NationStates Jolt Archive

I sent a telegram expressing the concern that the Jingoistic Nation of Blue Fags violated NationStates policy, which seems to disallow a nation's title from including anything 'malicious' or 'defamatory'. Perhaps I was naive in assuming that, as in other places with similar rules, that racial/homophobic slurs were regularly weeded out...in any case, here's what I received back:

"And your own name and fields differ how?"

My nation's title and other trappings do not include any slurs toward any minority groups, so I was puzzled, as well as displeased with the flippant and somewhat apathetic response of the moderation reply. I then sent another report quoting the part And your own name and fields differ how?of policy to which I was referring to (for clarity's sake, if nothing else), explaining what to me seemed the difference between a national identity or perversion thereof, and a flat-out slur on a targetted minority group. I also asked for an explanation as to how the rules actually work if I was misinterpreting things.

The next reply I got was longer but seemed to gloss over or ignore the points I made and had the same disrespectful (please note that while disagreeing so far with the moderation, I have been _entirely_ respectful and polite in my mails) and arbitrary tone:

"Thank you for quoting the FAQ to me. In my 3 years of moderating this game, I'd somehow managed to miss ever reading any of the rules that I enforce daily.

"For the record, this is a different moderator that sent your original response, and I concur with the other mod's statement. Blue Fags includes a bit of innuendo in its motto. The other nations in that region (French Appeasement, British Limeys) take a satiric swipe at other groups as well. You may be offended by one, but why not the others?

"Fact is, they are within the rules with those names. We're not in the business of killing any nation that offends one of our players, any more than we'd kill you for your obvious hatred of America and your sexually-diseased "syphilitic eagle" (which you'll note you haven't been warned for, nor has it been deleted).

"Feel free to report what you wish. We'll act on the ones that need to be acted on, and ignore the rest." [emphasis mine]


My own response:

"My quoting of the FAQ seemed necessary, as no explanation was given as to why Blue Fags does not violate them and the moderator I first dealt with (supposedly differently from the second moderator) seemed unaware of them. The continuing sarcasm and lack of a mature, eloquent reply continues to give me doubt that the rules are being heeded by moderation.

"Blue Fags is not 'innuendo', it is a flat-out slur. Would you consider a nation with 'Niggers' in the title to be acceptable? Or would that be 'innuendo' as well? Also as I have previously stated in my last message, it is not correctly analogous to compare a targetted minority group with an entire nationality.

"My 'obvious hatred of America'?? Now I think it's very clearly that I'm dealing with the partisan and non-objective, in which case you have NO BUSINESS moderating for this place. I happen to _be_ a patriotic American myself. But my use of satire in my nation's title, motto, and other trappings does not include slurs on any minority.

"It is obvious that I am only reaching a moderator (or moderators) whose antipathy toward my own choice of nation stylings is interfering with their ability to moderate properly, and so I will be contacting others on the moderation team in order to address this."

I think my response pretty much speaks for itself, so I will add nothing further except to say that the relevant rules are incredibly vague and some explanation of what _is_ malicious, defamatory, etc if the reported nation's title is not, would be very helpful and very much desired. One cannot follow the rules when one cannot understand them, or how they are interpreted/applied.

I won't say it's a lack of objectivity, because the mods here cover a wide range of political thought and opinion.

That said, they're wrong on this. Fags is a slur, no two ways about it, and of a completely different type than Amerika the Pitiful. It is not innuendo.

"British Limey" isn't the same as "Fag." You'd probably be closer to "Fag" with another, worse, slur like "Sand n-----s." I think this needs to be reviewed by a different mod. Furthermore, if it was "Red Fucktards," you could bet they would be deleted, so why does "Blue Fags" get to remain?

That said, they're wrong on this. Fags is a slur, no two ways about it, and of a completely different type than Amerika the Pitiful. It is not innuendo.

Just my 2 pence, but the term "fags" can be used in a non-slur context, in some areas its an acceptable term for a cigarette and looking at the nation I wouldn't like to say for sure exactly what context the player had in mind (although it probably was leaning slightly more towards a derogatory usage)

Just my 2 pence, but the term "fags" can be used in a non-slur context, in some areas its an acceptable term for a cigarette and looking at the nation I wouldn't like to say for sure exactly what context the player had in mind.

