five days

Romanoffia:
I have IRC logs that show that certain admins are talking about bending the rules to go after one forum member.
Click to expand...
Claims like this have exactly as much validity as claims that you were threatened during TNP v. JAL, or that there are hordes of TNPers sending you messages of support.

That is, absolutely none until you produce the evidence. Your penchant for asserting untruths is well known.
 
SillyString:
Romanoffia:
I have IRC logs that show that certain admins are talking about bending the rules to go after one forum member.
Click to expand...
Claims like this have exactly as much validity as claims that you were threatened during TNP v. JAL, or that there are hordes of TNPers sending you messages of support.

That is, absolutely none until you produce the evidence. Your penchant for asserting untruths is well known.
Click to expand...
Do I have your permission to post the #TNP logs?

#TNP is a public forum in which reposting of logs is always permitted by forum rules. I know what you are up to, and I am not going to fall into any traps. I'm not stupid, you know.

Do I have your explicit permission to post the logs I have and that I will not get any Admin actions for posting said logs?
 
Well?

Do I have your permission to post the logs? #TNP is, after all, a public forum. All I need is Admin permission to post the evidence in the form of IRC logs.

Well?

Do I have your permission and the unanimous permission of all the admins on the forum and your word that retribution will not be taken against me for it?
 
Romanoffia:
I actually like Flemingovia and I wish he had properly answered my PM concerning this matter
.
Click to expand...
Speaking of factual record, my inbox shows only one pm received from romanoffia since 2011

It was received on May 9th 2014 and concerns the FOIA, not this issue.
 
Romanoffia:
SillyString:
Romanoffia:
I have IRC logs that show that certain admins are talking about bending the rules to go after one forum member.
Click to expand...
Claims like this have exactly as much validity as claims that you were threatened during TNP v. JAL, or that there are hordes of TNPers sending you messages of support.

That is, absolutely none until you produce the evidence. Your penchant for asserting untruths is well known.
Click to expand...
Do I have your permission to post the #TNP logs?

#TNP is a public forum in which reposting of logs is always permitted by forum rules. I know what you are up to, and I am not going to fall into any traps. I'm not stupid, you know.

Do I have your explicit permission to post the logs I have and that I will not get any Admin actions for posting said logs?
Click to expand...
The topic of #tnp says:

#tnp:
Welcome to The North Pacific IRC! | No advertising in public. | The forum is: http://forum.thenorthpacific.org/ | This channel is public. | Channel Record: 45. | Quote of the Month: <@Asta> r3n, do us a favor and give us a good quote about your greek sex life <@mcmasterdonia> might be too long <@r3n> yeah, wanker would be a good match
Click to expand...
(Underlining added)
I will not be punishing the posting of logs from #tnp.
 
OK, here you go. (Bolding added):


18:18] <@Democratic_Donkeys> I love Eras as an admin. She is so cool
[18:18] <@Erastide> >_>
[18:19] <@Democratic_Donkeys> I speaketh the truth
[18:19] <@Democratic_Donkeys> You have such a nice tone
[18:19] <@flemingovia> prognostications????
[18:19] <@flemingovia> even I had to look that one up.
[18:20] <@Erastide> LOL
[18:20] <@Democratic_Donkeys> Heh heh
[18:20] <@Erastide> it just... came out
[18:22] Join: stgeorge [IP Suppressed]
[18:22] Mode: [+v stgeorge] by ChanServ
[18:22] <@flemingovia> you want to be careful, though. he will report you to Zetaboards.
[18:23] <+stgeorge> whats this?
[18:23] <@Democratic_Donkeys> Our favorite member discussion
[18:28] <@flemingovia> heh
[18:28] <@flemingovia> hopefully once the repeals stuff is over and I am out of the way he will simmer down.
[18:30] <@Democratic_Donkeys> It does make me think that the policy on warnings should be updated to be more flexible.
[18:30] <@Democratic_Donkeys> Could you imagine a nice mandatory one week vacation from posting? Gosh, that would be lovely
[18:30] <@flemingovia> in what way?
[18:31] <@Democratic_Donkeys> What?
[18:31] <@flemingovia> in what way more flexible.
[18:32] Quit: Frattle []
[18:32] Join: frattastan [IP Suppressed]
[18:32] Mode: [+v frattastan] by ChanServ
[18:33] <@Democratic_Donkeys> It is very rigid at the moment. I can appreciate spelling out the steps, but there is not a way to deviate from that. 5 hour mod preview is hardly noticeable
[18:33] <@Democratic_Donkeys> Perhaps a clause in there that a unanimous admin decision could override policy?
[18:33] <@flemingovia> well, the first warning is designed to be very mild: a slap on the wrist.
[18:33] <@Democratic_Donkeys> Right, but it should still be tailored to the offense?
[18:34] <@flemingovia> CAn you imagine how Roman would complain if he was treated more harshly than others?
[18:35] <@flemingovia> In my humble opinion Roman should by now be on far more than a 20% warning level. But there you go.
[18:38] <@flemingovia> So the penalty by now would more accurately reflect the shithead he is being.
[18:41] <@flemingovia> USA is out of the world cup.
[18:43] <@Erastide> yep
Click to expand...

