NationStates Jolt Archive

Do you want a forum that is respecting total freedom of speech?



Why not having a separated forum on the main page?

A freedom of speech zone that is dark, sinister, dirty and MOD free.

It would be a nice experiment and I’m not sure if it would work, such an anarchistic forum…

What do you think?

There are good reasons to have a moderated section:

• It prevent flames
• They kick out spam
• They delete illegal or unlawful things (such as promoting child porn or racism)
• …

And that’s all good.

In my opinion in a moderator-poor channel, these entire things should continue.

But in the moderator-rich channels they do more:

• Allow racism, ‘cause it fits in their line of thinking, like: http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=542000
• Delete threads ‘cause they just don’t like it
• Adjust polls, like they did with the one in this thread (the last option, wasn’t created by me)
• Protect ‘old’ posters, by allowing that they flame or perform personal insults, which is strictly forbidden for new ones.
• Discourage new ones to have a different opinion as the average moderator his/her opinion.

I understand that the moderators don’t like the idea. It is reducing their privileges and nobody likes that.

You’ll see in the thread below by the personal attacks, the insults and the abuse of their ‘power’ (oh well), the modifications of the poll (maybe the results as well?) how particular they don’t like it.

It would turn into a dark realm of terrifying dickwaving and flaming. Hell, that even happens out in the open.

No because people are stupid, the more restrictions on them spreading their stupid the better. Frankly the mods here aren't particularly restrictive.

I think that going for total freedom of speech (and insults, hate speech etc) will cause legal troubles to Jolt.

Something like the spam forum, only that instead of no mods ever checking there because its a waste of time, no mods checking there because they're not supposed to?

It would turn into a dark realm of terrifying dickwaving and flaming. Hell, that even happens out in the open.

Maybe. But what's wrong with that?

A sign near the door could warn the accidental curious visitor

Warning !!!

You’re entering a free speech zone.

What you’ll see could offend you.

big bolded text shows I'm right

We could use some moderation about font sizes.

I think that going for total freedom of speech (and insults, hate speech etc) will cause legal troubles to Jolt.

Is Jolt based in US?

Is Jolt based in US?
Which United State has the abbreviation UK?

We could use some moderation about font sizes.

You can use your mousewheel and the ctrl-button to get the fontsize smaller. :)

No because people are stupid, the more restrictions on them spreading their stupid the better. Frankly the mods here aren't particularly restrictive.

I don't know what mods you are talking about.

Also, edited your large text in the quote, because the modzis like to get on to people for large text.

Lovely poll.

Honey, if you want "dark, sinister, dirty and MOD free" there's only about a billion other webpages and fora to pick from. Why don't you, you know, go and check them out?

We really wouldn't want to be holding you back or anything.

Lovely poll.

Honey, if you want "dark, sinister, dirty and MOD free" there's only about a billion other webpages and fora to pick from. Why don't you, you know, go and check them out?

We really wouldn't want to be holding you back or anything.

Why? Are you afraid?

I don't know what mods you are talking about.

Also, edited your large text in the quote, because the modzis like to get on to people for large text.

Yeah well they ignore it in signatures (which is why I had to turn them off) and old Eddie here loves to make the first line of every one of his posts fucking huge.

Why? Are you afraid?

Is this your fallback argument for all threads?

I'm waiting for you to start with the "Tok Tok Tooook" crap next

Afraid?



Yes. That it would work.

Why? Are you afraid?
Afraid?

Why? Are you afraid?

WYTYG fears nothing!

Anyways, who needs NS for "dark, anarchic. unmoderated" flame festivals, when you can go to UMP and have unmoderated orgies non stop.

Such a place already exists, the so called asshole of the internet: 4chan /b/. Go there for your dark, sinister, whatever the fuck you're on about.

Such a place already exists, the so called asshole of the internet: 4chan /b/. Go there for your dark, sinister, whatever the fuck you're on about.

I didn't know it was there. But you sound as an expert in asshole business.

Anyways, who needs NS for "dark, anarchic. unmoderated" flame festivals, when you can go to UMP and have unmoderated orgies non stop.

What's UMP?

Union pour un Mouvement Populaire (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Union_for_a_Popular_Movement) ?

I didn't know it was there. But you sound as an expert in asshole business.