But it was the insult that was implied. I could call somebody "cocklover" and say I simply meant he liked roosters. People can claim what they want and say, "Oh, I didn't mean to offend anyone, I just meant he liked roosters," but in a case like that, they really insult someone.

And honestly, that cigarette excuse is getting old, like the gay = happy excuse. If you call someone gay or fag like an insult, it's still an insult no matter how you spin it.

But it was the insult that was implied. I could call somebody "cocklover" and say I simply meant he liked roosters. People can claim what they want and say, "Oh, I didn't mean to offend anyone, I just meant he liked roosters," but in a case like that, they really insult someone.

And honestly, that cigarette excuse is getting old, like the gay = happy excuse. If you call someone gay or fag like an insult, it's still an insult no matter how you spin it.

and if the player had directed it at someone then yes it would be clear it was an insult, but in the context of a nationame it *could* be meant as an insult but at the same time it might not be, only the player behind the nation knows for sure.

and if the player had directed it at someone then yes it would be clear it was an insult, but in the context of a nationame it *could* be meant as an insult but at the same time it might not be, only the player behind the nation knows for sure.

But in context, it is fairly obvious that it is referring to democrats as gay. Just look at his motto, and his animal is the Donkey and the currency is the San Franciscan. Normally I think satire's funny, but "Fag" is stepping over the line.

Ok, I don't really get how donkey = democrat (non u.s. guy :) ) so if there are things like that which help show the context fair enough, the main point I was trying to make here was that the term isn't always a slur.

I'll duck out now to people with a bit more knowledge of american culture :)

A donkey is the symbol of the Democratic party. Also, isn't there a rule against having people being currency?

Also, isn't there a rule against having people being currency?

Then it would seem that the OP's violating that with his "reagan."

Part of me wants to bring up the argument that words are just words and if you don't like em you should "change the channel" cause theres lots of other channels on the tele and even an off button if all else fails.

Would it be easier to deal with if this Nation's owner is gay? Make it easier still if he/she is a Democrat (and also Gay) ?

In other words, would that empower the Nation's owner to use the term in a self-descriptive way and would the rest of us have to sit on our hands ?

Doesn't seem that dis-similar to how there are those that are allowed to use the N word and yet others (despite a lock of ancestors who ever used the N word) who are not allowed to.

The rest of me, however, feels that this must remain a matter of public opinion. If the community finds it offensive it must be addressed. I can't give you a clear description of what is offensive, but i know it when i see it. Oh wait, they were talking about Porn, but i think it still applies here.

And back to the original point, I agree that the Mod (or both Mod's, if you believe it was two separate individuals) was out of line.

(and in case you didn't pick up on it I'm just trying to poke the bear)

I won't say it's a lack of objectivity, because the mods here cover a wide range of political thought and opinion.


It's great to hear that mods cover a wide range of political thought and opinion..but this is separate from saying that they are objective, or that they are _all_ objective. It only takes one moderator--of _any_ political standing or ethos--to create a problem if they are not impartial in their arbitration.

Just my 2 pence, but the term "fags" can be used in a non-slur context, in some areas its an acceptable term for a cigarette and looking at the nation I wouldn't like to say for sure exactly what context the player had in mind (although it probably was leaning slightly more towards a derogatory usage)

I addressed this possibility in my original report, in which I said that due to the San Franciscan references, I was 99% certain that they were not speaking of teal cigarettes.

Then it would seem that the OP's violating that with his "reagan."

I've just reviewed Terms and Conditions as well as those FAQs relevant to etiquette and have not found anything forbidding use of "people as currency", whether in the literal sense (slavery?) or in the sense that a unit cannot be named after a famous individual (as is the case of my country, with the currency named in honour of former US President Reagan). [If there's something I'm missing and this _is_ in fact a transgression, please provide me with a link to the pertinent ruling and I will move to comply.]

Part of me wants to bring up the argument that words are just words and if you don't like em you should "change the channel" cause theres lots of other channels on the tele and even an off button if all else fails.

The issue here, though, is whether said words violate NationStates policy, not how one "should" cope mentally/emotionally with said words. The rules (hopefully) exist for a reason and are, hopefully, enforced.