Now, as a comment, this is clearly an example of certain admins calling me a 'shithead' which shows that they are going beyond IC into RL admin actions to supress the voice of one forum member via rule augmentation just to affect IC Game Play.

The very fact that you have members of the Admin team and moderation team openly talking about how to target me specifically shows that there is a real need to change the admin team of this forum for the sake of TNP and the integrity of legitimate game play.

Of course, you will say I am out of line or mistaken or over reacting but the logs are circulating around NS as we speak and I had nothing to do with that propagation of these public logs. But I am sure the targeting will continue.

You don't babble on in a public forum after talking about how to change the rules to go after poor old Roman and then make a comment like this:

[18:34] <@flemingovia> CAn you imagine how Roman would complain if he was treated more harshly than others?
Click to expand...

and then expect nothing to come of it.

The clear intent is to single out a specific forum member to silence them for an IC position because certain people were simply out-played by the very rules they want to violate to get their way in the matter.

And that's the facts.
 
Admin hat: The Report function should be used for cases where the ToU or ToS have been violated by a member of the forum. It should not be used to express your political opinion, or to show that you simply disagree with what another person has said. This is a caution to Romanoffia and others against overusing the report function on this board.

In the past, there have been at least two situations where the overuse of the report function has resulted in an official warning. Both of those two members have since been permanently banned from this forum. [/admin]
 
As a side note, I was just informed that Flemingovia has queried at least one person as to who 'leaked' those public #IRC logs to them. I have the PM to forward if you demand it. I will comply for the sake of this forum and the region IC.

My question is, why should people be subjected to admin intimidation for allegedly forwarding public #TNP logs to someone else? I mean they are public.

And, for the record, I was watching #TNP without signing in under a different user name when I observed the contents of the logs, so no one gave them to me - initially. However, I received about 10 copies of the same logs from other people on this forum to bolster my claims.

Now, if you want verification of the logs, you can get them from the irc.esper.net server as all logs there are public. Just give an admin request or dig for them yourself.
 
Romanoffia:
OK, here you go. (Bolding added):


