun playing it when you're constantly harassed by the moderation staff - and be it by simply not being noticed.

Possibility Two: The Conspiracy isn't a fact.

In this case, I suggest you look for professional help. Maybe they can do something against that persecution complex of yours.

I think this is done. Unless the two who were concerned about the lack of II appointments have anything further to add, this conversation has divulged into just bashing them after they, apparently, have already given up.

I think this is done.
Every time I've made that assumption and closed the thread, Praetonia has come back with a threadjack continuation in some unrelated thread. Rather than being accused once again as the zOMG BIASED corrupt mod, I'll just leave it open as a catch-all for whatever complaints might still be floating around unaddressed. I'm sure there's something else we've done wrong. There always is.

True....but that doesn't mean everyone needs to keep taking pot shots at Okielahoma and Praetonia 2 days after either of them have commented here.

True....but that doesn't mean everyone needs to keep taking pot shots at Okielahoma and Praetonia 2 days after either of them have commented here.

hey people take pot shots at poeple for things that happen a week or months back

That doesn't mean everyone needs to keep taking pot shots at Okielahoma and Praetonia 2 days after either of them have commented here.

They shouldn't be doing that in Moderation anyway ... should they, Imperial isa?

I've asked you before, and I've told you before, Imperial isa - don't post in Moderation unless you are ACTIVELY involved in the case, or have something RELEVANT to post. Neither applies to your two posts in this thread, or to MOST of your posts in Moderation. Let's make it explicit. Butt out. You're only adding noise here.

They shouldn't be doing that in Moderation anyway ... should they, Imperial isa?

I've asked you before, and I've told you before, Imperial isa - don't post in Moderation unless you are ACTIVELY involved in the case, or have something RELEVANT to post. Neither applies to your two posts in this thread, or to MOST of your posts in Moderation. Let's make it explicit. Butt out. You're only adding noise here.

ok how many long term IIers that would be good as a Mod from what i see only a small hand full

ok how many long term IIers that would be good as a Mod from what i see only a small hand full
You're not getting it. I'm not asking you to make up stuff that is sorta relevant so you can keep posting in Moderation, I'm asking you to stop posting in Moderation for anything other than problems that DIRECTLY affect you.

The post above is just more noise. Knock it off!

If I make a suggestion, why not add people who waste Moderation's time to a special usergroup that makes Moderation invisible to them?

Because, as tempting as that may be at times, it would mean that those people couldn't report anything genuine either. If we had a program capable of discerning what was a genuine complaint and what was rubbish maybe that would work ... but then we'd just appoint it as Mod and retire.

~ Tsarmageddon