Thank you all for your thoughtful comments thus far.

If you get right down to it, neither Amerika The Pitiful nor Blue Fags are close to being malicious or defamatory. In poor taste maybe, but far from the legal terms you're looking for. Both are, at worst, a light slur towards, in Amerika's case, about 300 million people (it's probably just the government, but could be read as the people), and in Blue Fags' case however many people are homosexuals in the world (assuming it's about homosexuals at all). Either way, if they are intended to be in the most offensive manners possible, a fair chunck of the world's population is hit either way.

That being said, the mods are a mixed bag. Some are very good, polite, and effective. Others are over-reactive, over-sensitive, can't be bothered to read even a majority of various messages that come to them, act randomly, act in a way that is disproportionate to the initial complaint, are overtly hostile to pretty much everyone, outright ignore the body of statements, are "power" drunk, and are, near as I can tell, borderline retarded. In short, some mods are living examples of arbitrary and capricious behaviour and really drag down the average performance of the mods around here.

Remember, the mods are not your friends, they're probably not anyone else's either, and whatever the case may be, many should not be in positions of power, even if it is the most irrelevant of power. The inmates are running the asylum, and that's probably a big part of the reason that NS has lost over 40,000 accounts since I first started here a few years ago.

Of couse, there's a difference between a satire of America and calling a large group of people a derogatory term implying that they are homosexual and that being homosexual is bad.

I sent a telegram expressing the concern that the Jingoistic Nation of Blue Fags violated NationStates policy, which seems to disallow a nation's title from including anything 'malicious' or 'defamatory'. Perhaps I was naive in assuming that, as in other places with similar rules, that racial/homophobic slurs were regularly weeded out...in any case, here's what I received back:

"And your own name and fields differ how?"

My nation's title and other trappings do not include any slurs toward any minority groups, so I was puzzled, as well as displeased with the flippant and somewhat apathetic response of the moderation reply. I then sent another report quoting the part And your own name and fields differ how?of policy to which I was referring to (for clarity's sake, if nothing else), explaining what to me seemed the difference between a national identity or perversion thereof, and a flat-out slur on a targetted minority group. I also asked for an explanation as to how the rules actually work if I was misinterpreting things.

The next reply I got was longer but seemed to gloss over or ignore the points I made and had the same disrespectful (please note that while disagreeing so far with the moderation, I have been _entirely_ respectful and polite in my mails) and arbitrary tone:

"Thank you for quoting the FAQ to me. In my 3 years of moderating this game, I'd somehow managed to miss ever reading any of the rules that I enforce daily.

"For the record, this is a different moderator that sent your original response, and I concur with the other mod's statement. Blue Fags includes a bit of innuendo in its motto. The other nations in that region (French Appeasement, British Limeys) take a satiric swipe at other groups as well. You may be offended by one, but why not the others?

"Fact is, they are within the rules with those names. We're not in the business of killing any nation that offends one of our players, any more than we'd kill you for your obvious hatred of America and your sexually-diseased "syphilitic eagle" (which you'll note you haven't been warned for, nor has it been deleted).

"Feel free to report what you wish. We'll act on the ones that need to be acted on, and ignore the rest." [emphasis mine]


My own response:

"My quoting of the FAQ seemed necessary, as no explanation was given as to why Blue Fags does not violate them and the moderator I first dealt with (supposedly differently from the second moderator) seemed unaware of them. The continuing sarcasm and lack of a mature, eloquent reply continues to give me doubt that the rules are being heeded by moderation.

"Blue Fags is not 'innuendo', it is a flat-out slur. Would you consider a nation with 'Niggers' in the title to be acceptable? Or would that be 'innuendo' as well? Also as I have previously stated in my last message, it is not correctly analogous to compare a targetted minority group with an entire nationality.

"My 'obvious hatred of America'?? Now I think it's very clearly that I'm dealing with the partisan and non-objective, in which case you have NO BUSINESS moderating for this place. I happen to _be_ a patriotic American myself. But my use of satire in my nation's title, motto, and other trappings does not include slurs on any minority.

