It is my firm belief that the IC forums (most notably the Alliance Politics section) have become much too loose with IC/OOC references. The moderation chose to adopt this policy just over 4 months ago.

The moderation team should take a more proactive approach in keeping the RP sections to be RP. The alliance politics section of the OWF has become very detached from Alliance Politics and Role Playing. OOC is entirely entwined with IC at this point, and in fact seems to be much more common in most cases than IC.

Instead of allowing OOC to run rampant I believe moderation should enact a policy in an attempt to keep the IC areas of this forum IC. Moderation should make a much more direct attempt to eliminate OOC in IC areas of the forum. The previous policy should be readopted with the following change:

'IC' OOC areas are considered acceptable for IC areas of the forums. These include offsite game related forums and communication devices (IRC, MSN, etc).

If you see someone call this a game, talk about a real life, or talk about players, feel free to report them for OOC in IC forum violations.

The loose RP form only allows mention of IRC and forums (as a means for nation leaders to communicate) and some real world reference, for example in a comparison (though of course offensive ones are not allowed)

I hope this clears it up, or do you have other issues and did I just misunderstand you?

I think it largely comes down to what Justitia said. More people need to step up and report rule breakers for breaking the rules.

Or in some cases, just report those whom they have an IC grievance against. Which of course is a strict OOC and IC separation.

I'm still used to that other (what shall not be named) political simulator whose forums are almost wholly IC- it's great we are trying to become more like them. It's a great policy, not that my opinion makes difference.

Yet Johnathan, let's try to keep tattle-telling to a low, we already have enough OOC and IC trolling and competition without bouts of 'who can report more players of the other guys team to the mods.'

I'd like this discussion to remain civil and about the IC/OOC issue. Watch yourselves.

Apologies, but there is an open grievance against Brookbank for the very issue he brings up. Dozens and dozens of politically-motivated moderation reports cannot possibly serve the mod staff's purposes.

The "reinstatement" of the OOC/IC distinction took place months ago, and is relatively well maintained. What is being alluded to here is more of the same discussion that went on in the Harassment/PZI thread which Admin closed.

This grievance of yours gives you the right to derail the thread how? You were just told as a group by Justitia to watch yourselves. You followed up her post with exactly what she was warning against. You're treading on very thin ice.


Regarding roleplay etiquette, if people are breaking the well-established rules report them to us. We can't be everywhere and see everything on such an active forum. I personally think that perhaps Alliance Politics and Open World Forum have become indistinguishable in the content of the posts and perhaps we should review the policy. (No ruling here, move along.)

Thank you, this is very similar to what I was trying to say in the OP.

My first statement is that, well, I guess I believe it to be moderations job to enforce the rules, not me or whoever else feels that the IC/OOC line is being terribly broken. I do not believe that it is my responsibility as a player to enforce it.

Secondly, here are some threads/posts that contain what I'm talking about that are active on the first page of the AP section (I only briefly looked through them, I'm NOT reading every page of all posts to find this stuff):

http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=31752
http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?s...0&start=360
http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?s...80&start=80 (Castro discussions? lolwut?)
http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?s...0&start=940 (hermaphrodite? CN politics?)
http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=31683
http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?s...40&start=40 (off topic ftw?)
http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?s...31672&st=40
http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?s...0&start=540 ( <3 V for Vendetta?)

These posts have absolutely nothing to do with what Thorne implies.

Third, if reporting posts IS to be the preferred method for fixing these problems, it would be nice to have the "Forum Abuse" thread be unseen from non-moderation. That at least would prevent the general public of CN from seeing who is "playing the moderation game" and reporting people.

Alden if we can't see that area, we can't report it. That means (assumptions) we would ahve to PM moderaters and I am positive they don't have the time to deal with all those PM's. The current system of things is perfectly fine, in my opinion. Reminders every so often (like the ones recently) are so far working fairly well.

It could work in ways like this forum does (a mod must approve posts here before they are displayed). They could just use it and never approve them to be posted.

With regard to myself, I try to be IC where this is required. On those occasions when I have failed to do so, it has been because I was unaware of which sub-forum I was posting in. And I was warned each time. I've learned my lesson from these technical violations and have not repeated this error in some time now.

