NationStates Jolt Archive

I have many issues with Moderators, their role, function, and utility to the game, but the one serious question I have is about the use of the so-called "judgment call".

Moderators often refer to their decisions as "judgment calls" when asked for an explanation of their decisions. While I wholeheartedly agree that part of their job (such as it is by the current structure) is making judgment calls, the calls they make are often contradictory, confusing, and lack any sense of internal consistency. For example, Jocabia (a constant petitioner to the Mods) recently asked for punishment because another poster called him the word "bitch". Action in this case was denied as whatever infraction there may have been was considered de minimus. I have, however, often before seen players rebuked or punished by Mods for use of the exact same word in very similar content and quality of post. Similarly, as a raider-player, I have seen just as many confusingly random flip-flops on rule interpretation by Moderators in raiding actions (always refered to as griefing if punishment is to be handed out and raiding if not, btw). Some of it was explainable by Mod personality (raiders used to keep track of Mod decisions to decide which were sympathetic and not in making our complaints). But for the most part, the "judgment calls" of Moderators largely appear to have no rhyme or reason to this and many other observers.

I want to make it perfectly clear that I am not in this thread petitioning for aything, or making any specific complaints. I do however note that NS is a society, and a society theoretically bound by rule of law (law of contract anyway according to the FAQ and constant reminders when the laws are enforced, that we must abide by site rules here by our entrance contract). As a legal practitioner in real life, however, I note that every legal system in counties where people are actually bound to the rule of law makes a serious attempt to make the laws as clear and dependable as possible. In English/US case-law systems, judges do this by writing opinions when they interpret rules that carry the force of law themselves so that a series of judges decisiosn interpreting a rule such as what constitutes "flaming" for example becomes clearer and more delineated as more decisions come down refining the interpretation of the rule. In statutory systems like many mainland European countries, case law does not have precedential value, however care is taken to refine the wording of statutes on an ongoing basis based on how courts do interpret the statute to also refine the distinction of what is illegal or not. Even hybrid systems with direct political intervention like that in used in China hold the previous opinions of judges and commisars on interpreting rules to be of highly probative value when a later judge must interpret the same rule (with comments of the supreme political bodies being even more than probative). The end result is that these systems tend to clarify the rules as time goes on with their decisions refining the application of the rule, so that the rank and file have a very crisp idea what is a violation and what is not.

The NS Moderators, on the other hand, seem to stringently resist or avoid any detailed explanation of the logic behind their decisions or the use of any previously provided logic being applicable in the next case, or "judgment call". So the NS system is not one where precedent is used to refine application of the rules. Also, the rules themselves are rarely if ever changed, so it is not a statutory system where the wording changes to refine the idea of what is or is not a violation. And lacking an element of either, it is also not a hybrid system. Even contract law works strictly by using highly detailed description so that there can be no doubt as to the intention of the parties (in legal circles, a vague contract is void since there was no real "meeting of the minds" as is required and would be shown by a specific and detailed contract). So, NS--at least Moderator decisions therein--is not really even rule by contract law, since the definitions of the substantial terms for violations are kept intentionally vague (imprecise and unspecific).

So, my question to the Mods is, is there a system by which you think the rules and what is a violation and what is not become clear to players of the game? To this outsiders perpective, the system of "judgment calls" seems to intentionally defeat any narrowing of the interpretation of the rules so a player knows what exactly a violation is--but, there may be a system going on inside Moderation circles that is not evident to us who just see random and usually contradictory decisions with little or no explanation of how such decisions were arrived at.

I might also venture to ask whether the Mods want clear and concise rules, or whether they want the flexibility to approach each situation uniquely with no serious barriers to their exercise of individual judgment?

(I stand by all my disparaging words to Mods of late and do think they have greatly hurt the game, however this is a serious query unrelated to any other dialogue I may have going with them)

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=416023

There's what we use for making judgments; they're openly available to anyone with a notion to read them.

That is not an answer, cheeky as it is, Kat.

The very second paragraph there states, "Please be aware that the following rules are not set in stone. Each case is different, and may be subject to conditions not readily apparent to the regular player. Consideration is given not just to the specific offense, but also the nation's (and in some cases, the player's) prior actions and infractions. Also, new rules may be added as circumstances dictate, and Max and the Admins may invoke special rulings as they see a need."

This basically claims that the one stop shop are the rules, but, to quote Johnny Depp, "are not so much rules as guidelines". It expressly reserves the right to change, alter, manipulate, or flat ignore any guideline therein as needed on a case by case basis in order that Mods may make a "judgment call".

It even explains that such judgment calls may be made upon conditions "not readily apparent to the regular player"--in other words, these rules are subject to change in ways that even regular and active players cannot predict, and as such the 'rules' will never approach any certainty that even a regular player can rely on when acting. And it furthermore makes cutouts for for future rules and invoking special rulings which (as you and I have both seen) don't even need to be announced before being acted upon or enforced.


The One Stop Shop does not claim facially or otherwise that it is any reliable guide of how the rules will be enforced, or even that rules will not be made up on the fly. Unlike any legal system, these so-called rules clarification do not give any certainty to how the rules of this game will be enforced and do not claim to interpret the rules such that a player can have a clear idea what is an is not objectionable here.

Perhaps I have not been clear or detailed enough in what I am asking. Although analogy is a weak form of argument, it is often a good illustrative device. So, here goes: let's take "flaming" as an example. The One Stop Shop says, "Flame: Expressing anger at someone in uncouth ways with OOC (out-of-character) comments (i.e. swearing, being obnoxious, threatening etc). It does to watch what you post IC (in-character) as well unless the other posters know you're not serious. You do not need to curse to be a flamer. Erudite slams while maintaining a veneer of politeness can also be considered flaming. Flaming in the forums should be reported in the Moderation forum, in the game itself, through Getting Help Page."

Firstly, must a person express "anger" to flame? You and I have both seen many who were expressing emotions other than anger get punished for flaming--unless you want to try to define anger as a catchall for any and all heated feelings towards another person, which it clearly by simple everyday understanding is not.

And what the heck does "uncouth ways" mean? A legal type might say it is just whatever the everyday understanding of 'uncouth' is, but the very word is not in everyday usage anywhere in the world anymore, so it doesn't have an 'everyday' meaning. Dictionary.com gives the following synonyms:

"1. awkward, clumsy, or unmannerly: uncouth behavior; an uncouth relative who embarrasses the family.
2. strange and ungraceful in appearance or form.
3. unusual or strange."

