The various Romanoffia threads

[Grosseschnauzer]

I think something needs to be said on behalf of the forum moderation team over a set of threads that were started by Romanoffia in different areas of the fourms (There may have been threads started about Romanoffia as well, but I'm trying to group all of those threads that dealt with him in the past couple of days.)

There's a fine line that we try to observe between free speech in all of its different variants and crossing that line into conduct that is limited under the forum terms of service and terms of use.

In the "group" of threads, for lack of a better description, specific posts got heated in response to other posts, and some posts tried to bait others to go beyond that line. The forum moderation team was forced to close some threads, either temporarily or permanently, and we've had to caution some users and issue a warning to others.

Please pay attention to what you are saying, to whom you are saying it to, and how you are saying them. Since this started up over a weekend it took us a little longer to get ahead of the problem, but I think we've made clear by closing threads and issuing both cautions and warnings to specific users that y'all need to be more aware of what is going on and when you might be getting too close to the line.

It does not matter if it is just one thread or a bunch, or if it is just one user or a bunch, when mods receive reports and lock down threads, please take that as a caution about posting behavior and pay attention to what you are doing. The mod team does look at such things, and they are factors in issuing cautions and warnings.

 

[Belschaft]

Belschaft, please see my post in the Forum Operations area that discussed the issues the forum moderation team is having with all of the Romanoffia-related threads that were started in the last few days.

The team discussed the post quoted by Flemingovia, and agrees that, in the context of all of those threads and their tone, the quoted post had the appearance, to us, of flaming. The team agreed that a 20 per cent warning was appropriate in this case. If you have a issue you wish to discuss further, please take it to the Moderation area; do not go off the topic of this thread to do so.

We are prepared to place threads on time out as long and as often as necessary for things to cool down and for people to calm down. We are prepared to continue issuing warnings if our caution flags, like putting threads on a cool down period, are ignored.

It's not a question, necessarily, of what anyone is saying when on topic, it is a question of how it is being said.

I'd argue that when taken in the full context of Roman's actions that day, including multiple threads on the forums, repeated posts on the RMB, and activity on IRC, that my post cannot be reasonably considered to be flambaiting. For one thing, Roman was, unquestionably, already in the process of flaming when I posted, and said post was in direct response to this activity. I fail to understand how thus I am the one who was warned for flamebaiting; it rather suggests that prior to my comment Roman was being an entirly sensible and not at all crazy individual, behaving in an entirely reasonable manner.

The post I assume I was warned for (as Flem quoted George, not me) is the following;

'Hey, remember that guy who got banned from an IRC channel for 24 hours for anti-semitism, and had a tantrum over it and flounced out of a region? Yeah, he was totally right and awesome.'

Said no one ever, excluding the scum who live in GGR.

Now, this is a rather pointed comment on my part, yes, but it was posted with the intent to ridicule behaviour that was ridiculous. We are talking about someone who, in response to being banned from an IRC channel for gratuitously offensive comments they made, repeatedly declared their intent to leave the region, accused others of being dictators and tyrants, threatened to coup the region, to raise Gatesville from the dead, and so on and so forth. Ridicule was exactly the right response, in my opinion.

The OP of the thread I commented in was the following;

Elu is a dictator, and I won't even go into it. He's got no spine.

I am leaving TNP after 10+ years.

He hasn't got a hair on his ass.

TNP is doomed to total chaos and constant political strife.

I'm done with you all. You all haven't got a clue.

Feederism is a failure.

I have been in TNP since Day One and I got screwed over by your glorious Dictator Eluvatat. You people deserve to get what you get. Vote as you wish. FU. I'm done.

And watch out for Tim and Wham - they will coup your region.

And I won't be there to help you out of it. You are on your own. Screw your all and thank Elu for fecking me over.

Best regards,

Romanoffia, Former everything.

Taken in context of the rest of Roman's behaviour up to that point, I was of opinion that ridicule was exactly what this post deserved. I do not see how that equates to flamebaiting, or merits a formal warning. At most, an informal warning would be appropriate to my mind.