The new rule that was put in place allowed for a certain flexibility on the part of those making posts. Those who abuse this can be -- and presumably have been -- reported and/or warned.

Once the report is made, though, it becomes an issue for Moderators to deal with. Those who feel they have been warned are always free to seek an immediate appeal (which occasionally works) or to appeal after thirty days have passed, provided they haven't received another warn in the meantime.

Really now. What's the issue?

In my opinion, Alliance Politics is used a bit much for OOC discussion, which in a large part seems to result from the fact that this game is often moved by OOC grievances. And then we suffer talk about "re-rolls" and harassment and mocking statements about "nerdrage".

On the other hand, the Open World Forum is often used as an IC discussion forum, which seems to be due to the fact that people want to discuss policy and theory there, or make IC statements directed towards a certain alliance or group of alliances, things that don't necessarily fall under the category of Alliance Politics or the other sub-forums.

I do think a better enforcement of the line would be a more positive influence on the quality of the game, but I distinctly recall influential players stating that they don't make the distinction or want to when a similar topic to this one was discussed a few months ago.

I can certainly understand Alden's point when it comes to making report areas private, as I know in the past players have been threatened for reporting certain "influential" players. As for Josef's talk of the open grievance about me, for a while I sent all of my reports in personal messages to the moderators out of fear of being attacked, so the NPO and co. have a false impression about how I do my reporting. Sword of Estel already covered this issue in the thread reporting me for "using mods," so I would appreciate if people would stop bringing it up.

I think more than anything players place threads where they believe they will get the most views and attention. Users post threads that would otherwise be in-character but do not belong in Alliance Politics in the OWF simply because that is where it will get the most attention. In fact, these should (almost always) go in Global Politics, which is meant to be a sort of "In-character Open World", but a quick look at the front page of that forum reveals that threads there receive very little attention. I think this is where the enforcement issue crops up most: in ensuring IC threads in OWF get moved to the proper forum.

Otherwise, it comes down to what Justitia and Thoreau have already covered: if you see something that is breaching the IC/OOC barrier, report it. Especially in times like these where topics can reach 20 or more pages in a matter of hours it is very difficult for the moderation staff to be expected to see everything that goes on. If you don't feel comfortable reporting publicly, feel free to PM a moderator (please follow the report guidelines in the Report Forum Abuse subforum, though).

I think Alden Peterson has the right idea. I know that some forums support a format that only allows users to view their own posts, and while suspended I've seen that this is applied to the No Nation banned mask. If the Forum and Game Abuse threads can be set so that users can only view their own threads, then it would be beneficial.

As to reporting things as we see them come up - I don't see how we're to do that in good faith given two factors:
1. Players threatening other players. I know first hand that people like Barakady, myself, Doitzel, and Jonathan Brookbank have all received threats over reporting the "wrong" people - your own PM Inbox has suffered the results of this type of intimidation.
2. Players shutting other players up with "mod weapon" claims. When it comes down to it, only moderators have a duty to neutrality - if I open a thread you bet I'm going to report people in it if they break the rules; if 1 person does, then 1 report, if 22, then 22 reports. But if users have to worry that by reporting large numbers of legitimate rule-breakers they're going to get suspended, then people will get away with breakign the rules because I can't risk getting banned by being punished for holding people accountable.

These two things go to the discussion over IC/OOC because besides outright flaming, "IC in an OOC forum" was one of the more common infractions before we changed the rules so people don't get banned for saying "Redsox suck" in the AP forum and other such examples. The motivation behind changing relaxing the rules was good: decrease the likelihood that someone gets banned for what is (in some people's view) a "minor" offense. In the end, however, all this relaxation has done is confuse users and cause even more OOC posting beyond the already lengthened leeway.

You were told to drop the side conversation twice now, once by Justitia and then again by Thoreau after he said something to Josef Thorne for doing the same exact thing you just did. This topic isn't about you and your bringing it back up after being told not to is, if anything, encouraging people to respond to your post with continued off topic discussion.