I think it easily arguable that a direct and pointed curse word is niether awkward as it gets its point across rather effeciently and most curse words are assuredly not strange or unusual in modern spoken English, and certainly commonplace on the internet. Therefore, a moderately reasonable person can logically infer that when the rule forbids expression in uncouth ways, it must mean something like unmannerly ways. But by what or whose standard of manners? This is a very serious question, and one that much of society struggles with from time to time. The difference is that legal systems addressing unmannerly conduct or words do so in a consistent and reducible format. The American FCC clearly spells out which words can and can't be used and what time slots & etc they can be used; the British and European systems largely do the same by industry regulation; most communication centric weboards define banned words in some recognizable way. But here we have a rule applied with no seeming rhyme or reason where (using our previous example) "bitch" can be unmannerly or not on any given day with no explanation of why this it is allowable or not.

So, how on earth can anyone figure out whether they are on terra firma or terra violentia when they use the word since there is no coherent rule and no consistency to previous judgments made on its use--or at least none that will be apparent to even regular players, as the One Stop is hasty to remind us.

I'll just briefly mention that the inclusion of the requirement that the comments be made "OOC" is inherently a little weird. Does this mean it is completely okay to flame in any manner and using any language whatsoever so long as one remains in-character? I doubt it, but the rule certainly reads that way, and this does nothing to help players figure out what is or is not allowable.

(This is just an example, I'm not asking for an exposition on what flaming is. I am asking why there is no such exposition or line of Mod logic or other such tool that interprets this oddly phrased rule so that players have a fairly good and reliable idea what Mods will decree flaming or not).

The problem is quite simply that niether the wording of the rules nor the enforcement of them gives anyone any certainty as to what conduct is prohibited or is not prohibited. Much less what punishment will be handed down, since there is little apparent clarity to when Mods will use preventive or prophylactic warning measures, and when they will swing the big hammers.

I want it to be very clear that I am not impugning any particular Mod decisions here.

However, my original question remains unanswered: Is there a system by which you think the rules and what is a violation and what is not become clear to players of the game? Kat's response of the One Stop is equivocal at best since it expressly states that it is not a set of certain rules, and that application of the rules may not be comprehensible even to a regular player. Do you Mods think there is any way a player can gain a fairly clear and reliable understanding of how the rules will be applied in most circumstances (doesn't have to be 100%, but soething like 90% would be workable)? If you do, what is that system? Again, this is a serious query, and I am avoiding any intentional Mod malignment in making it.

My other question was: Whether the Mods want clear and concise rules, or whether they want the flexibility to approach each situation uniquely with no serious barriers to their exercise of individual judgment? It would seem to me that all the cutouts, exceptions, and reservations in the One Stop sort of indicate that the Mods &/or Max is more desirous of flexibility to approach each situations without barriers to Mod action rather than have more clear and concise rules that bind Moderator action somewhat but give stability and clarity to the rules. Do you think this analysis is off the mark? Why?



***Guys an gals, I don't think it is any secret that I don't really like how Moderation action and rule adjustments are handled in NS--and I doubt y'all worry much over whether I like it or not. My point here is simply to find out if y'all think there is some consistentcy to how and why Mod action is dispersed (I'm guessing yes here); if you think there is a way a player can determine that consistency so as to be fairly sure of what consequences will attend what actions (this is the meat of the issue, since Mod action seems a bit if not mostly random to most of us, but there may be something we are not seeing here that would help); and if the previous answer is no or not really, if the Mods are willing to give the rules more clarity at the expense of their flexibility or not (this one might be already answered to the extent it may be a silly question, but no harm in asking). I'm really trying not to be a jerk. I'm really trying to make one last ditch effort to see if there is any pattern to Mod enforcement of rules that often seem not very rule-like. I really thought it would be best to try ask questions directly and in as sincere a way as possible rather than just assume it is all completely random.***

I've been on NS in one form or another since a couple of months after it started and, FYI, this has played out a few times. Nothing's going to change. The mods have been doing things this way for half a decade now and theyre not budging.
I'd say more, but theres a black helicopter hovering outside my window right now.

There are six rules in the FAQ that define everything we do. Under "What can't I post? - Any content that is: * obscene
* illegal
* threatening
* malicious
* defamatory
* spam"Max Barry, who wrote those words and owns this site, has made it very clear to the mods and admins that he thinks those six words are all that are necessary. In fact, he had hoped that an enlightened Internet community would abide by his guidelines to the point that his site wouldn't need anyone to enforce those rules.

Turns out he was wrong about the enlightened nature of people taking advantage of a freely-provided game. So he added mods in 2003, and handed the responsibility of enforcing those six words to selected volunteer players. Over the last four years, the precedent from those enforcement actions has been gathered into the thread Katganistan linked. Which of course you know.

Over the same four years, the FAQ has grown from those six simple words of guidance to incorporate new specific rulings, based on people's attempts to sneak by the six rules. The FAQ now runs at 4300 words of guidance. In addition, the moderators have taken additional bits of precedence and incorporated those into the One Stop Rules Shop at 8,545 words, the Rules for UN proposals (another 3,250 words), the rules for scripting, for influence, for issue editing, and any number of sticky threads in the eleven forums.

So, six words have grown to over 20,000+. And that's not enough for you? I think we've bent over backwards to provide for the needs of the players, but there's always somebody who wants every possible deviation defined so they can pick from ones we've missed.

No, your argument is that since national governments try to define their laws in exquisitely agonized phrases that often can't be interpreted by laymen, we should do the same. After all, NationStates is just like a series of national governments, isn't it? We have the power to imprison, to tax, to go to war, to drop nuclear weapons on other nations, don't we? Don't we?

Your freedom of speech is not at risk. Neither are your freedoms of movement, religion, nationalism, genderism, or any other freedom you may be afforded. We're not cutting you off from the rest of the internet. We're not locking you in a cell far from your loved ones. We're not sending you off to fight pointless wars for arrogant politicians, and the only nukes you can drop are a fantasy in print..

This is a simple game. You create a nation, you answer issues, you vote in the UN. Six words should have been enough. Hell, two words should have been enough - "play nice". But alas, that's not to be.

In simple terms, mods can do a very small number of things. We can help you restore your lost nation. We can slap you on the wrist with words. We can remove what you wrote. We can restrict your ability to play if you've demonstrated an inability to follow the rules of this free game. That's it.

I think we've got plenty of rules for that.

Do you really wish the mods to establish and maintain precedent over what ideas are proper to express? We are going to need about 200 more.

If the rules are not sufficient to give a definitive punishment for calling someone a bitch, I think we can trust the mods judgment, none of them are noob posters.

Explicit answers to bolded questions:

"Is there a system by which you think the rules and what is a violation and what is not become clear to players of the game?"No. Max has stated that there will not be a public list of offenses and their punishments.

