NationStates Jolt Archive

Hello,

I just found this in my TM box:

NationStates Moderators
Received: 14 hours ago

Warned for flaming.

Great. Well not so great and therefore; would somebody be so kind and tell me what I did wrong where and how. To be on the record; I do not want to suggest I am innocent but I'm not aware of any violation. And if I am not aware now, I can't prevent that the same rule violation and/or misconduct won't happen again. And that would be troublesome, so please, elaborate some on my alleged foul behaviour.

Thank you for your time.

Nitwitium.

I'm not the mod who gave you that warning, but I know that you have a history of being fast and loose with abusive language in the past, taking advantage of the fact that none of the mods are native Dutch speakers. A simple solution would be for you to cease this behavior.

Ah, guilty through history, once a thief..... But, that is exactly the point my dear Frisbeeteria, on other occasions I know when my language is sometimes colourful, firm, confronting and/or blunt'ish and could be experienced as abusive by some that are not used to the art of transparent communication by homo libertatum. But I haven't got the foggiest idea on this one.

Surely it's not been so long that you forgot wishing death to George V. It was only yesterday.

I took that to be in jest. But what do I know.

Surely it's not been so long that you forgot wishing death to George V. It was only yesterday.

Your joking right? This is the quote in context:

>The Automobielproductielijn of George V:
Oops, er ging even wat mis...
To any watching Admin: something went wrong here. Aplogies for the triple-post... :(

>>The Brabanders in Ballingschap of The Blaatschapen To any watching Admin: So, which dutch person are you anyway?

>>>The MetaQognitieve Qleutzaqqen of Nitwitium @Tycho: http://www.techory.com/blog/wp-photos/mentos_holy.jpg
Wij zijn uitgepraat. Veel plezier met het delibreren met het rolletje mentos. Mocht het rolletje teveel moeilijke woorden gebruiken dan wil ik ze wel vertalen voor je.

To any watching handbag; DEATH to George V. NOW! He is spamming. *hick* :)

First of all to be absolutely sure, I asked for the deletion of the nation George V and not for the death of the biological unit that is in control of George V.

And second: There is a big smiley and a "*hick*:" at the end of the death wish, so, did it even occur to you I was jesting and teasing George V with his unintentional spamming? And who am I asking for his death? A "handtas"? (translation; all purpose bag = Dutch inside/in crowd joke) Are "handtassen" the people to ask for a death in this game?

But still, lessons learned here. But not about my own behaviour, more about the behaviour of a fellow member of my region.


@Frisbeeteria; This is what you get if you judge a person on his alleged past. There where a lot of accusations in the past but at the end of the day only a few where proven true. And all this in 5 years extensive NS gaming also within English spoken regions I would ask you if I am really that "fast and loose with abusive language".

Thank you both for your time.

Nitwitium.

I have to agree with Nitwitium. I don't see what he did wrong.

To any watching handbag; DEATH to George V. NOW! He is spamming. *hick* :)
This seems to me as a joke...

@Frisbeeteria; This is what you get if you judge a person on his alleged past. There where a lot of accusations in the past but at the end of the day only a few where proven true. And all this in 5 years extensive NS gaming also within English spoken regions I would ask you if I am really that "fast and loose with abusive language".

I spend much more time reading the forums than I do moderating the forums. Over the past five years I've discovered that you are erudite and intelligent, and that your intelligence has an edge to it that often skirts the boundaries of polite discourse. Once or twice I've had to slip into mod persona to address it. Other times I've merely appreciated it.

That said, you know as well as I do that your remarks can sometimes be interpreted by the casual reader as offensive or possibly flaming. While your intended target may not consider them so, we are ultimately responsible to all readers of this site. If one of them reports something of yours as offensive, we're obligated to look into the complaint. I'm certain that's what happened in this case.

GMTA & HC Eredivisie, it's fine that you took it as a joke, but that doesn't affect the ruling. We have perhaps a wider perspective than you, and it's that broader standard that invoked the ruling, based on what was written, not necessarily what was intended. It's a minor warning, and it's justified as a minor warning.

Perhaps the ruling isn't all. Rulings don't interpret messages, people do. And when there's a smiley with it, you actually can interpret.

Oh, and don't say I don't know how to use rules as I usually work with them...

My post was more for the record then to change the ruling. It might not be known what kind of humour Nitwitium has for outsiders, so GMTA and I tried to clarify because we do know that.

I have no further remarks.:tongue:

That's quite clearly meant in humour.

If one of them reports something of yours as offensive, we're obligated to look into the complaint. I'm certain that's what happened in this case.

But you don't know that for sure is that what you're saying? About IF there was a complaint?

GMTA & HC Eredivisie, it's fine that you took it as a joke, but that doesn't affect the ruling. We have perhaps a wider perspective than you, and it's that broader standard that invoked the ruling, based on what was written, not necessarily what was intended. It's a minor warning, and it's justified as a minor warning.

1 Smileys are also 'written' and not just for 'ambiance' and therefore should be included in your judgement. No other conclusion possible after including the smiley to read, and not only interpret, it as a joke.