So...where do you all feel the problem is? Is it in the way of reporting these infractions, or is there a problem with the RP rules themselves?

As for the being able to only see your own threads, I believe that goes per usergroup and not per forum.

I feel that there is a problem with the RP rules themselves. Our alliances are IC creations. Even transplants like NPO or GOONS with OOC bases created an IC entity for the purposes of playing CN. Does Children of Ra draw on Earth history? Yes, obviously. Does that mean because there as no ancient Digiterran Egyptian civilization that CoR can't talk about mummies without being OOC? No, that's silly. But, it does make some things sticky, and that's why you mods get paid the big bucks. I cited "redsocks suck" earlier. SoxNation made a post, electron_sponge said "socks suck" (or similar) and there was an OOC-in-IC report. SoxNation obviously introduced the concept of the "sox," but the RedSocks are not IC. I use this example because it happened right about the time that Moderation relaxed the AP forum rules and it's a good example of the stickiness involved in determining rulings on these reports (I don't know or care to guess what the ruling in that case was).

Stickiness is coupled with another problem with the rules. The vast majority of players either refuse to or are simply horrible at roleplay. As such, in my opinion, they should figure it out to avoid gettign warned - not the opposite way of changing the rules, which only serves (and has served) to contribute to further decay of the environment and confusion with the rules. As Snape mentioned, many people simply don't know where to post or post without regard to the rules but only in consideration of viewcount. If everyone ceased to stop at red lights should we abolish red lights? No. In presence of disregard for rules, education is increased and enforcement is done in full view so that people get the picture.

If you all will remember, this change came about when Mean Mr Mustard, Sam Gerard, and Megabyte first came on the scene. They (apparently) were warning people for OOC-in-an-IC forum with more frequency and/or strictly than the community was used to, and people threw a fit. But why did they throw fits? Because they value their low warn level greater than they value the rules set forth by Admin and Moderation. Do people that amass speeding tickets set the speed limit? No. And nor should people who got legitimately warned set the IC/OOC line - because they are the very people who would abolish it. They already do it in gameplay.

At the end of the day, this is a RP game. That doesn't mean everyone has to become a radical or prolific RPer, but it should mean that there are lines - real lines - between our characters and ourselves.

I'd like to continue reading what everyone has to say on this subject, but do want to mention we have actually been giving out a disappointingly high number of warnings for offenses of this nature so it is being enforced at least on the individual level as much as is humanly possible. The individual warns and even posted moderation warnings don't seem to do much about the overall problem however so I agree this warrants further discussion.

You are welcome to PM mods with reports at any time using the chain of command: http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=18 - (make sure you use this and start with the forum mods specializing in the area of your concern first and follow the instructions from there. If you write the wrong mod you very likely won't get a response and it will probably be because our inboxes are jammed full of other misplaced reports).

One last note, the moderation team in general started enforcing the RP rules more strictly (aka as the rules were written) upon one of our recent influx of new awesome mods. While we did receive complaints we didn't change the rule based on any protest/fit-throwing, we received about the same amount of positive feedback from serious RPers and new players regarding the enforcement. We re-evaluated the rules based on the style and habits of the community and came to the current rules as a compromise of both sides of sorts. Now that the lines are clearly blurred again it's another good time to re-evaluate the system.

Skip the warns and start banning people. You guys know who the big offenders are. I guarantee people toe the line once they see a few of their buddies disappear.

I recently reported a slew of posts as recommended by first Thoreau, and later (after I had reported them) by Snape. As such I feel I can comment on this matter rather intimately in light of the fact that two moderators recommended I take that exact course of action:



I was directly threatened yesterday on IRC with in-game consequences as a result of one of my reported posts.



This is so incredibly true from my perspective too. I was given a warning and suspension by a moderator "for using moderators as weapons by reporting all rivals for trivial or minor forum infractions. You have made at least 30 topics in order to get people in the opposing side warned. While we do encourage people reporting forum violations, you have taken it to far, to the point of using it to gain a tactical advantage over people." It's also interesting to note that the PM message I got had a number much closer to my actual post number, whereas my warning on the forum account says "50."