"Do you Mods think there is any way a player can gain a fairly clear and reliable understanding of how the rules will be applied in most circumstances (doesn't have to be 100%, but soething like 90% would be workable)? If you do, what is that system?"The One Stop Rules Shop fills that role for considerably more than 90% of our actions. The fact that it doesn't satisfy 90% of your questions is something we'll just have to live with.

"Whether the Mods want clear and concise rules, or whether they want the flexibility to approach each situation uniquely with no serious barriers to their exercise of individual judgment?"We'll take flexibility for $200, Alex. That's how the boss laid it out, and it's his site, not yours.

As some mods may know, or remember, I also asked for some kind of standard format for rulings.

while most of the answers did satisfy me as to why the mods need to work on a per case basis, many still left me feeling like you PR2. but one thing I do know.

The mods do patrol themselves. they will reverse actions when it's shown that a judgement was rendered was infact wrong. however, proof needs to be show.

Each mod is a seperate person. thus each has their own thoughts as to what punishiment is deserving of what infraction and even how severe that infraction is. Thus why some may get a KIO (Knock it off A.K.A an Unoffical Warning) while others can get an OW (Offical Warning) or even banned. Just like some police officers will give you a ticket for speeding, while others will pull you over and give you a verbal warning, or just flash their lights to say "Hey, we see you now drive safely". and yes, I've had two of the three. (no speeding tickets... but alot of parking violations. :p)

so I would suggest, if you want to question a mods ruling, it would help your case to supply instances where that particular mod did either a) contradict themselves. b) is showing some form of bias. or c) is wrong. but also remember, as humans, they are also subject to being "in a bad mood" and given the fact that they are not being paid to do this thankless job, they should be given 1) the benefit of the doubt, 2) a chance to explain themselves before the cry of "OMFG! MOD BIAS!" is raised and 3) other mods should be given a chance to review and discuss things with them.

You might wish to check the TOS where it says you can be banned for any reason, including no reason.

This is known as a "catch all" clause.

In other words, this forum is a dictatorship (albiet a benevolent one), and should be run in such a way, as should all forums.

Democracy does not work in an internet forum.

<snip>

The mods as much as I don't agree with them at times do a good job of keeping the trouble-makers in line and making at least fairly consistent calls varying according to context. Also if they don't fully explain the rules to people, those people will be less likely to push them. Clearly defined rules are more easily exploitable, and when someone prone to that comes along it's less of a pain for everyone to not have to deal with that.

It also makes the simulation more accurate. ;)

You might wish to check the TOS where it says you can be banned for any reason, including no reason.

This is known as a "catch all" clause.

In other words, this forum is a dictatorship (albiet a benevolent one), and should be run in such a way, as should all forums.

I wouldn't say that. I don't think of the Mods as dictators, more like an ever-present, omnipotent police force. They're here for enforcing the rules, not for telling us what to do.

First, Fris,

Thank you very much for answering my three questions. The answers are more or less what I expected, but I wanted to make sure I wasn't missing anything.

Please note that I was not suggesting that NS be run like a country's legal system. I was asking why it was not. Thanks again for the answer.

As I understand it, the answer boils down to the idea that the Mods/Max wants maximum flexibility for Moderator intervention, and he/they feels that having more explicit rules or theories and guidelines of punishment would interfere with that autonomy of the cop, judge, and jury role of Mods within the game. He/they also feel that the rules are clear enough that enforcement is predictable in the vast majority of cases.

I have no problem--merely disagreement--with the preference for flexibility, as you said it's Max's/the Mods game and y'all can run it as you will.

I would like to submit however that your belief that enforcement is predictable in well over 90% of the situations that may arise could possibly be faulty. I am quite sure you honestly believe this is so viewed from your position as a Moderator Fris. But any intellectually honest person must admit that thier view of the results will be skewed if they are inside the system they are viewing. I humbly submit that almost all of the posts by other players here, while usually supportive, strongly indicate that the players view Mod intervention, when it is done, and the action taken as highly random and nowhere near as predictable as you believe it to be.

There may well be as much clarity and predictability in Mod intervention as you think there is from your position and viewpoint in the game. I am just asking you to consider that the evidence strongly suggests that the active players disagree with that viewpoint and do not see much consistency in the application of Mod action.

If viwed from the starting point that Mod action is not particularly consistent, I think the frustration of players with Moderation becomes more clear. Considering that the preference of the game is for Mod autonomy of action, I am not sure if there is a desire or significant ways to make the predictability of Mod action more clear if there is such, or make the action more predictable if not. Regardless of a solution or will for it, I think that the evidence here and elsewhere strongly indicates a disconnect between the Moderators (at least Fris, but I guess the rest too) and the Moderated as to when Mods will intervene, what for, and type and severity of chastisement. I do tend to think an awareness of this disconnect might help relations--but maybe I'm just an optimist by nature.

As for all of your thoughts about the expansion of words and disdain of legal mechanism, I think many who live in the same place as you and come from the same socio-economic background would agree perfectly that all that is needed is a guideline to "play nice". The problem is that what you mean by play nice and what I and others mean by it may not be similar or even close together. As The Bard has Caesar says, "Forgive him Brutus, he is a barbarian and thinks the customs of his tribe are the customs of all people." A hearty "F" word or "B" word is certainly not outside the scope of playing nice to me, but obviously is to you. Moreover, the venue also has something to do with what playing nice entails. Playing nice in church or courtroom behavior is surely different from playing nice would mean in a barroom or pub. Further complicating this is the fact that NS is essentially a collection of subcommunities so "play nice" probably means something entirely different inan anime region from say the "Hell" region. As the community grows, the definition of what "play nice" means becomes largely insrutable. And this problem is not even yet excacerbated by the fact that mores change even within cultures over time.

Similarly, conduct guides such as nothing:
* obscene
* illegal
* threatening
* malicious
* defamatory
* spam
are equally so overbroad they are equally inscrutable. What is obscene in Saudi Arabia is wholly different from from what is obscene in Australia, and moreover, what is obscene in big city Australia is almost certainly different from what is obscene in urban areas. Illegal? Where? And "threatening" is a purely subjective term with no objective indicia whatsoever since it relies totally on intent or reception. I have "threatened" to force my friend's wife to have intercourse with a disease ridden canine, but there was no intent to threat, nor reception on his part of the statement being a threat (you should have heard his response!), but there would have been little or no way to guess this from the objective indicia or the circumstances surrounding the comment--to most outward appearances it would have been a threat. "Defamation" is actually a defined civil suit in Western civilization and requires as an element of it some form of reputational harm. Can an internet reputation be harmed? What is the measure of harm in this venue? I don't have the slightest clue, but I do know that even in the most liberal of lawsuit happy US states no action for defamation for purely internet reputation has ever survived to even get to trial. Since defamation and defamatory are purely legal terms, it would seem from their origin that it would be currently impossible to defame anyone on NS. And I'll let sleeping dogs lie on spam since it is equally without any clear definition.