"It is obvious that I am only reaching a moderator (or moderators) whose antipathy toward my own choice of nation stylings is interfering with their ability to moderate properly, and so I will be contacting others on the moderation team in order to address this."

I think my response pretty much speaks for itself, so I will add nothing further except to say that the relevant rules are incredibly vague and some explanation of what _is_ malicious, defamatory, etc if the reported nation's title is not, would be very helpful and very much desired. One cannot follow the rules when one cannot understand them, or how they are interpreted/applied.

Look if your nation espouses any sort of socialist slant they ban you but they completeyl ignore nations that are overtly pro nazi..they totally side with right wing ideologues..its time to start hiring lawyers or oranizing a sit in in their corporate headquarters..do you know where they live?? :)

I have reviewed the case and discussed it with the moderators that previously handled it. Upon further review, I determined "Blue Fags" to be in violation of the Nationstates rules, particularly coupled with the player's history of rulebreaking nations and UN Multies. It cannot be argued that the nation, in the context of it's own customizable fields and the player's history of racist activity that the nation was meant as anything but derogatory.

Additionally, wailing and gnashing teeth about the moderators is not going to do anyone any good. You get upset, we get annoyed, and then nobody goes home happy. The moderators are not here to be nice, to be your friends, or hell, even to be civil. Max never decreed that we must be absolutely civil, though many of us try to as a courtesy. Which is no small task thanks to the very noisy minority of players who mistakenly think the rules do not apply to them that insists on making mountains out of molehills.

We are here to clean up the messes made by people who cannot "play nice." Sometimes this is as simple as saying "Hey, cool it dude." Many times it is not, and it requires unpleasant actions and difficult judgement calls. We are only human, and occasionally we do make mistakes. However throwing hissy fits and flaming the mods and raising cries of "TEH MODS ARE BIASED!" does absolutely nothing to rectify these errors. It only damages your case and further hinders our ability to be as objective as possible.

If you honestly believe there are problems with the moderation staff, we have told you time and time again that this is not the place to complain. If you have sound reasons and evidence of moderators not doing what Max Barry and [violet] decreed we do, you are encouraged to send an email to admin@nationstates.net or salusa@nationstates.net explaining your complaints.

http://rpstudios.ian-justman.com/junk/CGgoods/Modsig2.JPG
~Evil Empress Rep Prod the Ninja Mod
~Master of the mighty moderation no-dachi Kiritateru Teikoku

If you honestly believe there are problems with the moderation staff, we have told you time and time again that this is not the place to complain. If you have sound reasons and evidence of moderators not doing what Max Barry and [violet] decreed we do, you are encouraged to send an email to admin@nationstates.net or salusa@nationstates.net explaining your complaints.


Hopefully this was an isolated incident of inappropriately toned response and not actually arising out of partisan antipathy (i.e., using as an argument the claim that I hate America because of my fictitious nation). Thank you for your time and attention to this matter.

[On appealing the moderators' decision: before posting here, I reviewed the stickies on the Moderation forum and on general policy in "One-Stop Rules Shop" (particularly appeals process) I found no other way listed to appeal a mod's decision _after_ having already used the request form, hence my posting here; if necessary, I will in the future use the recommended emails (though I strongly recommend these be added to posted guidelines a little more prominently).]

[On appealing the moderators' decision: before posting here, I reviewed the stickies on the Moderation forum and on general policy in "One-Stop Rules Shop" (particularly appeals process) I found no other way listed to appeal a mod's decision _after_ having already used the request formScroll down to the section cleverly called "Appeals Process":

Final Appeals
If you feel that the first appeal was unjust, you may post a final appeal via the Getting Help page. Please be sure to note in your request that this is a final appeal. The appeal will be logged where all mods and admins may see it, and it will be judged by a panel of four or more mods, including at least one Senior Game Mod or Admin. The original ruling moderator will recuse himself from this appeal, but may be the one who posts the response. Be aware that frivolous appeals may result in warnings to your nation. Most forum warnings and minor forumbans are likely to be considered frivolous. Final appeals may take several days, so be patient.