18:18] <@Democratic_Donkeys> I love Eras as an admin. She is so cool
[18:18] <@Erastide> >_>
[18:19] <@Democratic_Donkeys> I speaketh the truth
[18:19] <@Democratic_Donkeys> You have such a nice tone
[18:19] <@flemingovia> prognostications????
[18:19] <@flemingovia> even I had to look that one up.
[18:20] <@Erastide> LOL
[18:20] <@Democratic_Donkeys> Heh heh
[18:20] <@Erastide> it just... came out
[18:22] Join: stgeorge [IP Suppressed]
[18:22] Mode: [+v stgeorge] by ChanServ
[18:22] <@flemingovia> you want to be careful, though. he will report you to Zetaboards.
[18:23] <+stgeorge> whats this?
[18:23] <@Democratic_Donkeys> Our favorite member discussion
[18:28] <@flemingovia> heh
[18:28] <@flemingovia> hopefully once the repeals stuff is over and I am out of the way he will simmer down.
[18:30] <@Democratic_Donkeys> It does make me think that the policy on warnings should be updated to be more flexible.
[18:30] <@Democratic_Donkeys> Could you imagine a nice mandatory one week vacation from posting? Gosh, that would be lovely
[18:30] <@flemingovia> in what way?
[18:31] <@Democratic_Donkeys> What?
[18:31] <@flemingovia> in what way more flexible.
[18:32] Quit: Frattle []
[18:32] Join: frattastan [IP Suppressed]
[18:32] Mode: [+v frattastan] by ChanServ
[18:33] <@Democratic_Donkeys> It is very rigid at the moment. I can appreciate spelling out the steps, but there is not a way to deviate from that. 5 hour mod preview is hardly noticeable
[18:33] <@Democratic_Donkeys> Perhaps a clause in there that a unanimous admin decision could override policy?
[18:33] <@flemingovia> well, the first warning is designed to be very mild: a slap on the wrist.
[18:33] <@Democratic_Donkeys> Right, but it should still be tailored to the offense?
[18:34] <@flemingovia> CAn you imagine how Roman would complain if he was treated more harshly than others?
[18:35] <@flemingovia> In my humble opinion Roman should by now be on far more than a 20% warning level. But there you go.
[18:38] <@flemingovia> So the penalty by now would more accurately reflect the shithead he is being.
[18:41] <@flemingovia> USA is out of the world cup.
[18:43] <@Erastide> yep
Click to expand...

Now, as a comment, this is clearly an example of certain admins calling me a 'shithead' which shows that they are going beyond IC into RL admin actions to supress the voice of one forum member via rule augmentation just to affect IC Game Play.

The very fact that you have members of the Admin team and moderation team openly talking about how to target me specifically shows that there is a real need to change the admin team of this forum for the sake of TNP and the integrity of legitimate game play.

Of course, you will say I am out of line or mistaken or over reacting but the logs are circulating around NS as we speak and I had nothing to do with that propagation of these public logs. But I am sure the targeting will continue.

You don't babble on in a public forum after talking about how to change the rules to go after poor old Roman and then make a comment like this:

[18:34] <@flemingovia> CAn you imagine how Roman would complain if he was treated more harshly than others?
Click to expand...

and then expect nothing to come of it.

The clear intent is to single out a specific forum member to silence them for an IC position because certain people were simply out-played by the very rules they want to violate to get their way in the matter.

And that's the facts.
Click to expand...
*admin hat*
Response (since you also reported a post on this forum and added this IRC log as "proof" for some reason)
A) The author of the post, SillyString (Asta), is not an admin of this forum
B) The only admins in #tnp there were myself and Flem.
C) IRC is *not* the forum, nor is it in any way official. Opinions and thoughts expressed there have absolutely no weight in official admin policy
D) One admin said he thought the policy should be changed, other people (not admins) agreed. There is no conspiracy against you, everyone is being very scrupulous in holding fast to the rules. We actually do keep our personal feelings out of adminning.
E) Changes to policy are never unilaterally brought down


*off with admin hat*
Do you really think if there was a conspiracy that it would be discussed in a public channel? Do you really think everyone else is that stupid? That the level of intelligence actually *decreased* in this region over time? 'Cause I'm pretty sure we all know how to run a proper conspiracy and that sure as hell ain't it.
 
This is clearly a discussion about how to stomp on a forum member for an IC position by abuse of Admin authority. That is quite clear.

It is now in the public domain by permission of an Admin who gave me clear permission to post it. Public opinion throughout NS will see the intent. So you can't get me for that unless you want to look like, as Flem and other constantly call me on this forum, a thug.

This log also shows that the integrity of this forum is possibly and probably compromised by government by forum administration at the expense of IC government and by the twisting and violation of the very rules the admins are supposed to follow and which they created themselves.

It is my opinion that the Administrators and Moderators who partook in this conversation detailed by this logs should immediately resign those position for the sake of the integrity of this forum, the integrity of this regions government and for the sake of the region itself.
 