Again, I understand perfectly that you have said the game intentionally avoids precise definitions. But you hinted at an exasperation or inability to understand why simple commands to play nice or avoid the six no-no's above do not satisfy everyone. I think the reason they can be, at times, unsatisfactory is rather simply because not everybody means the same thing when they use or read these words.

Legal systems are used to rule people more or less equally. The reason I think they exhaustively define what is meant by unmannerly or illegal conduct is to make it clear to the average citizen what is or is not objectionable wehter they would personally find it to be so or not. They exhaustively define to give the law clarity and finality that people can be assured of depending on in guiding their actions. As you pointed out, the consequent problem is that some people will almost always be exploring the outer fringes of the rules. Then again, this can be an assets as it makes the rules clearer for everyone and detects weaknesses in the system.

On the opposite side, in the NS system of no apparent curbs on the exercise of autonomous power, the advantage is extreme flexibility in adjusting to new situations. But I think you might be underplaying the consequent downside that the system will likely be viewed by the ruled as uncertain and random, if not unprincipled and biased. Then again, this may be an asset as it keeps anyone from really knowing what rules will be enforced and when so they might have the reaction of testing the firges less.

I guess my long-winded point at the endo fo this all is that it seems to me that you believe this NS system has the best of both worlds: the flexibility of no certain rules with the stability and reliability of a rule-based system that is fairly predictable to the average player. I think the feelings that i have heard from most active players in my corner of the game, strongly supported by the posts in this thread indicate that the latter assumption is factually incorrect. The evidence strongly indicates that most players percieve Mod intervention as often being unpredictable.

No suggestions for now, just an observation I would appreciate if you consider. Thanks again for taking the time to answer Kat. It is appreciated.

(((I also think you must admit that the characterization of the game as simply being answering issues is overly simplistic when you know as well as I do that the huge majority of active players RP, raid, fend, yap on RMB's and do any number of other NS related activities. And downplaying your ability to chastise is a bit facetious when Mods have almost limitless control within the NS venue. I think the tone and tenor of my posts easily shows I am not a child who thinks NS is the whole world or even needs to be like it)))

And the other kind contributors,

The Jade Star,
Thanks for reiterating that apparent randomness of Mod activity, and resignation to it. Perhaps yours is the best way. Good luck with the black helicopters, I hear protesting your loyalty to the Real New Order might help, but my conspiracy info may be a bit dated.

Vittos,
As I said to Fris, no I am not suggesting the Mods use a precedent system to define offenses. I am merely pointing out that the "rules" such as they are are so vague as to be nearly inscrutable and enforcement of them does not appear to me or to many if not most active players to have any real consistency or rhyme or reason. I was asking the Mods if they thought this view was accurate--which they do not think is the case, but almost all posters here do, including you who appears to agree that the rules are not definitive but are willing to trust Mod judgement. I being in raider-fenda play, which admittedly skirts the rules from time to time, have not seen enough consistentcy in Mod action or rule interpretation to trust their judgment, since it gives us players no real yardstick of what will be punished, when, or how. My hope is that raising this query in this way will make the Mods appreciate how seemingly random their actions are to most players--Fris' post shows they are not currently aware of this since Fris thinks the rules are clear well over 90% of the time, while the players here voice disagreement. If they do appreciate this disconnect, I thought it possible, that they, the Mods, might think up some ways to bridge the gap since they know their volunteer job better than I do.

I can think of one possibility that steals from a precedent legal system without binding the Mods so they can retain the intended flexibility. It seems to me one of the most infurating aspects of Moderation is the brevity or lack of explanation for their action. When judges make decisions they usually try to explain their logic a bit in a final opinion. The final opinion is not subject to dispute and any arguments with it will not be answered, so it doesn't open the door to long time consuming dialogues. I suspect the Mods will claim that they already offer explanations if asked, but I respectfully point out the difference that a judges opinion, while not voluminous, is certainly longer than the majority of Mod opinions that rarely exceed a few sentences or maybe a full paragraph. It is also my experience--but this could be faulty and I admit it--that most Mod opinions provide no real idea as to their reasoning or logic, other than a circular tautology something like, "you got punished for doing X, which is against the rules, and you did X because you did X. A slightly better explanation of why the Mod views X as being a violation may not assuage the immediate annoyance, but might give players a better idea of how they think and will analyze stuations and provide some tidbit more clarity. I understand Mods are busy and volunteers and probably get to be just like judges in criminal courts, expecting everyone to be brought to their desk to be trying to cheat the system. I also understand that they might think that their actions are fairly coherent to us since they know what principles of analysis the apply to their decisions. I just humbly submit that the evidence shows that it is about as clear as mud to us, and a little more attempt to explain the process of analysis might help. I don't know if it would or not, but I do feel that if I'm going to kvetch, I should at least offer something in the way of a remedy.

JuNii,

Thank you for pointing out that the Mods do patrol themselves. I suspected something like this does happen and have seen one Mod overturn another before within their hierarchical structure. As with the rest I've never been able to discern much patter to their internal back checking, but it does seem to be there for what it is worth.

Thank you for the suggestions in how to most effectively and politely deal with Mods. I have used some before and am always glad to hear the new.

I note that you also see the lack of consistency I do by noting that the Mods are individuals and prone to their own quirks and moods. Much like you, I accept that as part of playing here, but, also like you, I would prefer it if there were some way to get or appreciate what consistency there is in their actions.

Thanks for the thoughtful comments.


Axis Nova.

I heartily agree, and oh dear Lord save us from Democracy in any forum! I think your appreciation of the system as dictatorial also shows assent with my primary observation that the system is not consistent but can be put off kilter by the foibles of the powers that be. I'm glad to hear you find them benevolent. I have personally found Mods I have dealt with to be nice, if often brusque, people. My dislike for the system is structural, but I do not think it requires a democracy, or more likely what you mean, a system of precedent law.