Scroll down to the section cleverly called "Appeals Process":

That _is_ the section I was referring to; however, as I said, I had _already_ appealed the decision using the request form on the Getting Help page and it was clear that such an action was pointless considering that a) I could have been dealing with the same moderator as before and b) the second reply was the one that seemed biased against my nation and lacking in objectivity, thereby necessitating my looking for a way to bring up the issue to more parties, and so I posted here in the forums.

a) I could have been dealing with the same moderator as before and b) the second reply was the one that seemed biased against my nation and lacking in objectivityTry reading the Final Appeal section. "...it will be judged by a panel of four or more mods, including at least one Senior Game Mod or Admin. The original ruling moderator will recuse himself from this appeal..."

Try reading the Final Appeal section. "...it will be judged by a panel of four or more mods, including at least one Senior Game Mod or Admin. The original ruling moderator will recuse himself from this appeal..."

I have no idea whether this took place or not, and at this point it's irrelevant as to whether it did. The point is, only one channel was presented for appeal, it proved inadequate due to apparent bias, and so I found another channel. And nowhere in that thread does it tell people to use the email addresses under discussion, in fact people are told _not_ to use them because the appeals process using the request form is supposedly sufficient.

The appeals process is sufficient. Your failure to request a final appeal is not a failure of the final appeal process.

The appeals process is sufficient. Your failure to request a final appeal is not a failure of the final appeal process.


Don't misunderstand me, I'd like to think that it is, but it involves using the same channel of communication that resulted in a response that made me wonder if the report was being looked at objectively due to the "you hate America" bit. You wouldn't tell people who suspect bias in say, the local police force, to then address their concerns (and continue addressing them) _to_ the same local channels and somehow hope they luck out, would you?

And again, people are discouraged in this policy from using the admin emails, told rather that they should just believe that the same less-than-impartial moderators (hypothetically speaking) will let the admins know. (I've no doubt that there are conscientious, hard-working moderators but with policies such as these, it's becoming easier to see why there is a lack of confidence overall in moderation.)

You do realize you are no longer accusing them of bias, no? You've jumped from bias to dishonesty and corruption. Now you're claiming that because they made a decision you didn't agree with and because they couched that position within an explanation that showed how you yourself are not free from offensive and baity fields, that somehow they would violate the rules of the site and refuse to do their job. That's a big leap. Huge.

You've admitted you didn't request a final appeal and claiming that it would not have occurred because... your original appeal was denied. You've claimed that this may well be the same mod as the first time. Of course, this would be obvious to the admins. So either the admins don't care that at least one mod is refusing to follow the process laid out by those admins OR you're wrong.

Moreover you didn't request a final appeal. Complaining about what would have happened if you'd followed the process you refused to follow is ludicrous.

Speaking as one of the Admins:


The appeals process (and final appeals process works) and I audit it. We've only once had a problem with it in the history of NationStates and that person is no longer a moderator. We then went back and checked the ruling. (In this case, they did reach the correct conclusion, but they broke the process.)
Since you did not request a "Final Appeal" it would have been appropriate for the same moderator to respond, however a different one did. As The Most Glorious Hack noted, your failure to use the process cannot count against it.
You're right, we do discourage people from contacting the admins. There are several reasons for it:

We've honed the moderator appeals process to point where we are confident that it gives correct rulings in the great majority of cases.
The turn around time for an (final) appeal through the Getting Help Page appears to be less than a week in most cases. It will often take an admin a week just to look at the case and longer to reach a judgment.
The primary job of the moderators is to "moderate" and the primary job of administrators is to "administrate". You could consider the process of "Ruling -> Appeal -> Final Appeal -> Administrator" similar to "Count -> Appeals Court -> Higher Appeals Court -> Supreme Court". The only time that the supreme court should be involved is when there is a question of a grossly incorrect ruling or a constitutional question. The rest of the time they will (usually) refer the case back down a level to be judged.



The administrators are very busy people and resolving rulings and appeals is not their primary job. Please use the processes we have outlined, they work.

And finally, I should note that accusations of corruption without strong evidence are greatly unappreciated.

Hopefully this was an isolated incident of inappropriately toned response and not actually arising out of partisan antipathy (i.e., using as an argument the claim that I hate America because of my fictitious nation). Thank you for your time and attention to this matter.

If, because it is a fictitious nation, you are able to have a name that could easily upset a number of Americans, why is it not okay for someone to have a name that could easily upset homosexuals? It's really the same thing.

