Regarding Govindia

Eluvatar

Eluvatar

TNPer
-
-
Pronouns
he/him/his
TNP Nation
Zemnaya Svoboda
The Moderation Team has decided that for their activities essentially flamebaiting Govindia, Chasmanthe and Blue Wolf II have been warned. In accordance with standard protocol they will be on mod preview for a period of five hours.
 
I would like to know which posts of mine, specifically, constituted as Flamebating or, as it's been presented, "essentially flamebaiting" which is clearly the same thing.
 
Here, let me go find that for you...

Wait, I can't actually find any post of yours in the topic I would have expected. Hmm, let me see, oh, it must have been the topic here that the "essentially flamebaiting" occurred in. I honestly wasn't expecting a Court request on the Constitutionality of a Speaker action to be considered "flamebating".

I mean, look back on it, there was just ever so much trolling going on in that thread, with statements such as:

Blue Wolf II:
I would like to know if it is legal for the Speaker to essentially block discussion, and a motion to vote, on whatever he'd like simple because he doesn't agree with it, or if this is a violation of the Bill of Rights.
Click to expand...

Clearly that statement was a cleverly crafted trap to lure Govindia into saying something scandalous.

Actually, its interesting to note that I didn't actually use the name "Govindia" once...in either thread. Must have been part of my clever plan to "essentially flamebait". I can only assume that Chasmanthe was warned simply for proposing the topic to start with. Ever so trollish.
 
I would like to know how my questioning of the Constitutionality of the Speaker's decision to effectively block a vote on a proposed law change is harassment.
 
Moderation doesn't give a rat's patootie about the RA or the Constitution. We do care when an entire proposal is crafted to demean another player. We do care when the target of said proposal begs repeatedly for you stop. And, most importantly, we will always care when a direct request to cease and desist is ignored.
 
So basically I was warned for suggesting changes to the proposal and then question the legality of closing the thread before it could be vote on?

I don't actually recall declaring my support for the proposal at anytime, nor do I recall drafting the proposal. I guess that was just assumed, just as it was assumed that Chasmanthe was trying to flamebait, rather than prove a point. Seems to be quite a lot of assuming on the part of moderation without a lot of actual supporting evidence.

Lastly, since when does "give it up already" count as a "direct request to cease and desist"? To me it sounded quite a lot like a personal opinion given by you and you alone, GBM, or at least that's what I assumed, not knowing that only the moderation team is allowed to assume.
 
I have to say I do find it interesting that, given the actions BW was warned for, I wasn't warned for motioning for a vote, and that Gov wasn't warned for repeatedly insulting BW and demanding that everyone "knock it off." Gov's own behavior has repeatedly grossly exceeded the level of severity present here, yet his behavior goes unchecked, while Moderation lashes out at anyone they can justify, while displaying explicity disregard for the laws of the region whose forums they administer. Interesting indeed.
 
I considered warning mcmasterdonia, Romanoffia, Bokeryville, JAL, and yourself, but I decided that the moderation team probably wasn't asking me to do that.
 
And if the original post by Chas was so deeply offensive to the moderation team, why didn't they act until the thing had run its course and been dead for a week? Why this late hit? If such behavior as in Chas' original post is so deeply offensive (and frankly, I think we could all lighten up a bit), why didn't the moderation team act then? Why did they allow it to happen and then punish others for participating in something which apparently should never have been allowed?
 
Gaspo:
And if the original post by Chas was so deeply offensive to the moderation team, why didn't they act until the thing had run its course and been dead for a week? Why this late hit? If such behavior as in Chas' original post is so deeply offensive (and frankly, I think we could all lighten up a bit), why didn't the moderation team act then? Why did they allow it to happen and then punish others for participating in something which apparently should never have been allowed?
Click to expand...
The moderation team consists of quite a few people so it takes time for everyone to discuss it and resolve matters appropriately.
 
Let me be perfectly clear. I'm not bothered by the original proposal thread being addressed. It was ridiculous. However, it was allowed to survive, and has been dead for a week, and now punishment appears. The lack of a reasonably quick response when a thread is clearly borderline (as that one was) is generally a tacit acceptance of that thread, yet here, people are punished for participating in that thread. Furthermore, BW is being punished, apparently, for raising a procedural issue that in no way impacted Govindia, for which he was apparently punished (according to GBM's statements here). It doesn't seem consistent or predictable. If there are rules and they're going to be enforced, they ought to be predictable, so that people can understand what is and is not acceptable. And while GBM may not give a rat's patootie about the constitution or legal code or anything to do with the whole reason this forum exists, context does matter in moderation, and the context of the Request for Review thread seems to have completely been ignored in this case. It's fishy, in other words, and I don't think BW should be villified or snapped at by Moderation team members, for simply asking questions and trying to understand what's going on.
 