2 And the quantity of a warning (minor warning) can in my humble opinion not justify the quality of the ruling. There is no such thing as a little bit guilty.

3 You mentioned it before about the problem about rulings within another language. You have missed the Dutch side of my message and the messages before that. And let me tell you that I don't blame you for the situation at hand, you've been used by another player to get even on something I said the same day. I can live with that on your end.

Again, thank you for your time and I would say lock en drop this thread.

Just to add to the number of people who concur with Nitwitium, I really think the Mods have gone too far this time.

You're not the first and you won't be the last to make a sarky comment that gets taken seriously. It's the risk we sarky people run on the internet.

A mild warning is a justifiable reminder: an elbow in the ribs and a "watch it, mate".

Such is life. Live with it. iLock.

After further consideration, and a retraction from the original complainant, I've rescinded the warning and removed it from Nitwitum's record..

Do realize that when we get repeated complaints about flaming, the tolerance for even mild ones become much less.

After further consideration, and a retraction from the original complainant, I've rescinded the warning and removed it from Nitwitum's record..

Do realize that when we get repeated complaints about flaming, the tolerance for even mild ones become much less.

remember this when the next thread about Mod Bias and how mods are overlords appear. this proves why I loooove NSG Mods! :hail:

Do realize that when we get repeated complaints about flaming, the tolerance for even mild ones become much less.

Would you be so kind to post the date when my last conviction surrounding "flaming" was? And when you're at it; also post how many times I was convicted for "flaming" in the +5 years I play this game. And I do mean convictions (you know, when one is found guilty and receives punishment) and not some unfounded accusation?

Would you be so kind to post the date when my last conviction surrounding "flaming" was? And when you're at it; also post how many times I was convicted for "flaming" in the +5 years I play this game. And I do mean convictions (you know, when one is found guilty and receives punishment) and not some unfounded accusation?

Not a mod:

But - "...on other occasions I know when my language is sometimes colourful, firm, confronting and/or blunt'ish and could be experienced as abusive..." and "...There where a lot of accusations in the past but at the end of the day only a few where proven true...", are tacit admissions - in this thread - that you self-identify as 'guilty', and not just 'accused'.

Not a mod:

But - "...on other occasions I know when my language is sometimes colourful, firm, confronting and/or blunt'ish and could be experienced as abusive..." and "...There where a lot of accusations in the past but at the end of the day only a few where proven true...", are tacit admissions - in this thread - that you self-identify as 'guilty', and not just 'accused'.

Sure but there the last time I was found guilty (I think) there was a Psittacosaurus walking around my garden and eating my Bellis perennis....... That's why I asked for the date.

A mild warning is a justifiable reminder: an elbow in the ribs and a "watch it, mate".

Such is life. Live with it. iLock.


Live with it? Not quite. Because the next time I shout "BOOH" at another player he might think I want to give him/her heart failure in RL and complains about it. And then..... I'm F****ed because you will look at my record and, and I quote you're confrere Katganistan on this; "Do realize that when we get repeated complaints about flaming, the tolerance for even mild ones become much less". See, once a thief, next time a murderer. Even without a body.

Much as I do trust in the powers that be in charge here, as I have been shown the error of my ways here as well, is it not possible for even so far as one user to have multiple accounts and use several of them to target one other user whom they take offense at?

with one person able to have several aliases here in NS, how can one ever truly be sure it is actually more than one person offended by any post?

Live with it? Not quite. Because the next time I shout "BOOH" at another player he might think I want to give him/her heart failure in RL and complains about it. And then..... I'm F****ed because you will look at my record and, and I quote you're confrere Katganistan on this; "Do realize that when we get repeated complaints about flaming, the tolerance for even mild ones become much less". See, once a thief, next time a murderer. Even without a body.

You're carrying on quite a bit for someone who just had a warning retracted.

Realise that the way you communicate with some people is going to rub some the wrong way because of your past, and be more careful how you approach people in the future.

I believe that's the message the mods are trying to send you, official warning or no. It might be a good idea to keep that in mind.

I do not believe Nitwitium to be self-incriminating, nor do I believe the mods to have acted unjustly. It is unforunate that the thin-skinned dictate what others might be allowed to say, but that is the way of the world. As most readers understood the humor in Nitwitiums supposed "flaming" posts (including Frisbeeteria), it would seem that there was just a thin-skinned person out there which is sad to see that no one can take a joke anymore

Would you be so kind to post the date when my last conviction surrounding "flaming" was? And when you're at it; also post how many times I was convicted for "flaming" in the +5 years I play this game. And I do mean convictions (you know, when one is found guilty and receives punishment) and not some unfounded accusation?

Does flaming on a regional messageboard with a puppet sound familiar? Because it should.

Would you be so kind to post the date when my last conviction surrounding "flaming" was? And when you're at it; also post how many times I was convicted for "flaming" in the +5 years I play this game. And I do mean convictions (you know, when one is found guilty and receives punishment) and not some unfounded accusation?