 

[Flemingovia]

I do not see how that equates to flamebaiting, or merits a formal warning

Bel, warnings are issued for a twofold purpose: to punish behaviour that crosses an acceptable line, and to demonstrate where the lines of acceptable behaviour are, in the hope that the player does not cross those lines again.

Often there is a discussion between the moderation team before a warning is put in place and quite often reported posts do not result in a warning: they fall short of that line. That is why relatively few warnings have been issued on the forum, and they ough to give pause when they are.

In this case I issued the warning, but there was consensus among the moderators that your post deserved it. Rather than moaning about it, try to learn from it.

 

[Abbey]

Perhaps, instead of snapping at someone who doesn't know why they crossed the line and others didn't, perhaps why don't you try explaining why Bel's post was particularly bad in comparison to the others that were made? After all, he can't exactly -learn- from his "mistake" if he doesn't know what his mistake actually was (and if that mistake was calling someone out on anti-semitism, then hey ho).

And perhaps, could I have a link to the rules which the admin seem intent on enforcing but which I have absolutely no idea where they are - how are users supposed to judge if their posts cross the line until they get warned for something? The "rules" link at the top of the forum seem to offer no help at all with regards to anything other than "Follow the ToS, follow the ToU, don't post PMs and don't make images in your signature too large". Now, I respect that limitations on flaming etc are reasonable, but if they were actually clear it would help as a member of this forum in its capacity as a general forum rather than anything related to NS. Every forum's lines are so different, and you can't expect people to just -guess-.

 

[Flemingovia]

Abbey, I did not mention rules. You did. I talked about a line of acceptable behaviour.

Now generally people know instinctively where that line is and whether they have crossed it. Sometimes they will deliberately step over the line. Sometimes it is borderline and even the mods have to debate the matter.

We do not define the line too closely because a lot of factors come into play: context, history, provocation etc. That is why forum moderation is a messy business and has to be done by human beings (or a god in my case) using their judgement. I certainly would resist having too detailed a codified list of rules.

IN the case of Roman's opening post in that thread it could be argued that it came close to the line. Nobody reported it and, on balance, it did not cross over to be warnable. In the case of Bel's post it did cross that line, and the moderation TEAM decided a warning was appropriate.

It may interest you to know that there were other reported posts in that thread. Some reports were upheld, others denied.

 

[Belschaft]

We do not define the line too closely because a lot of factors come into play: context, history, provocation etc. That is why forum moderation is a messy business and has to be done by human beings (or a god in my case) using their judgement. I certainly would resist having too detailed a codified list of rules.

IN the case of Roman's opening post in that thread it could be argued that it came close to the line. Nobody reported it and, on balance, it did not cross over to be warnable. In the case of Bel's post it did cross that line, and the moderation TEAM decided a warning was appropriate.

I'd suggest that perhaps you should look at 'the context of all of those threads and their tone' rather than a single post in isolation.

The primary issue I'm having with understanding this is the lack of consistency. As far as I can tell people have been picked seemingly at random to receive warnings, and other people let off for equivalent or worse behaviour. Was the intention to set examples or something?

 

[Flemingovia]

Believe what you will. This is getting vaguely Govinaesque. I am done with this issue.

 

[Abbey]

My issue is with primarily that actually that judgement is very hard to make, especially when there is often no way for us meer mortals to see what actions cause warnings and which do not. Without access to that the judgement is very difficult to make as every forum has different standards which range from.bans on almost any swearing to.those who simply live within the ToU and ToS.

I'm not asking for specific rules which can be flouted in the same way regional laws are. I'm asking for some idea as right now I'm left clueless and afraid to say pretty much anything.

 

[Grosseschnauzer]

Abbey, it isn't too hard to find the Zetaboards Terms of Service and Terms of Use; there's a link at the bottom of each forum and index page. There's also a link to the this-board-only forum appendices containing the additional rules adopted by the forum moderation team in the forum masthead labeled "rules" oddly enough.

Belscraft, rhe team discussed your post and others before deciding what to do, and several of us "slept on it" before a consensus was reached. Otherwise, flem has covered it.