Which was a jibe at Gov for demanding I re-post my prior oath. I can honestly say I would have mocked anyone who had demanded the same of me in such a manner.

However, it doesn't seem that this is the reason why my warning was increased, or at least its never been stated as a reason until right now. The mod team's exact reasoning seems to be a bit of a mystery, as several mods have posted several very different reasons why the warning occurred. Perhaps the moderation team should make public that discussion so that we can all better understand their decision.
 
Govindia is just like the rest of us, a human. Why waist your time to bring down someone? I don't understand, everyone on this forum is an adult (15+) but yet act like children. Instead of bringing down Govindia for his characteristics etc, why not help him? Bleu, you're a Vice Delegate act like one.

I also fall in with their consequences. Disappointing.
 
I'd like to know, where I have given Gov some sort of special treatment that I have not given anyone else on this forum? Windy, where have I sought to "bring him down"?

My questions in this thread thus far remain largely unanswered, but to be honest, I am not surprised by this and I full expect them to not be addressed at all.
 
I haven't seen anything in Blue Wolf's behavior that merits a warning and as all of you know, he is certainly not the only one who believes that Govindia should be banned from this forum. We have real problems when the moderation team decides to tell members of the Regional Assembly that they can't address a member of this community who consistently harasses and annoys other members of this community and who has a history of even worse behavior for which he has been banned elsewhere. Govindia should have been banned from The North Pacific a long time ago and the fact that he is still on this forum and you're handing out selective warnings to others who make a much more substantial contribution to this community for, at worst, moderately inappropriate behavior boggles the mind.

How many times did Gov have to annoy the moderators using the Report page before this decision was made? I'm guessing quite a few times given the delay.

Feel free to warn me for flamebaiting for daring to speak my mind, by the way.
 
For the record, Govindia did not report a single post. This moderator action had nothing to do with any complaint from him.
 
Blue Wolf - if you have a problem with the decision, request that the decision be reviewed? I think if you PM an Administrator and ask reasonably and politely, you will have more luck than if you moan in the thread.

Just a thought.
 
As I've said earlier, the issue BW is raising is that the process and the reasoning behind this is cloudy at best, and flawed at worst, and noone in Moderation will actually explain what the bad actions were. The people have a right to know what they can and cannot do, and Moderation is not saying anything more conclusive than "essentially flamebaiting" which sounds a lot like a subjective judgment broadly applied to things Moderation doesn't like. Please, explain your decision, point to what was out of line, and be more clear, so that the people can understand where Moderation draws the line. Currently, with this decision, the line is, at best, blurry, if not wholly obscured.
 
Blue Wolf II:
Which was a jibe at Gov for demanding I re-post my prior oath. I can honestly say I would have mocked anyone who had demanded the same of me in such a manner.

However, it doesn't seem that this is the reason why my warning was increased, or at least its never been stated as a reason until right now. The mod team's exact reasoning seems to be a bit of a mystery, as several mods have posted several very different reasons why the warning occurred. Perhaps the moderation team should make public that discussion so that we can all better understand their decision.
Click to expand...
I asked to repost your oath because there shouldn't have been anything but the oath you're sworn to uphold. meaning not add anything extra about banning anyone etc. This is exactly what caused the TNP v. Jal case.
 
I also wasn't insulting anyone. I have a right to call the actions of the Vice Delegate and Chasmanthe unbecoming and inappropriate because those actions were inappropriate. No one should have to be subject to an extrajudicial ban, nor bullying, nor persecution.

It seems people in TNP still condone this culture against me given how the only real person who gave a damn of how people were being treated was the Speaker and to an extent GBM. Everyone else in the mod and admin team seem to condone a culture of how I'm being excluded and bullied like this since Eluvatar's delegacy.
 
Let me be perfectly clear. I'm not bothered by the original proposal thread being addressed. It was ridiculous. However, it was allowed to survive, and has been dead for a week, and now punishment appears. The lack of a reasonably quick response when a thread is clearly borderline (as that one was) is generally a tacit acceptance of that thread, yet here, people are punished for participating in that thread.
Click to expand...

Let me answer you here - to make it very very clear, the moderation of TNP's forum consists of a huge group of people; including the entire government on top of the normal moderators. Any agreement was delayed because of arguments that took place between members of said moderation. Perhaps it would have been useful to announce that the thread was being reviewed, but otherwise you can't really avoid the long waiting period.
 
And the issue of lack of clarity in rulings, lack of explanation of rulings, and the disdainful tone used when people asked just those questions?
 
Kingborough:
Let me answer you here - to make it very very clear, the moderation of TNP's forum consists of a huge group of people; including the entire government on top of the normal moderators. Any agreement was delayed because of arguments that took place between members of said moderation.
Click to expand...
It is interesting to note that the Vice-Delegate doesn't have access to that Moderation forum, although seemingly every Cabinet member, Justice, and Deputy does.
 