D) One admin said he thought the policy should be changed, other people (not admins) agreed. There is no conspiracy against you, everyone is being very scrupulous in holding fast to the rules. We actually do keep our personal feelings out of adminning.

Eras, you need to read the log again. Dd was saying there ought to be flexibility in the policy to account for severity of the offence. I said that would cause complaint and better to play it by the book.

For the record, I am not sure the penalty for the initial 20% warn is a strong enough deterrent. But I do think that whatever the penalty, it should be applied to anyone who is warned equally.
 
flemingovia:
D) One admin said he thought the policy should be changed, other people (not admins) agreed. There is no conspiracy against you, everyone is being very scrupulous in holding fast to the rules. We actually do keep our personal feelings out of adminning.

Eras, you need to read the log again. Dd was saying there ought to be flexibility in the policy to account for severity of the offence. I said that would cause complaint and better to play it by the book.

For the record, I am not sure the penalty for the initial 20% warn is a strong enough deterrent. But I do think that whatever the penalty, it should be applied to anyone who is warned equally.
Click to expand...
I meant that the idea that the first warning might have a stronger consequence. Didn't mean to imply you had any thoughts of applying the rules nonuniformly.
 
You know what? This is a moot point.

No matter what the evidence is, the wagons get circled.

Public opinion across this forum and the rest of NS will bear out.
 
I'm not wasting any more time on this. You people do what you want to do with the region. I will just sit back and laugh.
 
Romanoffia:
You know what? This is a moot point.

No matter what the evidence is, the wagons get circled.

Public opinion across this forum and the rest of NS will bear out.
Click to expand...
The uh, the rest of NS? As you are a member of the security council, I imagine that if you had any sorts of knowledge of outside forces acting against TNP you'd let us know, right?
 
I was not suggesting the rules be applied differently, merely that it might be worth having a discussion about more flexibility being available. No retroactive action, fwiw. The procedure was enacted seven years ago, I didn't think it was unreasonable to suggest talking about their effectiveness. :)
 
Democratic Donkeys:
I was not suggesting the rules be applied differently, merely that it might be worth having a discussion about more flexibility being available. No retroactive action, fwiw. The procedure was enacted seven years ago, I didn't think it was unreasonable to suggest talking about their effectiveness. :)
Click to expand...
Hush, DD.

The hundreds of forum users bombarding Romaoffia with their concerns and the gazillion of other regions rallying to his banner cannot all be wrong.

They are not imaginary, you know.

FWIW, I think it is worth the mod/admin team talking about the guidelines. Among st other things I would like them to talk about a procedure for LOWERING a warning level once applied, as well as perhaps more subtle increments of warning. Such things as:

**should the warning increase level be reset to 10%, so that minor offences could warrant a 10% level increase and more serious ones a 20% increase.

**a procedure for appeals to the admin team?

**Whether the current posting ban levels are correct. I think a 4 hour mod preview for a 20% level is probably no deterrent at all.
 
DD is hardly the only one who has pointed out the need to revise the guidelines. The subject has been brought up several times recently, on both the forum and IRC.

Besides this, I don't see anything else noteworthy in these logs. Certainly nothing along what Roman has been claiming in the few places he has posted the logs.
 
r3naissanc3r:
Besides this, I don't see anything else noteworthy in these logs. Certainly nothing along what Roman has been claiming in the few places he has posted the logs.
Click to expand...
Nor did I, actually.
The only thing I found interesting was the name I called romanoffia.

I suspected someone might be feeding romanoffia Irc logs, so I threw that in to see if it would get back to romanoffia.

It did, and roman proved more interested in scoring his point than protecting his intel source.

You know who you are, and so do I. You might want to reflect that the only hard currency in nationstates is trust. Once you have lost that, you have very little left. Nobody likes a tattle-tale.
 
Treize_Dreizehn:
Romanoffia:
You know what? This is a moot point.

No matter what the evidence is, the wagons get circled.