Without getting into mod bias comments how can you (moderation) expect people to post any significant number of reports when they have to deal with the above? I cannot do anything other than appeal that warn normally, which I intend to do, even though the moderator lied in my forum account warning? Any claim along those lines becomes a "mod bias" and bannable offense... and even in the event I do successfully appeal it my in-game nation is still at risk.

Until this matter is cleared up I am not intending to report a post again. Not only do I have to fight threats from players I report for in-game repercussions but I report posts at the risk of getting myself banned. As much as I would like to report posts violating forum rules, because I would love to see an IC again, I am not going to do so at a risk of no longer playing this game. For moderation to expect otherwise from players is unreasonable. It's simply not worth it for us players.

With respect to this topic, I should not have to ensure I report an equal number of people from one "side" for OOC/IC (or any) violations or risk getting warned/suspended/banned for using "moderation as weapons." If only one alliance is using OOC content in the AP section and I report them I should NOT be punished for reporting only them. What Shat said above "When it comes down to it, only moderators have a duty to neutrality" is also very true. I'm only going to report posts from threads I read. I'm going to read threads that directly pertain to me for the most part, meaning most of my report posts are going to be related to those threads, because those are the ones I'm reading. If you want to fix the problem of too many "warnfree" forum violations, either one of the following needs to be done:

--MUCH more intensive active moderation

or

--Changing the report system somehow so players can report without fearing warnings/bans/in-game destruction

I'll gladly report 50 violations a day if I don't have to worry about being warned/banned/suspended by moderation or destroyed in-game by those I report.



I wholeheartedly agree with this. Allow a more lenient appeals process for warnings over "middle ground" posts (so that upstanding players to not get banned for 'minor' offenses that they can successfully defend) if necessary. Posters with 80% warning should not have to fear posting anything in the AP section lest it be considered OOC, but at the same time, they should at least consider that they will get warned for posting in violation of forum rules.

Something this far, I don't think, is needed. Unless your talking about a temporary ban that lasts say a week. What people need to start to realize is that there are rules to follow and if you don't you're going to get punished. People have been pushing the line for a while now, using real life quotes, among othe various things. The only way I see stricter moderation is if the players themselves start reporting offenses more. There should be a rule about threatening people over reporting with IC actions, if there isn't already one.

To the best of my knowledge there is not. Moderation has repeatedly said they will not moderate in-game war declarations.

The last few days I have been searching the AP forum for OOC in IC forum violations. I believe some people have noticed

Ah but if your threatened for reporting things to moderation, there should be a rule. The threat is said through a medium, the action through the game. Alden, I am sure you PM'd a mod about the threat you recieved because that sort of action shouldn't be tolerated.

I agree with both.

As long as I've been around, people have always been complaining about OOC interfering in IC forums, but IC in OOC forums contributes to the problem just as much. We, as players, need more guidance in separating the two. As long as mods allow IC discussions to take place in the OWF, I think we're going to have this problem.

Can we start requesting that obviously IC threads started in the OWF begin getting moved to their proper IC subforums? (Not warning the posters, just moving the threads.) Hardly anyone goes anywhere else besides Alliance Politics for the simple reason that hardly any threads get started elsewhere. If people start seeing their threads get moved to Global Politics, they have to go there to follow them. The more they see their threads in Global Politics, the more likely they'll be to start them there. Same goes for the others.

That way we'll have at least more than one active IC forum.

Examples of what I'm talking about:
http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=32058 (News Reports)
http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=31791 (Global Politics)
http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=31660 (Global Politics)
http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=31319 (National and War)

Try renaming the forums with subtitles --Alliance Politics (IC) and Open World Forum (OOC). That might work too.

Either way, name it clear the AP section is to be IC and the OWF is (intended) to be OOC.

I think it's more that the AP section is becoming OOC than the other way around. Most people choose to make "relevant" IC political posts by individuals in the OWF however, when they really are more News Report type posts.

