Moderation Discussion

[Escade]

I appreciate everyone sharing their thoughts. 

 

I provided a personal opinion and I certainly understand the reservations brought up by several people. After having read some of your thoughts, I think this issue is a moot point. I will never take action against the interests or comfort level of TSP and its players. 

 

The current state in which Milograd is banned from the forums is acceptable. 

 

Final reminder:

Keep it civil (respect other people) or face a temporary ban.

 

Unibot, please do not derail threads with accusations. One of the problems we face in TSP is that we are quick to jump to accusation without understanding other people as people who are just like us. They have emotions, feelings, thoughts that are just as valid. 

 

Moderation of assembly discussions is as follows: Any post that can constitute an attack on another player, is flaming, or otherwise derails from discussion will be removed and the poster given warning by the CoA.  After three strikes the offender will lose their privileges to participate in discussions for a certain time period.   

 

It causes me a lot of grief when instead of discussing the topic at hand, anyone resorts to toxicity. Anyone. Disagreement is great, discord is terrible.

 

*Vibrant's suggestion that we put together a narrative of what happened is excellent. We should put together an account of what happened (I'm not familiar with what happened before and I did not frequent the forums until some time afterwards).  Please feel free to share here an account of events. 

 

Thank you. 

[Escade]

The language of "old" and "new" is not conducive to dialogue. It is not conducive to healthy engagement. 

 

Unibot, please take a break from posting. This is a moderation warning. 

[Unibot]

We're now barred from "old" and "new"? Or anything "conducive to dialogue"? Or "derailing"? You can literally shut down any valid debate as "derailment" to the OP's general opinion if they don't like the direction where debate goes...

 

This is absolute nonsense - what happened to our Bill of Rights? At what point does "Freedom of Speech" become a valid defense!?

[Hileville]

Last time I checked forum administration sets moderation policies. No change from the existing policies has been approved or discussed.

[Escade]

It is my understanding that the Chair of Assembly may administer and moderate Assembly discussions. Hileville, you were still MoFa and at the Skype meeting where this was discussed. I do not remember you bringing up any objections at the time. 

 

As for Unibot, for some time you have abused the assembly threads with attacks and derailment. Not only does it detract from positive conversation, it results in players arguing with each other and only serves to increase hostility.  Congratulations. 

 

This is the specific BoR:

 

2. The freedom to voice their opinions on all matter of their interest, including the peaceful criticism of the Coalition and its government, on both the Forum and the Regional Message Board, subject to reasonable restrictions established by the Assembly that do not violate the spirit of the Charter.

 

Asking people to be civil and not derail threads is a reasonable request. In the majority of forums flame baiting is considered to be grounds for bans. 

[Unibot]

I did not "flamebait" anyone here.

[Hileville]

Each member of Government is able to moderate their respective areas within the terms of the moderation policies adopted by the administration Staff. Unilaterally changing those rules is strictly forbidden in the Charter. Any change in moderation policy must be voted on by forum administration and then announced One week before going into affect.

[Escade]

Ok so I'll revise that I'd like to request the admin team to consider a stricter moderation policy as outlined above. 

 

Also what does Global Moderator entail?  What comes under global?

[Kris Kringle]

Might I suggest we move discussion on changes to moderation policies to the Operations Center instead of keeping it in a thread about a pardon for Milograd?

[HEM]

Also, I think it is always dangerous to issue any sort of forum ban without the approval of the courts. If we are citing our laws, someone must be convicted before they are punished. Always.

[Escade]

Any sort of ban? Including the recent ban of Bun\Lola?  I agree. 

 

Citizens have the right to trial, and to appeals. 

[HEM]

We have a court for a reason. We need to let the court enforce our laws.

 

Now if someone is posting porn, or posting threatening material, there may be a need for immediate moderator action. But whenever possible, I support court action over administrative action.

[Escade]

"All members of the moderation team will be allowed to issue warnings with predefined punishments, however administrators and global moderators may alter the punishments in certain circumstances."

 

From here:

http://forums.thesouthpacific.org/index....boardrules

 

One of the biggest projects we have in TSP is getting a working court system established.  And a court system exists to protect citizens rights. It is an institution that serves this purpose. 

[Awesomiasa]

I should raise a point here that nowhere in the laws, charter or moderation policy that says one shall be permanently banned for requesting citizenship on multiple accounts, only that it can be denied. Thus, is the banning of Bundes/Lola legal? Or just extreme mod-power use?