Well, it's not really unmoderated, it just has no rules. And I'm not exactly an expert, I still need to lurk moar.

It would turn into a dark realm of terrifying dickwaving and flaming. Hell, that even happens out in the open.
Exactly!! Plus there would be a lot of gratuitous profanity, internet sex, and tons of hateful, angry posts, none of which is conducive to actual debate.

I have been posting here for 3 and 1/2 years and although I don't agree with all the rulings of the Mods, I have enjoyed this forum and the various characters that have made it interesting. :)

Such a place already exists, the so called asshole of the internet: 4chan /b/. Go there for your dark, sinister, whatever the fuck you're on about.

Why waste you time going to /b/ if you are gooing to visit 4chan...everyone knows /s/ is where the party is at ;)

What's UMP?

Union pour un Mouvement Populaire (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Union_for_a_Popular_Movement) ?

UnModerated Paradise, a forum started by someone who used to post here. As I understand it, it's like NSG, but without the mods(hence the name).

Yes. That it would work.
"Work"? What is there to "work"? It's the internet, dude. You can go to a page about cute kittens and find racist/mysoginist/otherwise lobotomized dumbfucks posting their shit in the comments, it's not some sort of achievement to get them to do it.

WYTYG fears nothing!
:p

Maybe. But what's wrong with that?

A sign near the door could warn the accidental curious visitor

Have you ever seen what happens when that becomes the case here, or have you been living under a rock?

How about the incident where Fass and I took a conversation and degenerated it into "I'm better", "No, I'm better", "No, no, I'm better", etc., etc., etc., for four or five pages?

Have you ever seen what happens when that becomes the case here, or have you been living under a rock?

How about the incident where Fass and I took a conversation and degenerated it into "I'm better", "No, I'm better", "No, no, I'm better", etc., etc., etc., for four or five pages?

That it is not harming anyone.

Even when you're monopolizing 4 or 5 pages.

I think I can handle that one, don't you?

Exactly!! Plus there would be a lot of gratuitous profanity, internet sex, and tons of hateful, angry posts, none of which is conducive to actual debate.

I have been posting here for 3 and 1/2 years and although I don't agree with all the rulings of the Mods, I have enjoyed this forum and the various characters that have made it interesting. :)

At last! Something we can agree on! :)

I didn't know it was there. But you sound as an expert in asshole business.
You might want to stop the flaming.

And seriously - you're whining about how you want complete "freedom of speech" and don't know the "pinnacle" of that on the internet? What's up with that?

Exactly!! Plus there would be a lot of gratuitous profanity, internet sex, and tons of hateful, angry posts, none of which is conducive to actual debate.

I have been posting here for 3 and 1/2 years and although I don't agree with all the rulings of the Mods, I have enjoyed this forum and the various characters that have made it interesting. :)

Ah no! No sex! :p

Why are insults that have no real basis protected by free speech? To me, they aren't, therefore, mods are needed for that. And since they are there, may as well let them clean up the place, too. :)

That it is not harming anyone.

Even when you're monopolizing 4 or 5 pages.

I think I can handle that one, don't you?

Could the server handle all of us spamming to our hearts content? I doubt it very much, it struggles as is.

Hah. All this time away from NS and I forgot one of the primary arguments against an NS Free Speech forum: Nationstates gets used by schools and all threads need to be PG-13.

You might want to stop the flaming.

And seriously - you're whining about how you want complete "freedom of speech" and don't know the "pinnacle" of that on the internet? What's up with that?

Someone else started earlier:

Originally Posted by Ifreann
Such a place already exists, the so called asshole of the internet: 4chan /b/. Go there for your dark, sinister, whatever the fuck you're on about.

Btw, I'm not whining, but you are. You're suggesting I have to move and you just threaded me.

All what I did, was starting a debate and in my initial posting I added the remark that I was not sure if it would work out.

You are not debating the issue, you just want to get rid of me. :)

I really, really, DESPERATELY, need a MOD to decide what’s good for my eyes.
And it saves loads of money on brain-bleach.

Could the server handle all of us spamming to our hearts content? I doubt it very much, it struggles as is.

Jolt would implode.


Btw, anyone else ever find the irony that the server is named Jolt, but the forums certainly don't "jolt" along.