I wanted to throw my two cents in on this, b/c it is a topic close to my heart. Net net, I support a strong delineation of IC/OOC on the forums, and firm moderator "direction" on those who blatantly cross it. That said, if you bring outside stuff into your RP, then expect consequences ingame if you bring offense to other players with your ingame words, actions and images. Ingame, being the key. If you want to be a Communist, a Redneck or some other "character", prepare to have people dislike your character. This off CN stuff that gets brought in to justify ingame actions sucks IMHO and mods need to stomp on it as I've seen over the last few weeks and beyond.

I have two other points I would like to make, and the first is that I think that threatening someone for reporting you to Moderation should be dealt with extremely harshly, no matter who you are, Player Number 1 or the last player to join. That is total crap and I trust the Mods to deal with that, as it really hurts the RP. If you've done nothing, and get reported, then why are you whining?

Second, and this is a point that my friend greenacres makes to me all the time. Stop the whining about the rules if someone attacks your alliance or your nation. So what if they have a crappy CB or don't give a good reason, there are ingame RP consequences for that, maybe not this second, but eventually it all comes around. The "law" on CN is that when it comes to RP, might makes right, but that seasons change, and everyone gets theirs. If someone with some beef behind them decided that they hate the Pink Sphere ingame, they are more than in their purview to start nuking every Pink nation, ingame. This isn't Sesame Street, there is no independent arbitration of "fair" as far as RP goes. If Big Bird gets his candy stolen by Oscar the Grouch that's just too damn bad.

OBM

They already have that though, and it hasn't done much in regards to prevention.

I have to agree with you there. Since there is no real way to report anonymously without filling a Moderator's inbox, it can be a HUGE risk for someone to actually post a report when they see it happen, out of fear of what retaliation may occur.

I think we have a good system so far. Non-discussion boards for reports, so that it doesn't turn into a huge trollfest, and pretty clear rules about IC/OOC stuff in the other forums. I know I for one have lost track in the heat of the moment and posted something that wasn't entirely IC, or was pushing it, but I think the original idea was to prevent intentional OOC attacks in an IC forum. I think a lot of the time, someone doesn't even know they've done something wrong until they receive the "You've been warned" PM about it.

Perhaps a way to let them know beforehand, in case it was simply a slip?

actually afaik there are one or two mods that can be added to IP.Board that can act as a report box that can be limited so that only people who start reports and staff can see them...

The issue of IC threats over reports to moderation is another example of the erosion of the IC/OOC line and the lengths people seem to be willing to take. Its an extreme example but one that makes the game not so much fun for a good number of people and which (as seen in this thread) actually discourages people from posting the much needed reoprts to moderation...

I would like to add a couple of comments to this discussion:

* I personally gave up reporting infractions a long time ago, due to the hassle involved as mentioned by other posters, threats, etc... from other ppl due to the reports. I strongly support the moderation forum being changed so that you can only see topics you started and no-one else's. This will allow people to report freely and accurately without any fear of retribution. Until something like that is implemented, it seems fairly obvious there is a large part of the community who would (and did used to) help the mods enforce the rules by reporting infractions of them, but do not do so any more and are unwilling to do so until a better system is implemented to manage the reporting process itself. I am pretty certain that this forum already supports the ability to implement this, if so I see no reason why this should not be considered.

* I wholeheartedly agree that IC posts in OOC areas are just as much part of the problem as OOC posts in IC areas. While i agree the visibility factor of OWF is part of the problem, I have always felt that the other sub-forums in OWF (with the exception of AP) are misunderstood by players, including myself to this day still i am ashamed to admit, and thus not posted in very often or viewed very often. I would like to see the number of sub-forums in OWF reduced and have the rules simplified as to what should be posted where, and then strictly enforce moving of topics, but only warn repeat offenders. I would even go so far as to support forcing moderation approval of new topics in all IC and OOC areas to make sure topics posted in the wrong area could be moved before being approved, although i know the majority of the community would not be happy with that way of handling the issue. The fact is though some of us are fed up enough with the current situation that such an extreme would not bother me personally at all.

Quoted for insane relevancy. At present it seems moderation reports are only ever filed by someone who is arguing and then decides to use the mod squad as a tool to attack their adversary. I don't really think this should be encouraged.