Public opinion across this forum and the rest of NS will bear out.
Click to expand...
The uh, the rest of NS? As you are a member of the security council, I imagine that if you had any sorts of knowledge of outside forces acting against TNP you'd let us know, right?
Click to expand...
Yes, I would let everyone know if I had any knowledge of a specific threat against the region. I'm just telling you what public opinion is saying. The biggest threat to this region is government by admin and not government by IC government.
 
Yes, I think there have a few conversations around updating the moderation guidelines. Many have opinions, I have opinions, but one thing you should remember Roman is that we are an admin team.

We all have opinions, biases, and whatnot but the admins are not the same people so we're not always biased in the same direction. Further, we strive to be objective in any and every decision we make. This is something we take great care to do, as you know Roman, I think you were around when Twoslit went bonkers many many moons ago.

I think we're very successful at this as well. Are we perfect? No. But is our goal objectivity, yes. The IRC chat you have shared with us shows two people (or more) having a conversation about policy. This was not an admin conversation nor was anything any of the participants tried to hide since it is an open channel.

Our admin team truly is a team and when making decisions we consult one another and rest assured any change to moderation policies would be discussed, vetted, and poked at by the entire admin/mod team to develop the most fair and equitable moderation policies.
 
I would like to comment on this, but I refuse to do so in public from this point on. There is no point in it and nothing is going to change. If you want my opinions, ask via PM and I will given them to you. If speaking out about an injustice gets one beat up on the forum and #TNP, then there is nothing anyone can add to this matter. Other than that, I have nothing more to say.
 
I also agree that it should be possible to see one's warning level lowered.

I'm of two minds on the question of whether, in future, the first warning should come with a few hours of mod preview or more than that.
 
Sometimes we start at 20 percent because of our scrupulousness to be fair, but there have been exceptions where the behavior is immediately outrageous and especially pornspam.

Otherwise someone who persists in a pattern of abusive behavior will get increased warning levels, and then get banned if it doesn't stop. AC 195 is the recordholder in that category who IIRC went from 0 to permanenent ban in less than two weeks.

Roman, McM 's caution to you was based on my suggestion before I went to sleep last night. I posted it figuring that if other admin agreed, it would happen while I slept. And it did. I would, if I were you, take that caution, the previous warning and cautions extremely serious and understand that you are on thin ice at this point, at least with me. And I am, as an admin very level headed and patient about things, but I do reach a limit about abusive forum behavior, and to be frank, you have reached that point with me. I won't be as patient about further increases in warning levels if the pattern of abusive behavior continues. And by that I mean the whole scope of it, in the broad language of Section 3.2 of the Terms of Use, and not any specific part.

Maybe Elu's right and we need to look again at increasing the mod preview or posting suspension periods even for a first warning. We've had that discussion before, and we may need to do so again, but not in the heat of the current moment. But I suspect many if not all of the other admin will agree with me that it won't take much to trigger another warning level increase. So take it as you wish.
 
Eluvatar:
I'm of two minds on the question of whether, in future, the first warning should come with a few hours of mod preview or more than that.
Click to expand...
I am also of two minds, because I think there are different scenarios - I'm not at all sure that a one-size-fits-all warning policy does, in fact, fit-all.

If someone is spamming rapidly, or a few people get into a fast, heated flamefest, then a cooling-off period of a few hours might make sense (or at least give the admin team a chance to discuss what to do about them). But if someone makes a calculated attack not in the heat of any moment, or escalates their behavior over a period of days and not hours, or is known to fixate on certain topics for days at a time (I'm remembering the issues with Govindia refusing to drop things when told to by GBM) then such a short period of post preview does nothing to rein things in.

So I think it would be reasonable to build more flexibility into the system so that different posting rates, behavioral patterns, and offense contexts can be taken into account.

As an example, we've done this on IRC before. Generally once someone's received a couple of formal warnings their first ban is for about 12 hours, but there have been instances where the need for a ban was noticed after the offense was committed (if it happened during a time no ops were online), and the ban needs to be applied against a user who isn't on more frequently than every few days. In cases like that, we've either gone straight to applying a longer temp-ban, or waited to implement it until the next time they log in.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top