[Farengeto]

Actually, after a careful reading of the Charter, Code of Laws and Moderation Policy, I have found that not only is there currently no legal basis for the ban of the involved users, but there is in fact no legal grounds currently preventing the application of multiple accounts to the same user.


The closest that I can find would be fraud:


Code of Laws, Article 6.3

Fraud shall be defined as a deception made for personal gain or to damage another individual.


And even then the Code of Laws has a policy:


Code of Laws, Article 7.3

If found guilty of fraud, the Judiciary will determine a sentence. The sentence must be proportionate to the offence


An amendment is probably in order to avoid legalizing the usage of multiple accounts by the same user.


Also, the appeals link is still broken.

[Hileville]

I will again say administrative bans are NOT subject to Government rules. However, sweeping changes to the boards moderation policy and policy on multiple accounts is coming at the beginning of the week. I as Chief/Root admin have decided on several changes that will be implemented one week after the announcement. I have also advised Escade of my plans on the banning of Bund which will be announced later today.


If you don't like the new policies I will provide a database backup to whoever would like to host the forums from here on out.

[Libetarian Republics]

I'm not sure what the atmosphere and relationship between the administrators of this forum and the government that resides in these forums. Nevertheless, there has to be some cooperation between the two. Albeit, they are both separate and independent entities in all regards. Let's face it; we can't regulate and tell what Hileville can do and not to do. He owns all of this, so we play by his rules. However, we can always migrate to new forums hosted by someone else. I don't think the current community wants that now. Right now, I'm feeling that there is a lack of oversight on what belongs to admin territory and what belongs to governmental territory. Somebody needs to make it clearer and both sides need to understand the concept of the two. If you make an appeal to the Court, you are appealing to the Government. If you make an appeal to the Administrators, you are appealing to the Admin Team. If the Government wishes to implement a forum ban on a particular individual, a trial is necessary by the Courts before enacting the ban. Etc.

[Hileville]

I will be consulting with Escade and Kris as well as a couple of the admins when I draft the new policies.  I have changes in mind but have not actually typed them up yet.  My goal is to have them all announced by Wednesday.

[HEM]

I will again say administrative bans are NOT subject to Government rules. However, sweeping changes to the boards moderation policy and policy on multiple accounts is coming at the beginning of the week. I as Chief/Root admin have decided on several changes that will be implemented one week after the announcement. I have also advised Escade of my plans on the banning of Bund which will be announced later today.


If you don't like the new policies I will provide a database backup to whoever would like to host the forums from here on out.

 

...This is a government forum. 

[Escade]

That is what I see the conflict\murky area to be.

 

The forums are owned by Hileville and I appreciate his dedication. They are managed by administrators and I appreciate their service. 

 

However, the forums host the regional government. Everything from our elections to our laws are on this forum.  Citizens have privileges such as voting and they have rights such as a the right to trial. A ban from the forums prevents both of these things because there is no alternative for citizens set up. 


We haven't decided yet if multi-ing can lead to revocation of citizenship.  We, the government, needs to be discussing these particular issues because our charter does not take away a citizen's right to vote based on forum actions.   


 

[HEM]

That is what I see the conflict\murky area to be.

 

The forums are owned by Hileville and I appreciate his dedication. They are managed by administrators and I appreciate their service. 

 

However, the forums host the regional government. Everything from our elections to our laws are on this forum.  Citizens have privileges such as voting and they have rights such as a the right to trial. A ban from the forums prevents both of these things because there is no alternative for citizens set up. 


We haven't decided yet if multi-ing can lead to revocation of citizenship.  We, the government, needs to be discussing these particular issues because our charter does not take away a citizen's right to vote based on forum actions.   


 

 

Agreed.

[Hileville]

Being a citizen does not put you above forum rules.  The strict stance on multi-ing has been a long established forum rule.  This rule is changing to what I have stated in the other thread.  While this may be a forum for the Government of TSP the administration of that forum is still carried out by its owner and admin staff.  I'm done dealing with the constant BS that has existed around carrying out admin duties.  I will echo my statements if you don't like the direction the new moderation policies take the forum into then I will offer a database backup.  It has been a constant headache since I offered to host the forums.  One that I will be lessening by changes to the moderation policies and if needed the admin staff.

[Kris Kringle]

Hileville, I think the point here is that there are some loopholes that we should be addressing. I don't think anyone is saying that forum rules shouldn't apply, rather that we need to make some revisions to our laws so that they can be appropriately enforced without these loopholes. Escade has identified one for instance, by mentioning forum bans and citizenship. We should take a loook at that and find the best way to proceed. I agree, forum rules exist for a reason, but let's make sure they don't conflict with out laws.