You do realize you are no longer accusing them of bias, no? You've jumped from bias to dishonesty and corruption.

When possible bias appears to be ignored, dismissed without any actual concern, excused or covered-up..yes, I would consider that dishonesty and corruption. Either that or ineptitude. In either case, the actions of (hopefully) a few members reverberate upon a larger group, something I should think would be a matter of concern.


Now you're claiming that because they made a decision you didn't agree with and because they couched that position within an explanation that showed how you yourself are not free from offensive and baity fields, that somehow they would violate the rules of the site and refuse to do their job.

They did not, obviously, succeed in arguing or demonstrating that my fields were "offensive" or "baity" in that my nation might be analogous to that of the 'Blue Fags' nation, hence the ruling here. It also strikes me as being as intellectually dishonest to claim that 'they just made a decision you didn't agree with', as for the moderator(s) to claim that my nation proves that I hate America (which I find offensive not just because I happen to _be_ a patriotic American, but because it appears the moderator(s) not only thought they could read my mind but also possibly ruled as they did out of personal issues).

You've admitted you didn't request a final appeal and claiming that it would not have occurred because... your original appeal was denied. You've claimed that this may well be the same mod as the first time. Of course, this would be obvious to the admins. So either the admins don't care that at least one mod is refusing to follow the process laid out by those admins OR you're wrong.

That is true, I did not formally request a final appeal as set forth under policy. I didn't formally request a final appeal per se because the channel of communication for it was the same as that of the initial appeals for moderation. I had no way of knowing if my report was going to end up to the exact same person or people, much less whether a moderator or administrator was answering it.

Moreover you didn't request a final appeal. Complaining about what would have happened if you'd followed the process you refused to follow is ludicrous.

I didn't 'complain'; I have respectfully and formally explained my lack of confidence in the final appeal process.


The primary job of the moderators is to "moderate" and the primary job of administrators is to "administrate". You could consider the process of "Ruling -> Appeal -> Final Appeal -> Administrator" similar to "Count -> Appeals Court -> Higher Appeals Court -> Supreme Court". The only time that the supreme court should be involved is when there is a question of a grossly incorrect ruling or a constitutional question. The rest of the time they will (usually) refer the case back down a level to be judged.

This is helpful information and I thank you; but like some of the the other valuable information provided here (like the admin addresses), it does not seem as readily available as it should be. (This should not be construed as an excuse, rather a suggestion for the enlightenment of the community. I'm sure there are many players who are ignorant of the rules due to lack of initiative in learning said rules, but the information should be there for those who _do_ search for it.)
[/list]
[/list]


And finally, I should note that accusations of corruption without strong evidence are greatly unappreciated.

Completely understandable, but apparent impartiality and a seeming contempt or hostility toward the notion of entertaining the _possibility_ (on the part of some though by no means all) are greatly unappreciated by those it affects. It's my overall feeling on this that while it may be impossible to ever determine whether the moderator(s) involved were deliberately acting from partisan feelings or not, the disrespectful/apathetic tone and "so what, we're in charge" attitude that I've now encountered since first making my initial report have not helped matters. Respect is a two-way street.

Zukariaa;12857281']If, because it is a fictitious nation, you are able to have a name that could easily upset a number of Americans, why is it not okay for someone to have a name that could easily upset homosexuals? It's really the same thing.

This has already been argued on the first page of the thread to a certain extent; one could argue (and I would agree) that an incorrect correlation is being drawn between the usage of slurs on a targetted minority by a player with a known history of deliberate 'griefing' practices (similar to those used by players with flags incorporating a swastika...if I'm correct in thinking that _that's_ still definitely against the rules), and a player with a nation whose intent is more difficult to ascertain utilizing the name and trappings of an entire nation (though I don't expect anyone to take on faith that my intentions are satirical and that I am in fact American) but with no such history of griefing other players.

[I know this was long but hopefully clarifying; if not please let me know and I shall endeavour to explain myself better (even if in private messages--I am unsure as to the statue of limitations on argument in Moderation, particularly post-ruling, and do not want to 'beat the dead horse' more than necessary! :)) I do thank all for taking the time to contribute their thoughts to this.]