The trouble is that making reference to real world literature etc has gotten me OOC warned. I think that is stupid (hope I don't get reported for veiled baiting again for using the word stupid). If literary reference, historical reference, etc are eliminated in RP discussion then RP discussion becomes inherently watered down. What about names that make these references? I asked these questions to the mod that warned me over them... and surprise... s/he did not respond.

After reading the stickies I am still not sure how you guys determine what counts as a veiled bait, a bait, a troll, a flame or whatever you want to call it. Are there any set criteria? Or if something someone said just seems plain ol' mean you warn the person who said it? I made a thread in the suggestion box but it seems to have been erased entirely... not locked... but just gone.

I am not trying to even plead my innocence but I am trying to avoid constantly butting heads with the mod squad over these issues. And quite honestly if I have to RP nice all the time I will probably stop posting because in a game dominated by war RP without insults seems... I don't want to risk saying it twice.

I would suggest more direct moderator moderation in the IC forums rather than encouraging snitching out whomever you don't like. This only breeds resentment and further aggravates relations between people and opens the doorway to more flaming and eventually banishment.

That's because real world literature is OOC- it's the same reason nobody's allowed to reference Hitler IC. Sharing a name with a RL historical figure is nothing more than coincidence as far as RP is concerned.

IC posts have to draw from IC history, which is made by the players. If we want more history, we need to RP more.

Do we have to invent our own language too? There are so many historical allusions and words that people are using daily that people don't even realize. It is impossible to police. If I have a Kierkegaard quote and post 5 times in an IC forum do I deserve to be permanently banned from the game for it? lol. Obviously I think not.

People aren't going to re-write philosophical treatises (and if they did it'd be illegal not to cite the original author) and so that means they are completely not allowed? Military maneuvers named after specific people are out too I suppose? If someone says they got "jipped" they are making a reference to a real world term based on a slur against Roma people due to their nomadic lifestyle and perceived thefts and deserve 20% warn for it?

I dunno, I think you need to relax the rules around references to common history and culture. They are too common to even keep tabs on and so enforcing them simply means arbitrarily punishing people for not being obscure enough in their ooc references.

In any case a specific note about this should be added to the forum rules because many role-playing communities allow common historical references.

I'm just going to throw my lot in with this post, as both points apply 100% to myself as well. I have been threatened before for posting rule violation reports, as well as being warned/suspended for filing reports. It basically is to the point where you can't feel safe in game or on the forums when you post rule violations.

I believe it's the method of reporting. As long as moderators won't step in to police in game war declarations, those of us who are willing to help the moderators make sure people follow the rules are in danger of being attacked. It has been seen time and time again.

I don't think it's necessary to "skip" the warns, but not allowing so many repeat offenders the chance to appeal their high level warns/bans would certainly be a step in the right direction.

You were warned for no such thing. We're less likely to throw a warning for using literature terms and more likely for using terms such as "real nations do X" or "in the real world, you wouldn't do this."

When it comes to "loose RP" we do allow historical terms to a point. I would consider anything Victorian or earlier to be perfectly fine. However, we are cracking down on other issues because of the OOC ramifications - the German Workers' Party (by their better-known alias) is a supreme example of this.

Again - if you are having trouble with being attacked for reporting problems then PM a mod about it. If it's in the OWF or subforums, PM a RP Mod, if it's in the Water Cooler, Open Alliance and Team Forum or other subforums, PM a Community Mod. If you're unsure of it, check who the forum is led by and go from there. We do what we can to police posts and threads, but with the number of posts reaching 860,000 on this site there is no guarantee that we are going to catch it before you do.

Sounds like a reasonable position on the historical reference deal. Things obviously get touchy in the 20th century.

I am getting a better idea of due process here and expect I won't have these issues again.

I had my RL email, in-game account and forum account hacked a longgg time ago for openly reporting a violation (luckily I was able to retrieve all three with the help of support staff and the moderation team.) Needless to say, I somewhat sympathize with those crying foul over repercussions for reporting infractions. However, the problem comes when the 'reporting' player is already using the moderation staff as an OOC means in response to IC defeat etc, which seems to be the main way reports are generated these days, by all involved sides.

