Difference between revisions of "Hogsweat deletion controversy"
(Cleared up the confusion over the join date, added a major argument of the pro-Hogsweat side that had been neglected and gave a more accurate account of how many mods were allies of Hogsweat.) |
(Added rebuttal section) |
||
| Line 9: | Line 9: | ||
Nations supporting the deletion of Hogsweat claim that the rules were violated and that Hogsweat should have contacted the Mods prior to such a radical action in order to refound Haven. Some further claim that their opponents use [[Wikipedia:Logical fallacy|fallacious arguments]] such as [[Wikipedia:Appeal to pity|Appeal to pity]] and [[Wikipedia:Appeal to popularity|Appeal to popularity]] when they argue that many of Hogsweat's defenders were leaving and Hogsweat was popular. | Nations supporting the deletion of Hogsweat claim that the rules were violated and that Hogsweat should have contacted the Mods prior to such a radical action in order to refound Haven. Some further claim that their opponents use [[Wikipedia:Logical fallacy|fallacious arguments]] such as [[Wikipedia:Appeal to pity|Appeal to pity]] and [[Wikipedia:Appeal to popularity|Appeal to popularity]] when they argue that many of Hogsweat's defenders were leaving and Hogsweat was popular. | ||
| − | ==Position | + | ===Rebuttal=== |
| + | |||
| + | Nations against the deletion of Hogsweat say that Hogsweat should be given a second chance, that he wasn't griefing, that he had no malicious intent, and other arguments described below. | ||
| + | |||
| + | ==Position against of the deletion of Hogsweat== | ||
The anti-deletion position can be summed up as a kind of revolt against the Moderation staff and the current contextual use of gameplay rules. Some of Hogsweat's defenders argue that the griefing rules themselves should be changed. Others, using various lines of argument, claim that Hogsweat's actions did not constitute griefing. Most of these arguments come from the fact that Hogsweat claimed to have had no malicious intent and alledge that no rule stated in the "One Stop Rules Shop" had been breached. | The anti-deletion position can be summed up as a kind of revolt against the Moderation staff and the current contextual use of gameplay rules. Some of Hogsweat's defenders argue that the griefing rules themselves should be changed. Others, using various lines of argument, claim that Hogsweat's actions did not constitute griefing. Most of these arguments come from the fact that Hogsweat claimed to have had no malicious intent and alledge that no rule stated in the "One Stop Rules Shop" had been breached. | ||
| + | |||
| + | ===Rebuttal=== | ||
| + | |||
| + | Nations who held a pro-deletion stance argued that the mods had made a decision and that was the end of it, that it was illegal per the One Stop Rules Shop to eject large numbers of nations from a region, whether or not you are an invader, that the anti-deletion protesters were making fallacious complaints, and other arguments described above. | ||
==Mod position== | ==Mod position== | ||
Revision as of 11:14, 20 November 2005
On October 15, 2005, Hogsweat was deleted after ejecting large numbers of natives from the region of Haven, where it had been UN Delegate for several months, in order to refound the region. The Mods were notified, probably by an automated system, that natives were being ejected from Haven, and a Game Moderator deleted Hogsweat after much discussion as to whether or not its actions constituted griefing.
Hogsweat was a very popular nation, and its deletion was met with outrage by many of its allies, and even enemies and those who had had little or no contact with Hogsweat prior to the deletion. Several protest threads were posted on International Incidents, but these were eventually locked by the Mods, which to the opponents of the deletion merely proved their point. NSWiki pages were vandalized with phrases decrying the deletion, sometimes in extremely offensive language. Mods were threatened and cursed for deleting Hogsweat, and one of the Mods' nations even briefly changed its title to "The Fascist Ayatollah Posing as a Mod" in response to an outraged nation whose sig vitriolically condemned the deletion. Many respected nations left after the perceived injustice.
After a few days, the furor itself gradually died down, but many nations still make reference to Hogsweat in the sigs, mostly on International Incidents. Oddly, the nation of Hogsweat was created in November 2003, but most sigs honoring the nation say "RIP Hogsweat, March '03 - October '05." This is because Hogsweat was originally founded in March 2003 but then died and was revived in November 2003, with the then forums not accounting for the original join date.
Contents
Position for the deletion of Hogsweat
Nations supporting the deletion of Hogsweat claim that the rules were violated and that Hogsweat should have contacted the Mods prior to such a radical action in order to refound Haven. Some further claim that their opponents use fallacious arguments such as Appeal to pity and Appeal to popularity when they argue that many of Hogsweat's defenders were leaving and Hogsweat was popular.
Rebuttal
Nations against the deletion of Hogsweat say that Hogsweat should be given a second chance, that he wasn't griefing, that he had no malicious intent, and other arguments described below.
Position against of the deletion of Hogsweat
The anti-deletion position can be summed up as a kind of revolt against the Moderation staff and the current contextual use of gameplay rules. Some of Hogsweat's defenders argue that the griefing rules themselves should be changed. Others, using various lines of argument, claim that Hogsweat's actions did not constitute griefing. Most of these arguments come from the fact that Hogsweat claimed to have had no malicious intent and alledge that no rule stated in the "One Stop Rules Shop" had been breached.
Rebuttal
Nations who held a pro-deletion stance argued that the mods had made a decision and that was the end of it, that it was illegal per the One Stop Rules Shop to eject large numbers of nations from a region, whether or not you are an invader, that the anti-deletion protesters were making fallacious complaints, and other arguments described above.
Mod position
In the end, the Mods' position is the only one of relevance, much to the chagrin of many on both sides. They believe that Hogsweat griefed, and a minority of them were long-time allies of Hogsweat, but felt that the nation must be deleted to avoid a semblance of Mod bias.
