Attempted weaponizing of moderation

[ComradeMilton]

Nation Link: https://politicsandwar.com/nation/id=97760

Ruler Name: Isjaki

Nature of Violation: Attempting to use personal objections (or fictional objections) to a category of economics against some nations who are theming in-game in a SFW manner, Soviet, or even philosophical leaders, for in-game advantage.  Particularly odd as communism and Marx are not forbidden by the forum rules.

Instances:

 

 

 

 

 

I assume these will all be denied as they're within the rules, but I did want to point out the attempted use of moderation as a weapon as these nations all seem to belong to alliances or associated alliances of an alliance that opposes Isjaki's.

 

@Isjaki tag so he can quote the rule forbidding any of this.

 

[Chief Wiggum]

"Moderation as a Weapon: Using (or attempting to use) Moderation as a Weapon is against the rules and punishable by a nation strike. An example of using (or attempting to use) Moderation as a Weapon is threatening to report another player to an Administrator or Moderator unless they comply with your request or demands. If someone is in violation of the Game Rules, you are obligated as a player to notify a Game Administrator (through in-game Messaging)."

• 1. The above rule is mainly referred to Game rules, not Forum ones.
• 2. It also implies that you have indeed broken a rule and another player is threatening you to report you unless you comply with a demand (instead of just reporting you). The goal is to avoid deals under the table and covering rules breaking.

In any case, it's not clear to me how the above reports are "weaponizing" our moderation or are for "in-game advantage". What in-game advantage do you have in mind?

 

[ComradeMilton]

Forcing several nations complying with the rules to alter their theming and graphics to satisfy a personal grudge. Moderation as a weapon would be better describe in the rules as "Threats of Using Moderation as a Weapon" as this skipped threat and proceeded to try to force change against an alliance's members as harassment.  Perhaps skipping the threat negates using it as a weapon, but if I were to describe a bulldozer as weaponized (referring to the Killdozer) that would really be weaponized, whereas if I were threatening to build and use a weaponized Killdozer that's more of a threat of weaponization.

Basically if any of the complaints were successful the object of this complaint will have successfully used moderation as a weapon or harassment. To discount it because it's action not threat seems like something to clarify in the wording to me, but I just bring this to you to make the judgement on.

[Alex]

10 hours ago, ComradeMilton said:

Forcing several nations complying with the rules to alter their theming and graphics to satisfy a personal grudge. Moderation as a weapon would be better describe in the rules as "Threats of Using Moderation as a Weapon" as this skipped threat and proceeded to try to force change against an alliance's members as harassment.  Perhaps skipping the threat negates using it as a weapon, but if I were to describe a bulldozer as weaponized (referring to the Killdozer) that would really be weaponized, whereas if I were threatening to build and use a weaponized Killdozer that's more of a threat of weaponization.

Basically if any of the complaints were successful the object of this complaint will have successfully used moderation as a weapon or harassment. To discount it because it's action not threat seems like something to clarify in the wording to me, but I just bring this to you to make the judgement on.

No one was forced to change anything, and if he had been "successful" that would have meant they were in violation of the rules in the first place and that the report was legitimate.

While the multitude of reports from @Isjaki was annoying and time-consuming, I don't know that it violated any rules.

Further reports now that it has been made clear that communism, etc. are not against the rules will likely face a warning for spam.