As the mod who made the second post, I have not found your arguments to be particularly respectful. The leap of logic you're making from an honest difference of opinion between mods (specifically me and Reploid Productions), and bias, dishonesty, and corruption, shows me that you in fact do not consider respect to be a two-way street. You appear to want everything to flow towards you, regardless of the facts.

What we were looking at were two nations, both with names that could be considered slurs against a population. The fact that you claim yours was satirical, but refuse to admit the possibility that the other could be satirical as well, shows me a remarkably closed mind. The fact that you're continuing to drag this out over at least three days now tells me that you STILL don't see it.

When I responded to the first appeal, I looked carefully at both nations. "Blue Fags" stuck me as a 'flip-a-coin' decision, as I didn't (and still don't) consider it a slur on par with '******'. There are tons of nations floating around that make self-deprecating jokes about homosexuality, and many of those are active members of the region Gay. Given that the delegate hasn't kicked them out, I'm gathering that they aren't using that humor in a negative way.

What decided the coin-flip for me was your lecturing tone, and your (effective) demand that we enforce the rules your way. That's what prompted the satirical response about your own nation and its national animal. The fact that you considered your choice 'satirical' and my response 'partisan' continue to convince me that every response in this thread is simply flying over your head.

I stand by my response to your initial appeal. I also stand by Reploid's decision to overrule it, made in concert with several other mods, with me and the other original mod standing recused. Whether you see it or not, and whether you LIKE it or not, we live and work within our own rules. If you still can't see that, perhaps you need to seek a less corrupt part of the internet.

What we were looking at were two nations, both with names that could be considered slurs against a population. The fact that you claim yours was satirical, but refuse to admit the possibility that the other could be satirical as well, shows me a remarkably closed mind.

It's not that I haven't allowed for the possibility--if I had received a response along the lines of "it's not really possible to determine this as a _definite_ slur, it could be satirical, sorry", I would have accepted that. I didn't receive that. What I received was either far too dismissive (nothing more than "and your nation and fields differ how?", which of course prompted me to explain my reasoning as to the difference) or overly defensive (because I dared to quote the FAQs in an attempt to be thorough) and telling me that my nation shows my supposed hatred of America. That last part was what caused me to wonder whether ruling on the matter was being done impartially, not the simple fact that moderation so far did not seem to feel 'Blue Fags' was a policy violation.

The fact that you're continuing to drag this out over at least three days now tells me that you STILL don't see it.

It was not my intent to 'drag this out' (which I have to say, is a bit odd coming from someone whose job is moderation); I explained my concerns regarding the appeals process and then found a bevy of new complaints. On this, I can only say that it takes two (or more?) to tango.

When I responded to the first appeal, I looked carefully at both nations. "Blue Fags" stuck me as a 'flip-a-coin' decision, as I didn't (and still don't) consider it a slur on par with '******'. There are tons of nations floating around that make self-deprecating jokes about homosexuality, and many of those are active members of the region Gay. Given that the delegate hasn't kicked them out, I'm gathering that they aren't using that humor in a negative way.

Understandable; I accept that this is a grey area. And if I had received something essentially saying this in a moderator's response, it would have been sufficient. If I had thought it was an open-and-shut case of "this country's breaking the rules", I would not have taken pains in my initial report to point out the nation's San Franciscan references and my doubts that teal cigarettes were being referred to. I was prepared for a possible "this doesn't really count as a policy violation because of x and y, sorry" and at the least coming away with a better understanding of NS rules.

What decided the coin-flip for me was your lecturing tone, and your (effective) demand that we enforce the rules your way.

Reading this literally made my eyebrows shoot up toward my hairline. You're essentially admitting that you ruled out of personal dislike for me. Is it then common practice that admins/mods are to follow NS policy in their arbitration unless someone otherwise complying with policy strikes you as a jerk, then you're allowed to do as you see fit? I also can't for the life of me think how I "demanded" that the rules be enforced a certain way, unless you're referring to the forcefulness of my arguments, which is something I see no reason to apologize for as long as good manners and clear logic are being utilized.