For those who are finding moderation "murky," let me see if I can clarify things a bit. Singling out a player for abuse is bad. Using the RA as a platform to single out a player for abuse is bad. Trying to "legalize" abuse of another player through the RA will not make it allowable according to the forum TOS. It is bad. Now sometimes people don't realize it when they are behaving badly. So often a moderator will point out when a line is bring crossed from gameplay to forum moderation. If this should happen to you, and you would like to avoid a 20% warning, you should stop.
 
So by that measure, any participation in a thread which is deemed harassment, is grounds for warning? The only example you specifically cited, GBM, or at least referred to, was the request for review thread, which was constitutional and had nothing to do with harassing Gov. A court case to get the thread reopened? Sure. Determining the constitutionality of the speaker's powers is not harassment, by any reasonable standard.

All the examples you referenced support warning Chas. What's the deal with the others? Participation in a discussion that moderation doesn't like?

Edit: On a personal note, I can't tell you how lovely it is to be addressed in language simply dripping with disdain. Really warms my heart, this holiday season.
 
Eluvatar:
I considered warning mcmasterdonia, Romanoffia, Bokeryville, JAL, and yourself, but I decided that the moderation team probably wasn't asking me to do that.
Click to expand...
Why didn't you consider warning Govindia?
 
I guess the thoughts behind it were that Gov had been showing restraint regarding the matter. However his behaviour in the last few days, or hours even, I believe show that he is still unable to show restraint.
 
I have been showing as much restraint as I reasonably can, since I haven't posted as much in the past few days.

I wasn't insulting anyone in that RA thread. I have a right to call out inappropriate actions by BW and Chasmanthe and that's what I did. That's not being insulting in any way.
 
Gaspo:
I have to say I do find it interesting that, given the actions BW was warned for, I wasn't warned for motioning for a vote, and that Gov wasn't warned for repeatedly insulting BW and demanding that everyone "knock it off." Gov's own behavior has repeatedly grossly exceeded the level of severity present here, yet his behavior goes unchecked, while Moderation lashes out at anyone they can justify, while displaying explicity disregard for the laws of the region whose forums they administer. Interesting indeed.
Click to expand...
I also find it contradictory how you find my criticising BW's behaviour as insulting. Please show me where I insulted our Vice Delegate when I actually criticised him for how he acted in supporting the proposal.
 
mcmasterdonia:
I guess the thoughts behind it were that Gov had been showing restraint regarding the matter. However his behaviour in the last few days, or hours even, I believe show that he is still unable to show restraint.
Click to expand...
:agree:

And a warning against Gov was discussed. I'm a little annoyed that others have seen fit to have a go at GBM, she if anyone, has been reasonable in dealing with these matters.

I don't know why you haven't been given access to the moderator area, Blue Wolf. It would certainly not be the first time an admin has forgotten to give it to me during a remasking. Admins aren't infallible.
 
Yes, I had access when I was AJ, but suddenly lost it for no discernible reason the moment I became vice-delegate.

Maybe the admins felt that an Associate Justice is more important that a Vice-Delegate?
 
Kiwi:
mcmasterdonia:
I guess the thoughts behind it were that Gov had been showing restraint regarding the matter. However his behaviour in the last few days, or hours even, I believe show that he is still unable to show restraint.
Click to expand...
:agree:

And a warning against Gov was discussed. I'm a little annoyed that others have seen fit to have a go at GBM, she if anyone, has been reasonable in dealing with these matters.

I don't know why you haven't been given access to the moderator area, Blue Wolf. It would certainly not be the first time an admin has forgotten to give it to me during a remasking. Admins aren't infallible.
Click to expand...
DOes anyone not see the posts I'm making here? >_>
 
Blue Wolf II:
Yes, I had access when I was AJ, but suddenly lost it for no discernible reason the moment I became vice-delegate.

Maybe the admins felt that an Associate Justice is more important that a Vice-Delegate?
Click to expand...
That is odd, you are certainly supposed to have access. To my knowledge every government masking comes with mod HQ access. You will need to ask Grosseschnauzer.
 
Govindia:
Kiwi:
mcmasterdonia:
I guess the thoughts behind it were that Gov had been showing restraint regarding the matter. However his behaviour in the last few days, or hours even, I believe show that he is still unable to show restraint.
Click to expand...
:agree:

And a warning against Gov was discussed. I'm a little annoyed that others have seen fit to have a go at GBM, she if anyone, has been reasonable in dealing with these matters.

I don't know why you haven't been given access to the moderator area, Blue Wolf. It would certainly not be the first time an admin has forgotten to give it to me during a remasking. Admins aren't infallible.
Click to expand...
DOes anyone not see the posts I'm making here? >_>
Click to expand...
You know you are on post moderation Gov and either a GM or admin need to approve posts in this area. You will have to wait until one of us reads the thread. Also keep in mind it is the holiday season and people may not be on the board as much.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top