Another suggestion I can think of as a possible way of making the system more consistent, as well as easier to manage for the Mods, is to just chunk all the uncouth, unmannerly, obscene, and suchlike rules for posts on the RMBs of non-feeder regions. Let the Founders and Delegates be dictators of what is culturally acceptable speech in their little regional cultures. If the denziens of the region "Hell" want to spew foulness at each other while the denziens of "Heaven" sing hosannas and the residents of "Sex" prefer to whisper lewd nothing on their RMB, why not let them? People may then "vote with their feet" as to what they find objectionable instead of the Mods having to enforce an inconsistent rule of what is objectionable on all when their is no discernable standard of what all might find objectionable. This solution sounds a bit too simplistic even to me. There's probably some ramifications I'm not considering here, but some variation on the let this 'Let the Founders and Delegates decide what is uncouth' would probably be a more workable system than a handful of Mods trying to enforce some inarticulate golden mean standard from above and almost certainly missing some and overpunishing others. Just an idea. I'm not wedded to it, but maybe t has some merit.

Dryks Legacy,

Your assertion that the Mods calls are "fairly consistent" is the reason I said almost everyone here thinks Mod intervention is somewhat random. I'm not sure what you mean by "fairly" consistent. I kinda pulled 90% out of thin air with Fris as a baromoter of predictability, but Fris thinks Mod action is predictable well over 90% of the time. Would you say when, why, how, and what extent of mod action will be used is predictable 90% of the time?

Also, I agree that a possible upside of not explaining rules is that people migth not try to push them at the fringes. Although my experience here does not seem to support that theory by demonstrable fact. The policy of non-explanation is fairly well entrenched here, but I haven't noticed that it makes people any more cautious about exploring the fringes. Maybe this benefit is illusory. Maybe it is also hard to gauge since any datum on it would be negative (people not pushing the fringes or not doing anything are hard to measure).

I actually disagree with your assumption that clearly defined rules are more easily exploitable. But that is nither here nor there since no matter which of us is right, as Fris said, Max/the Mods have chosennot tu utilize that system.

I fail to see how having a handful of autonomous highly powerful creatures arbitrate and control what activity is permitted or not in this electronic realm makes it simulate any better a government or political world where there are no such beings and we must all figure out how to get along on our own without some babysitter in the sky to hand down final verdicts. Unless of course you believe in a God who can be petitioned and regulalrly acts here on Earth in a way similar to Mods in NS. Sorry mate, I'm just not seeing how it makes the sim more accurate. But maybe the smiley means you were kidding.


Siriusa,

I took "ever-present, omnipotent police force" to mean that you also see the Mods as being structurally a small group of cops who would all treat situations differently depending on their mindset at the time of apprehension, thius causing the apparent inconsistency I touted above. I took you objection to the term "dictator" to be a show of support for the Mods, that while their power within NS is largely unchecked, you trust that they are doing their role for the good of the game regardless of whethter thier actions may be inconsistent or not. It now occurs to me though that you may actually find their actions considerably more consistent and predictable than I and many other posters here do. Jsut to clarify, and using that same pulled out of thin air 90% barometer, I am curious to know if you think when, why, how, and the extent of Mod action is predictable over 90% of the time?

(I don't claim 90% is any good barometer, but when I tossed it out there Fris responded that the Mod view is that their actions are consistent and predictble well over 90% of the time. Since I'm trying to discover if and/or how much of a difference in viewpoint there is between Mod and player interpretation of Mod action, I just figured a little more specific might help. I might just agree with Mod intervention over 90% of the time, but I sure can't predict what they'll do 90% of time).

And perfectly as an aside, I also think saying Mods are dictators might be a little harsh even if technically true since they tend to stick to rule enforcement more than content judgment. I do, however, think they are as a group a bit too activist in shaping NS to conform to some notion of propriety that they have and think we all share, even though the evidence and simple logic tends to show that what they consider bad conduct is not as universal as they represent. Just my two shekels, and you may well think I'm wrong or that the benefit of their enforcing their notion of propriety outweighs any cost to the parts of the game you enjoy.


THAKS AGAIN EVERYBODY FOR CONTRIBUTING

As I understand it, the answer boils down to the idea that the Mods/Max wants maximum flexibility for Moderator intervention, and he/they feels that having more explicit rules or theories and guidelines of punishment would interfere with that autonomy of the cop, judge, and jury role of Mods within the game. He/they also feel that the rules are clear enough that enforcement is predictable in the vast majority of cases.