Could the server handle all of us spamming to our hearts content? I doubt it very much, it struggles as is.

A few lines, a few characters? Yes, I think it could

Which United State has the abbreviation UK?Uber-Kansas, duh

Hah. All this time away from NS and I forgot one of the primary arguments against an NS Free Speech forum: Nationstates gets used by schools and all threads need to be PG-13.

And many of them are not PG-13...

Uber-Kansas, duh

I lol'd

Jolt would implode.


Btw, anyone else ever find the irony that the server is named Jolt, but the forums certainly don't "jolt" along.

I don't believe you.

A few lines, a few characters? Yes, I think it could

Then you're probably mistaken. Perhpas you've been fortunate and never been on when they happened, but the jolt servers regularly get 'database errors', and their internal clocks still aren't synchronised. If generalites were free to spam as much as we wanted, the servers would be fucked.

I don't believe you.

Well, I don't believe ewe.

Then you're probably mistaken. Perhpas you've been fortunate and never been on when they happened, but the jolt servers regularly get 'database errors', and their internal clocks still aren't synchronised. If generalites were free to spam as much as we wanted, the servers would be fucked.But we are allowed to do so. That's what the spam forum is there for. We just don't.

Then you're probably mistaken. Perhpas you've been fortunate and never been on when they happened, but the jolt servers regularly get 'database errors', and their internal clocks still aren't synchronised. If generalites were free to spam as much as we wanted, the servers would be fucked.


Ok. We can remove the spam. The real spam. Commercial stuff.

But when someone started up a thread about a real meaningless issue then few people are interested and the thread would 'die' rather fast...

And thus not consuming that much bandwidth.

I don't think that actual storage space is a problem, isn't?

I would love to have a forum that more completely respected freedom of speech. I would happily resign my position as a Moderator if such a forum here on NS were apparently practicable and worthwhile.

But since there are certain folks who can't behave themselves, and other folks who can't handle those folks and behave badly in return or leave for trivial and petty reasons, such forums generally end up being worthless.

Unless you actually enjoy the internet equivalent of cesspools. In which case, go to the site previously mentioned in this thread.

But we are allowed to do so. That's what the spam forum is there for. We just don't.
I still don't get why we don't, but if there were a mod free forum here it'd get a lot more traffic than jolt's spam forum.
Ok. We can remove the spam. The real spam. Commercial stuff.

But when someone started up a thread about a real meaningless issue then few people are interested and the thread would 'die' rather fast...

And thus not consuming that much bandwidth.

I don't think that actual storage space is a problem, isn't?

Clearly you didn't notice the thread about cheese. It got pretty big. Got locked in the end, I think.


Anyway, why do you think it'd be good to have a mod free forum?

That it is not harming anyone.

Even when you're monopolizing 4 or 5 pages.

I think I can handle that one, don't you?

It certainly doesn't help discussion and debate, which is kinda the purpose for fora like this one.

Someone else started earlier:
Uh... yes? You replied to that, remember?

Btw, I'm not whining, but you are.
I am? Who is feeling all oppressed by the ebil moderators again?

You're suggesting I have to move
I didn't suggest you "have to move" - I suggested that, seeing how you feel so constrained in your personal freedom of speech here, you might want to think about moving.

and you just threaded me.
I'm guessing that was supposed to read "threatened" - and I'm further guessing it refers to me saying "You might want to stop the flaming"? Oh dear. If you take that as a threat are you really sure you want a "total freedom of speech" forum? Really?

All what I did, was starting a debate and in my initial posting I added the remark that I was not sure if it would work out.

You are not debating the issue, you just want to get rid of me. :)
I am not? Huh. And here I thought I was replying to your posts of "Are you afraid that it would work?".

I would love to have a forum that more completely respected freedom of speech. I would happily resign my position as a Moderator if such a forum here on NS were apparently practicable and worthwhile.

But since there are certain folks who can't behave themselves, and other folks who can't handle those folks and behave badly in return or leave for trivial and petty reasons, such forums generally end up being worthless.

Unless you actually enjoy the internet equivalent of cesspools. In which case, go to the site previously mentioned in this thread.

Ok, I understand that some people can't handle the 'bad' people....