I don't know what the general demographics of this place are, but it may be with the high number of youthful players and their general casual tone, someone expressing things formally and politely (and with full, thought-out arguments) is seen as someone trying to be 'uppity' or 'arrogant'. I can only assure you that this is not my intention; I simply find it a proper and clear means of communication.

Now, it strikes me that moderation/admins (as this seems to be a somewhat collective effort) could easily and fairly counter that _their_ preferred method of communication involves common use of sarcasm and dismissiveness. In which case, we're at an impasse. They don't prefer to deal with upstart smart-arses who challenge them, I don't prefer to deal with mods/admins whose standards of decorum seem substandard.

Therefore, you have my word that I will not be contacting the moderators for anything, ever again. Unless I've missed something, that should at least make everyone happy if nothing else.

For someone playing a free game supported by volunteers, you're rather demanding. For completeness sake, here's your first and second response to us:
Request One
With the San Francisco references in its motto and currency, I'm 99% positive that "The Jingoist States of Blue Fags" is not referring to teal cigarettes, and that this nation's title counts as defamatory/malicious content, if not outright griefing.

---------------
Request Two
In regards to the rather unprofessional (and disturbingly partisan-sounding) reply from the moderation group ("And your own name and fields differ how?") after I'd lodged my report re an offensive nation title...

I reported the Jingoistic Nations of Blue Fags for having a name which seems to violate your rules, as stated from the FAQs:

>>
Q: What can't I post?

A: Any content that is:

* obscene
* illegal
* threatening
* malicious
* defamatory
* spam

This applies to your nation's name, motto, and other customizable fields, any messages you write, images you post, or any other content you upload or link to NationStates. If you do, your nation will be deleted. See the site's Terms & Conditions for details.

Also prohibited is the practice of "griefing." Griefing is playing with the primary aim of annoying or upsetting other people. If you do this, the game moderators may take action against you.
<<


"Blue Fags" is clearly defamatory toward a group, i.e., homosexuals. Neither my name nor my title contains a slur against any group, sexual or otherwise. The comparison is also ludicrous because a targetted minority/special-interest group is being compared to an entire nation and nationality.

Now, I'm going by the rules as I understand them..they are rather vague and it's possible I'm misinterpreted them. If that's the case, I'd be happy to get clarification on how NationStates conducts itself in these matters.
Fact is, communication on this one could have been better all round. The first mod response could have been less flip and more to the point.
The second mod response (mine) could have been clearer with the addition of two quote marks around "obvious hatred of America", which perhaps would have properly indicated my satiric intent.
Your followup report started off with complaints about our professionalism and partisanship. Starting off with accusations, then quoting our rules at us, then denying any possibility that you could also have a similar problem, and then requesting an extended dialogue on proper behavior, all added up to something I frankly didn't have time to deal with.
Using this thread rather than the appeals process, then spending three days discussing something that didn't affect you in any meaningful way (the deletion or lack thereof of 'Blue Fags') has not made you out to be a rational, reasonable person with a problem that affected you deeply. It's made you out a pedantic rules lawyer who is determined to find problems with the authority figures of this game.
I am capable of being polite and professional, but I'm also quite comfortable with being blunt to the point of shortness in response to Getting Help requests. If that sort of decorum doesn't work for you, sorry. Given that we are unpaid volunteers who sometimes have to deal with hundreds of tasks in a given day, we frankly don't have time to describe for you a "clarification on how NationStates conducts itself in these matters". We've got posted rules stickies, and they're linked from the FAQ. Perhaps I should have provided a link to you. Again, sorry.

I'm done here.

Look if your nation espouses any sort of socialist slant they ban you but they completeyl ignore nations that are overtly pro nazi..they totally side with right wing ideologues..its time to start hiring lawyers or oranizing a sit in in their corporate headquarters..do you know where they live?? :) Oh shut up.

And to weigh in.

From what started to seem a simple complaint seems to have turned into what seems to be someone trying to debate moderation, this is not the place to do that. This is for reporting things, not creating drama by empty accusations.

Quite right. I seriously doubt this thread can serve any more purpose than to go 'round the track a few more times.

"Blue Fags" has been dealt with.

Other than being snarked at, "Amerika the Pitiful" (which personally offends me) hasn't had more than his ego bruised.

Go home, nothing more to see here.