I have no problem--merely disagreement--with the preference for flexibility, as you said it's Max's/the Mods game and y'all can run it as you will.
Okay, it is good that you accept that, the game will be run as admin sees fit to direct it to run.
I would like to submit however that your belief that enforcement is predictable in well over 90% of the situations that may arise could possibly be faulty. I am quite sure you honestly believe this is so viewed from your position as a Moderator Fris. But any intellectually honest person must admit that their view of the results will be skewed if they are inside the system they are viewing. I humbly submit that almost all of the posts by other players here, while usually supportive, strongly indicate that the players view Mod intervention, when it is done, and the action taken as highly random and nowhere near as predictable as you believe it to be.
Actually, in terms of problems pointed out or stumbled upon in the forums and submitted via Getting Help, I think people expect and receive a predictable action. Otherwise the number of "complaints" submitted would not be as consistent as it always is. Granted people often can't see the actions taken as a result of submitting to the getting help page, and that will never change, but the forums are a great place to see the result of Moderator actions. And similar to the Getting Help page, sometimes the "complaints" are groundless, sometimes they are dealt with, and sometimes the action taken by a moderator is upgraded when previous history is taken into account. (This is especially true as a forum mod since I can't see everything about nations)
There may well be as much clarity and predictability in Mod intervention as you think there is from your position and viewpoint in the game. I am just asking you to consider that the evidence strongly suggests that the active players disagree with that viewpoint and do not see much consistency in the application of Mod action.
Oftentimes the decisions are quite clear in terms of precedent. If the decisions are not clear, a moderator will usually discuss it with one or more others to make sure about the decision. That has been stated before in many cases. Moderators as a group tend to be internally consistent, and just as consistently players disagree with the decisions made.
If viewed from the starting point that Mod action is not particularly consistent, I think the frustration of players with Moderation becomes more clear. Aside from the fact that I think that point is wrong, that point has been discussed before.
Considering that the preference of the game is for Mod autonomy of action, I am not sure if there is a desire or significant ways to make the predictability of Mod action more clear if there is such, or make the action more predictable if not. Regardless of a solution or will for it, I think that the evidence here and elsewhere strongly indicates a disconnect between the Moderators (at least Fris, but I guess the rest too) and the Moderated as to when Mods will intervene, what for, and type and severity of chastisement. I do tend to think an awareness of this disconnect might help relations--but maybe I'm just an optimist by nature.
Did you entirely miss the discussions held while Sandpit was around? There will always be a disconnect between some players viewpoint of the moderation team's decisions and what they think should have been done. Sometimes that's the reason that player is *not* a moderator, sometimes it's because the mods have more information then that player, and sometimes it's just because previous precedent or the moderator discussion came to a different conclusion.
As for all of your thoughts about the expansion of words and disdain of legal mechanism, I think many who live in the same place as you and come from the same socio-economic background would agree perfectly that all that is needed is a guideline to "play nice". The problem is that what you mean by play nice and what I and others mean by it may not be similar or even close together. As The Bard has Caesar says, "Forgive him Brutus, he is a barbarian and thinks the customs of his tribe are the customs of all people." A hearty "F" word or "B" word is certainly not outside the scope of playing nice to me, but obviously is to you. Moreover, the venue also has something to do with what playing nice entails. Playing nice in church or courtroom behavior is surely different from playing nice would mean in a barroom or pub. Further complicating this is the fact that NS is essentially a collection of subcommunities so "play nice" probably means something entirely different in an anime region from say the "Hell" region. As the community grows, the definition of what "play nice" means becomes largely inscrutable. And this problem is not even yet exacerbated by the fact that mores change even within cultures over time.
True, which is why the mods get to enforce what admins hand down as the definition for NS of "play nice".
Similarly, conduct guides such as nothing:
* obscene
* illegal
* threatening
* malicious
* defamatory
* spam
are equally so overbroad they are equally inscrutable. snip.
See the previous statement. NS site, NS definitions of those words or what the moderators agree upon as a whole.
Again, I understand perfectly that you have said the game intentionally avoids precise definitions. But you hinted at an exasperation or inability to understand why simple commands to play nice or avoid the six no-no's above do not satisfy everyone. I think the reason they can be, at times, unsatisfactory is rather simply because not everybody means the same thing when they use or read these words.
That's true. But as has also been stated, those simple words have been clarified and fleshed out in multiple rule sets and the FAQ to help people avoid missteps. Also, except in extreme cases, people are given a warning before they lose their nation, and therefore the opportunity to change if they weren't clear on what the rules were.
Legal systems are used to rule people more or less equally. The reason I think they exhaustively define what is meant by unmannerly or illegal conduct is to make it clear to the average citizen what is or is not objectionable wehter they would personally find it to be so or not. They exhaustively define to give the law clarity and finality that people can be assured of depending on in guiding their actions. As you pointed out, the consequent problem is that some people will almost always be exploring the outer fringes of the rules. Then again, this can be an assets as it makes the rules clearer for everyone and detects weaknesses in the system.
I'm not sure of the point of the above. We don't have a legal system, we won't BE having one. We have a set of rules designed to guide players that works quite well for the average player. Granted, sometimes there are people that come up with some pretty outrageous things to say or do that isn't covered explicitly in the rules set, and that's when the judgment of the moderators and discussions will happen.
On the opposite side, in the NS system of no apparent curbs on the exercise of autonomous power, the advantage is extreme flexibility in adjusting to new situations. But I think you might be underplaying the consequent downside that the system will likely be viewed by the ruled as uncertain and random, if not unprincipled and biased. Then again, this may be an asset as it keeps anyone from really knowing what rules will be enforced and when so they might have the reaction of testing the firges less. Okay, no idea what that second to last word is.
The OSRS has the rules that have been commonly broken, questioned, or dealt with by moderators. New things are added if they become common, and things can be removed if they are no longer relevant. The rules that are there are enforced in a quite certain manner.
I guess my long-winded point at the end of this all is that it seems to me that you believe this NS system has the best of both worlds: the flexibility of no certain rules with the stability and reliability of a rule-based system that is fairly predictable to the average player. I think the feelings that i have heard from most active players in my corner of the game, strongly supported by the posts in this thread indicate that the latter assumption is factually incorrect. The evidence strongly indicates that most players perceive Mod intervention as often being unpredictable.
Given that it seems you're most involved not on the forums, I would hazard a guess that when you report something, you are most likely not going to see what happens as punishments/decisions are not publically broadcast. You will not see what warnings are given, you will not see whether or not a given nation was actually a puppet of another well known nation. As such, the perception could easily be that the actions taken are unpredictable because you don't see it.

Erastide,

I don't think my point was wholly missed, and thank you. I do think, however, that you are not considering the evidence right here in this thread that active players find Mod action not to appear to have great consistency. You elucidated a number of reasons why you think this is not so, however your view point is from being a Mod. The players who have posted here, whose viewpoint is undeniable that of players, and who probably watch this forum somewhat as shown by posting here knowledgeably, overwhelmingly see Mod action as inconsistent and hard to predict (but are largely supportive of the good intentions of the Mods).

I am not asking you to agree with this viewpoint or even argue with it. I am merely humbly requesting that you and the other Mods inspect this fact set as any good honest researcher would, and admit that the data from those with the players perspective show that the players don't see Mod action as consistent.

I think this is a problem, especially with certain sets of players like raider/fendas, and that if it the existence of a disconnect was acknowledged, some constructive ideas might emerge. At this point both Mods who have answered here have said they think Mod action is consistent, predictable and clear to almost every player in almost every case (over 90%). Almost every player has said just the opposite. I don't understand why there is such Mod opposition to admitting what the facts even in this brief post clearly demonstrate to be the case. I really don't. It seems like denying the facts and denying there could be more productive ways to address it has some benefit for Moderators. What could be the benefit of denying a disconnect when just about every poster identifies one as being there? I really don't get it.

It is not like I and others are saying you actually are inconsistent or do a bad job. On the contrary, I think we have all said quite the opposite. I think we would all just like a little more transparency in the reasoning and anlysis so we can get some clue how ya'll look at situations so that the consistency which we assume is more or less there becomes more apparent.

---end of main idea/query---

Did you entirely miss the discussions held while Sandpit was around? There will always be a disconnect between some players viewpoint of the moderation team's decisions and what they think should have been done. Sometimes that's the reason that player is *not* a moderator, sometimes it's because the mods have more information then that player, and sometimes it's just because previous precedent or the moderator discussion came to a different conclusion. .

I must have. I did miss this as I was away from NS, not to mention free time entirely for about 9 months--pretty much the whole period where activity dropped threefold or more--and only returned a few months ago.

Unfortunately this again mischaracterized the query and point here. Whether there is a disconnect between what Mods do and what players think should have been done is inherent in the role of Moderating. I sweat that about as much as y'all do (which is to say not at all). The disconnect I am trying to point out is between the consistency and thoughful reasoning that goes into Moderation decisions, and their appearance to the players as being highly random or inconsistent. To try and put it another way, I'm not claiming that Mods should reorganize their rational system to fit what players think should be the rule and punishment in situations, but rather just trying to point out that even supportive players often do not understand what that rational system is and how it operates.