Other than the way it is currently done, with moderators distinguishing on a case by case basis whether or not a player is using moderation as a OOC tool, there is only way I can think of that would result in greater moderation of IC forums while not resulting in 'who can warn the other side more'-fests like we have currently. It's simple; hire more moderators, and remove entirely the 'report forum abuse' subforum. Perhaps even go outside the community, and 'hire' foreign moderators to ensure fair and unbiased rulings, as well as consistent coverage of all forums and subforums.

Without a massive increase in the size of the moderation team, we seem to be stuck with the imperfect (yet still semi-functional) system we currently have.

Hiring outside moderators was actually something that I was tossing around as an idea earlier, but didn't post it.

Hate to break it to you all, we have 5 moderators who no longer play the game and have no ingame ties. So your idea of hiring moderators has already technically been in place for some time, minus the hiring or getting paid part.

Oh I didn't mean to insinuate that the current moderator staff was biased, I was going on the assumption that it might be difficult to find additional moderator-quality members from within our community. Hiring moderators wasn't the core of my argument; simply the idea of an expanded moderator team to remove the need for community members to report infractions (which devolves into the weaponization of the moderator team).

That scale of employment is unfeasable. Whether it is popular or not, having the players report infractions that we do not catch on a 'first strike' basis is preferable - and they can report it to us privately if they fear retribution. If you are going to continually report one of your enemies, then it is not a far cry to assume they will retaliate in kind, or worse. That is why the private message system is so useful.

Please take note that the last two players to report more than one or two posts at a time had accounts suspended, were warned, and their appeals denied without reason given or response to PMs.

To expect players to want to do what you ask as a "preferable" solution... I'd have no problem reporting large amounts of forum violations but am not going to do so at the risk of being warned/banned from Cybernations as easily as has happened.

Basically what it comes down to is this:

To "fix" the "problems" (those are both relative terms that not all may agree are appropriate or necessary) either moderation needs to be more aggressive in searching for rules violations, which I believe from this thread Justitia has been doing, and I thank you for that, or moderation needs to modify how reporting works.

One of those has to happen to solve the problem of too much OOC in IC parts of the forum.

Considering the number and target of those players' warnings, I stand by Moderation's decision that we were being used as weapons, especially as those infractions wouldn't even register as 'minor' on the scale.

That is the major difference that I believe is being ignored. It is not a flame if someone disagrees with you. It is not a troll if someone disagrees with you consecutively. It does not merit a warn if someone says 'damn'. Throwing threads numbering near fifty at us with these infractions will get you a reversal of fortune, pardon the term.

The CyberNations Staff should not and will not be used to win a pithy argument between two players trying to wage some sort of propaganda war. If the infractions are actually serious and they fear retribution, then they will not receive said retribution from the Game Staff. Is that clear enough to understand?

Perhaps rather than just closing threads in the future, if moderators would respond with a "this is too minor and does not actually break any rules" rather than just closing it, people would realize they are reporting what mods consider "minor." I have reported well over 100 rule violations within the last 5 months or so and have never been informed that there was any problem with the "quality" of my reports. A large portion of my reports were things such as "o/" or "Hail x!" which are one word/spam posts that are rule breaking no matter who does it, regardless of alliance affiliation or whether or not they're "on my side."

Basically, if you do not like what people are reporting, perhaps it is time for something other than "Thanks" to be a reply to a report, so that people will know what is considered "major" enough to be breaking the rules. I know that would certainly have helped me, because after Sword of Estel herself, the head moderator, posted that there were no problems with my reports, I was under the impression that there were no problems with my reports.

This has pretty much become a discussion of form, on how to handle reports, cases and such.

But I am having a difficult time in seeing what exactly is the problem. It can't obviously be for the protection of role playing, if so many people are getting warned for it, it shows a tendency that this community doesn't for the set of rules that are being imposed on them. After all the rules are there to punish the most over-the-top violations of the mainstream behavior of the community.

All in all, I simply cannot understand this IC/OOC separation issue, and yes I've read most of the debates over it and about it. 90% of the people playing have no idea who they are playing with, a name or an age, even information on where they live does not mean they KNOW the person, so how can there be legitimate OOC grievances in this game?