Dude...she removed your punishment. What she's saying is that when someone rides the line quite frequently, they will be less forgiving ("This could be a flame, but we'll give the benefit of the doubt" becomes "This could be a flame, and this poster constantly pushes the line. Time to show them to pull it back a bit")

Of course, not a mod, but in this thread alone, you're using a very aggressive posting style that is certainly defensive and somewhat rude, particularly considering the fact that Kat reassessed her punishment.

I'd suggest taking their advice and pulling back your posting style a bit. Or don't...but don't be surprised when they do act on it, and don't scream about "mod bias". They've been pretty fair by reassessing your punishment and then giving you the heads up that you're getting close to being in trouble. Chill.

Of course, not a mod, but in this thread alone, you're using a very aggressive posting style that is certainly defensive and somewhat rude, particularly considering the fact that Kat reassessed her punishment.


Thank you. And others by making me aware that the way I am expressing my strong opinion is considered rude here. It's a cultural thing I guess. It made me ease up my message below.

@Katganistan and others in general: Let me first say I do not wish to be rude or disrespectful. In my opinion a difference of opinion is nothing more than that, it's not a personal vendetta, just argumentation. If anyone experienced it as rude I would like to apologise, it was not my intention.

But in my opinion it still was a crappy ruling. And again, I could live with that. But I won't accept a misplaced condicio sine qua non argumentation to justify wrongdoing.

What I will do however is reduce my in-game activities like posting on the NL region message board to an absolute minimum. Just to be sure.

Vaya con dios.

Nitwitium

Does flaming on a regional message board with a puppet sound familiar? Because it should.
Nope, I thought the (revoked) IP ban was for "trolling" or whatever you call it? Don't remember flaming but I'm not entirely sure. It could be, stranger things have happened. But still not the point, even it was a flaming, one should only be judged on his current behaviour, and this time around my actions where not foul or against regulation. If there is doubt you can take a look at my record, that's okay, but not if I make a joke and say: "hey, he flamed before, it was his intention now" when even Stevie Wonder's Labrador*1 can see that I was joking.

(ad *1: I wish to make clear that I don't wish to offend the visually challenged or their canine companions. Not that there are many blind folks around in this game I guess but one has to be careful in these dark times where the thin-skinned (thank you Pegasus) rule over those who laugh at life and it's futility :) You see, lessons learned here and therefor a great moment to lock it.)

Thank you. And others by making me aware that the way I am expressing my strong opinion is considered rude here. It's a cultural thing I guess. It made me ease up my message below.

No problem. Just remember that this is all text...something like 96% of communication is non-verbal, so alot of the signs of what is intended is lost (voice tone, body language, all that). Even with the emoticons, you can still be in the wrong because of this...the mods have been pretty consistant in their ruling that a winky face does not make a statement less of a flame.

Just something good to keep in mind, along with the potential for cultural misunderstanding. You don't have to reduce your postings...just think about what your posting and if it can be misinterpreted.

This is all just friendly, non-modly advice, mind you...I've never encountered you beyond this thread, so I have very little to go off of. Just some tips that helped me around here.

Nope, I thought the (revoked) IP ban was for "trolling" or whatever you call it? Don't remember flaming but I'm not entirely sure. It could be, stranger things have happened. But still not the point, even it was a flaming, one should only be judged on his current behaviour, and this time around my actions where not foul or against regulation. If there is doubt you can take a look at my record, that's okay, but not if I make a joke and say: "hey, he flamed before, it was his intention now" when even Stevie Wonder's Labrador*1 can see that I was joking.

That's like saying, "Oh, I broke the rules before, but then that should not be taken into account because that's not the case here. That was in the past."

Of course we're going to take past history into action when it comes to someone breaking the rules. That defeats the purpose of a warning system in itself, as long as the action does not equate to a perma-ban. Anyone can keep breaking the rules, with no past actions held against them.

You seem to be missing the point that your warning was retracted, in this thread. Your "Hey, he flame before, it was his intention now" is not only an incorrect assessment, because that's not even what Katganistan said, but that's not automatically what any moderator here would ever think. People who break the rules repeatedly will have past infractions taken into account because it's something that they have done before. It does not automatically equate to a warning if they are reported for breaking the rules again. Once again, your point is irrelevant.

Anyways, my previous post was simply to show you that yes, you have received a warning before for breaking the rules, and that your post here (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14129049&postcount=17) was not correct. I specifically looked at your record here and pulled that warning from it.


(ad *1: I wish to make clear that I don't wish to offend the visually challenged or their canine companions. Not that there are many blind folks around in this game I guess but one has to be careful in these dark times where the thin-skinned (thank you Pegasus) rule over those who laugh at life and it's futility :) You see, lessons learned here and therefor a great moment to lock it.)

Your intention for posting this can be taken in multiple different ways, one of which is that you complain about people who may have taken offense to your statement. Perfect example of the internet. Intentions can sometimes be skewed and unclear. We do our best to decipher between each of those.

My interpretation? Insulting those who may have read it as an offense certainly isn't a great way to end this entire discussion. On that note, I'm going to lock this thread, because it's gone much further than it should have.