I'm not asking for anything other than recognition of the evidence that shows that the only view players get of Mod decisions makes them appear largely chaotic. I hope, but do not expect, and am not now arguing for any specific change, but hope recognition of the real disconnect (of understanding the reasoning, not results) might lead to some ideas to address it.

--end of secondary point or clarification--


All comments as to the relative advantages and disadvantages of legal systems and the relativity of insrutable words of conduct were not on the main point above, but were meant as an aside comment to Fris' aside in the initial reply. They are off the main point, and I think they are beginning to detract from it since people are characterizing me as favoring a traditional legal system of NS Moderating, which I emphatically do not. I think any more talk of how legal systems work in reference to NS would just derail this conversation further, but I don't wish to ignore your points so will refer to them privately where they won't much up what is here.


--end of first aside--


Given that it seems you're most involved not on the forums, I would hazard a guess that when you report something, you are most likely not going to see what happens as punishments/decisions are not publically broadcast. You will not see what warnings are given, you will not see whether or not a given nation was actually a puppet of another well known nation. As such, the perception could easily be that the actions taken are unpredictable because you don't see it.

Actually my only real involvement in the forums is in this forum. The hiatus I mentioned above may explain why we have not had more dealings, but I am an ardent watcher of Mod action here, and was a somewhat regular poster before my hiatus. I think Kat, Fris, maybe Euroslavia, and a few others may have some dim recollection of me as not being a complete neophyte here.

And, just as you say, there will often be Mod action that goes on behind the scenes. I don't think this is the stuff that perplexes active players so much as the higher profile actions that get some atention here and often lead to *what appears to us to be* inconsistent results given materially similar situations.


--a humble request--

I put a couple of off the cuff suggestions for possibilities to ameliorate the disconnect I suggest and think the evidence supports up in my omnibus reply to all the other posters here.

One was providing slightly more detailed explanations of the Mod decision-making or reasoning process in at least some cases. The other was letting Founders and delegates have have more control over what the verbal mores will be in their regions, to lessen the Mod involvement and provide a more diverse cultural lanscape. I would ask you to read them if you can spare a moment. I don't think they are great ideas and am not even proposing them as good changes. I'm not even really looking for your immediate thoughts on them. I'm just wondering if they might start any productive thoughts in your or the other Mods' minds as to making the system better. (My ideas may not do that, but maybe they'll serve as catalysts to you guys who understand the Mod side--as I've said, I don't).

Thanks for the consideration and though in your reply.

The fundamental flaw in your argument is that you assume that we are acting out of personal opinion. I happen to be quite fond of scatological and rude humor, and my language among friends can and has made a sailor blush. That has nothing to do with what I do here. As a moderator, I enforce Max's rules, and his rule of obscenity requires that we limit so-called 'obscenities', especially when they are applied towards a player or groups of players.

When you go on a tirade against "F-ing "special" helmet wearing, short bus riding, self-flagellating Mods", you're attacking players. We tolerate far more of that crap towards us than we ever would for any other group of players, but you were well over the line when you took that for a ride through more than one region.

You're also mistakenly under the impression that what happens in your region, stays in your region. All regions are readable to all players, even to all visitors. You DO NOT have autonomy to do what thou wilt. The rules apply equally, whether it's a one-man hermitage or one of the feeders.

As for your interpretation of the 90% rule, you're confusing personal exposure with statistics. It's quite possible that you know 50 NSers, and that 49 of them think we're a bunch of assholes. What you don't know about are the thousands of other players who either have no opinion, or who appreciate our efforts to keep this game playable. You should also be aware that the issues raised publicly here are ONLY from people who disagree with us. The thousands of decisions that we make that people have no problem with don't get publicized.

There's also a self-evident theme throughout most of the raider/defender complaints we hear that you're the most important part of the game, and that your actions keep everybody else excited and interested in the game. Oddly enough, most of the other groups in the game, whether they be role-players, or Generalites, or UN, or region players, also seem to think that their needs should outweigh anyone else's, as they are also the core players of the game. Part of our job is to find a balance between these contrasting requirements. Influence was one such balancing system.

The mods and admins have considered a huge number of possible changes over the past 4 years. Max is happy with the ones we finally came up with, and we're unlikely to change anything that gives more power to the raiders/defenders at the expense of those who don't wish to be raided.

I'm sure there are dozens of finer details that I haven't addressed in your multiple pages of legal briefs here, but I've spent enough time on your issue. Moving on now.

Your assertion that the Mods calls are "fairly consistent" is the reason I said almost everyone here thinks Mod intervention is somewhat random. I'm not sure what you mean by "fairly" consistent. I kinda pulled 90% out of thin air with Fris as a baromoter of predictability, but Fris thinks Mod action is predictable well over 90% of the time. Would you say when, why, how, and what extent of mod action will be used is predictable 90% of the time?


I would like to challenge your assertion that almost everyone here thinks mod intervention is random, are you refering to just the people who have posted here, just you and your friends, or are you claiming you have talked to enough of the thousands of players that you can offer a majority view on the subject?

As it is I feel you are incorrect that Mod intervention is random, if we're using 90% as a number then I would say that 90% of the time that i've dealt with the mods in the past (if not more) that in advance i could have told you what I thought the moderator response to my query would be, and again in 90%+ of cases I was proved right.

On the subject of the apparent "vagueness" of the rules, I have played online games where the staff have tried to nail down every single loophole and list every single rule, every single set of circumstances, every single punishment, etc and they've ended up with 20+ pages of rules that players have to read through. I think that nationstates has managed quite a good balance between the necessity of making people aware of the rules and consequences of breaking them, while at the same time keeping the OSRS and other sources down to a minimal size.

In the end I find that the majority of problems could be solved if people just take Cogitations advice and "think about it for a moment"

Since folks who are happy about moderation are generally not likely to contribute to a thread regarding the possibility that the moderation system may not be up to par, and their absence in this thread is used as an (imho invalid) argument, please allow me to chip in here...

Overall I'm happy with the way mods do their volunteer work. I have the impression rules are enforced in a sufficiently consistent manner. Intervention is based on clear rules, not on some sort of 'random' process. Decisions generally can be discussed, at least as far as matters of policy are concerned, and I've experienced the mods do listen and allow themselves to be convinced if new and valid arguments are presented clearly and rationally.

Ballotonia

Since folks who are happy about moderation are generally not likely to contribute to a thread regarding the possibility that the moderation system may not be up to par, and their absence in this thread is used as an (imho invalid) argument, please allow me to chip in here...

Overall I'm happy with the way mods do their volunteer work. I have the impression rules are enforced in a sufficiently consistent manner. Intervention is based on clear rules, not on some sort of 'random' process. Decisions generally can be discussed, at least as far as matters of policy are concerned, and I've experienced the mods do listen and allow themselves to be convinced if new and valid arguments are presented clearly and rationally.

Ballotonia

Exactly. I think the mods are doing a dandy job at keeping this place under control, because if they keep allowing more flame-y things, eventually it's going to become just a giant forum of flaming users.

Add me to the normally silent majority who is happy with the mod's work. Their most visible work is cleaning the sewage out of NS General, but I've also seen some of what they do in the Game. I've reported a number of people for mindless & obscene spam, and the mod's response is very predictible. I also once had a regionmate deleted because he didn't read the rules about adspam. I would have cut him more slack, but I understood why they did it, and he was able to return with another nation.

Some of what they do isn't OBVIOUSLY consistant. I can't always figure out their choices of punishments. But it's not hard to avoid them. Just follow the rules in the game, and hold on to your temper and think before you speak in General.

Sorry, I had to do real work and couldn't keep up with replies in as timely a manner as I would have liked.

Fris,

I hope you don't mind, but I' going to pass by your comments linking my query and possible assertion here to recent Mod action to my primary nation Pirates Roost. The Mod action in my particular case was only tangentially related to this query and possible request for consideration of a nebulous idea. I realize I am probably the wrong person to raise this issue at definitely the wrong time, however I have not seen it raised seriously or considered seriously yet. However, I am capable of having two separate dialogues with someone which are separable in content, tone and tenor, and would like to keep the discussions in their respective places.

"You're also mistakenly under the impression that what happens in your region, stays in your region. All regions are readable to all players, even to all visitors. You DO NOT have autonomy to do what thou wilt. The rules apply equally, whether it's a one-man hermitage or one of the feeders."

Of course. Just like television, one can tune into any number of channels and tune out those he or she might find offensive. The structure of this game is the same as many other media and does not require any structurally different pattern of civility choice, or enforcement. In the case of NS one brand of civilty norms and enforcement (uncouth rule and Mod action) has been chosen. I think I have gone to great pains in almost every post to say that I am not proposing any change to this structural choice. Merely asking for feedback on the player view of it, and then asserting that based on that feedback some thought might be given to small tweaks within the system to make that system more transparent or understandable.

"As for your interpretation of the 90% rule, you're confusing personal exposure with statistics. It's quite possible that you know 50 NSers, and that 49 of them think we're a bunch of assholes. What you don't know about are the thousands of other players who either have no opinion, or who appreciate our efforts to keep this game playable. You should also be aware that the issues raised publicly here are ONLY from people who disagree with us. The thousands of decisions that we make that people have no problem with don't get publicized."

Actually, at first I was merely asking if people Mods thought their actions scrutable to players a large majority of the time, and if players who cared to answer thought Mod action predictable. Initial results were Mods thought their action hugely predictable and consistent, the first batch of player responders largely politely disagreed (while supporting the results of Mod action anyhow).

You now raise the 'silent majority' concept which, though predictable, is not unmerited. The second batch of responders, roughly equal in number to the first, largely attest to their being a less vocal cadre of supporters who think Mod action fairly predictable. I would like to not however, that their ringing endorsement is again primarily for the effect of Mod action, and some even in this second batch of responds admit that the particular nature of Mod action is still somewhat inscrutable even though they like the end result.

I politely submit that we are discussing at cross purposes. I think your contention is that most people are happy with Mod action an overwhelming majority of the time. I respectfully submit that I never asserted any different. My contention, based on the comments here and my personal experience, is that regardless of contentment with the results a sizeable number of players are not sure how the Mods will react in any given situation. To expand just once more for clarity's sake, I think most are usually okay or happy with the upshot of Mod action, however I think many if not most are usually unsure what action Mods will take to get that result they tend to agree with.

I have no argument here with the ends. I was an am merely asking that Mods consider that their means might often be opaque to players and that there might be some profit in considering if these means could be more transparent--without loosing effectiveness.

No action is asked for more than a plea for consideration of an thought with some data to support it. That data may be flawed, and is certainly incomplete, but would it be possible to consider rather than dismiss it out of hand? Please.

"There's also a self-evident theme throughout most of the raider/defender complaints we hear that you're the most important part of the game, and that your actions keep everybody else excited and interested in the game. Oddly enough, most of the other groups in the game, whether they be role-players, or Generalites, or UN, or region players, also seem to think that their needs should outweigh anyone else's, as they are also the core players of the game. Part of our job is to find a balance between these contrasting requirements. Influence was one such balancing system. "

No doubt. Everybody is a special interest of one.

I appreciate a balancing act is always necessary. I think this one, like many of the issues in the game has had unintended consequences that are more detrimental than favorable.

I think any long discussion of the influence system in this thread, however, will, much like any comment on recent specific nation action with me personally, detract from the main idea I am pleading for consideration for here.

"The mods and admins have considered a huge number of possible changes over the past 4 years. Max is happy with the ones we finally came up with, and we're unlikely to change anything that gives more power to the raiders/defenders at the expense of those who don't wish to be raided."

Well, thanks for the blunt statement of bias or preference here. The honesty is appreciated.

Again, at no point in this thread have I meant to suggest rule changes or any changes whatsoever to in game play. My query and later request for mere consideration is solely related to seriously asking if Mod activity can be difficult to predict (means, not ends) in more than a few fleeting cases, and if this might be the case (so far just dismissed, not seriously considered) I expressed a hope that the Mods and ones more in tune with the nuts and bolts of moderation migth consider whether there be ways to improve transparency without harming efficiency.

Just please asking for you to look at data, rather than just assume it will come out as it might be expected to on cursory glance, and then maybe, if you see profit in it, to consider if that data might suggest some possible small tweaks for consideration in the minds of you who know the system and balancing act better than me.

I have not intentionally advocated any particular game change in this thread, and hope I haven't been misread as suggesting any.

"I'm sure there are dozens of finer details that I haven't addressed in your multiple pages of legal briefs here, but I've spent enough time on your issue. Moving on now."

I appreciate your limited time and the volunteer nature of your work, and am thankful what consideration you did address to my previous post. As for the dismissive tone, I think it was unnecessary as in the context of this discussion I have gone to some lengths to maintain the upmost civility. I do understand it in light of other unrelated disputes and timing and forgive it as a bleedover from those unrelated matters. Again, thanks for what consideration you do find the time to give.