But that's why there should be a warning sign before they click the link then they know what to expect.

Ok, I understand that some people can't handle the 'bad' people....

But that's why there should be a warning sign before they click the link then they know what to expect.

Go to the Chans. You'll see what what you're asking for is like right there.

I still don't get why we don't, but if there were a mod free forum here it'd get a lot more traffic than jolt's spam forum.


Clearly you didn't notice the thread about cheese. It got pretty big. Got locked in the end, I think.


Anyway, why do you think it'd be good to have a mod free forum?

Yes I noticed the thread but it was nothing for me and so didn't re-open it again, nor did I post something in that thread.

And many people were with me.

Look, I don't know anything about the architecture being used, but I assume that when a user is loading a thread, then not the complete entire thread is send to his browser but just one page.

So, the bandwidth waste isn't that hard or am I mistaken?

I once belonged to a free speech forum, want to know what happen when there's no mod on a free speech forum? Sooner or later, someone post kiddie porn on the forum and gets it shut down. Do you really want all of Jolt to be shut down because some dick decides that "freedom of speech" means posting nude pictures of children?

I once belonged to a free speech forum, want to know what happen when there's no mod on a free speech forum? Sooner or later, someone post kiddie porn on the forum and gets it shut down. Do you really want all of Jolt to be shut down because some dick decides that "freedom of speech" means posting nude pictures of children?

That would be so much phail.

I once belonged to a free speech forum, want to know what happen when there's no mod on a free speech forum? Sooner or later, someone post kiddie porn on the forum and gets it shut down. Do you really want all of Jolt to be shut down because some dick decides that "freedom of speech" means posting nude pictures of children?

No, not at all.

But I don't think that such a link would be the end of Jolt.

As a matter of fact, such links were posted here as well.

And few people would be interested in the link, so again, it would fade out soon.

I'm guessing that was supposed to read "threatened" - and I'm further guessing it refers to me saying "You might want to stop the flaming"? Oh dear. If you take that as a threat are you really sure you want a "total freedom of speech" forum? Really?
Thread winning post!! WTG!! :D

That would be so much phail.

It would be phail of a massive proportion, it would be the big bang of phail.

I once belonged to a free speech forum, want to know what happen when there's no mod on a free speech forum? Sooner or later, someone post kiddie porn on the forum and gets it shut down. Do you really want all of Jolt to be shut down because some dick decides that "freedom of speech" means posting nude pictures of children?

And that's what would happen here, too.

Yes I noticed the thread but it was nothing for me and so didn't re-open it again, nor did I post something in that thread.

And many people were with me.

Look, I don't know anything about the architecture being used, but I assume that when a user is loading a thread, then not the complete entire thread is send to his browser but just one page.

So, the bandwidth waste isn't that hard or am I mistaken?
I don't know why the jolt servers keep deciding to suck, but I'm sure that lots more posts wouldn't help. Maybe it wouldn't make a differnece though. I don't know.
No, not at all.

But I don't think that such a link would be the end of Jolt.

As a matter of fact, such links were posted here as well.

And few people would be interested in the link, so again, it would fade out soon.

Ah, but if you fail to ban them, they will come back. Once word gets out that one can post CP and get away with it, the place will be chock full of naked kiddies. And the the party van will roll on up and smite us all.

And you still haven't said why you think a free speech forum would be a good thing. You just seem to be suggesting that it wouldn't be as bad as we think, which isn't much of a defense.

i think their will always be complaints..right now you say the mods are not to restrictive but when they are you will be complaining about the limitations...all in 'all i think i will just sit and ride this one out.
Ride this one out? This little debate had a chance of changing the status quo in any way?

i think their will always be complaints..right now you say the mods are not to restrictive but when they are you will be complaining about the limitations...all in 'all i think i will just sit and ride this one out.

Uh... yes? You replied to that, remember?

Yes, 'cause I don’t need a MOD to defend me.

I didn't say that he is an asshole, I suggested that he is sounding as an asshole expert which is a compliment in the given context.

He knows the asshole of the internet and I don't, so he is the expert;

That's not flaming.


I am? Who is feeling all oppressed by the ebil moderators again?

I'm not. I am just wondering if it would work such a moddless forum.

I didn't suggest you "have to move" - I suggested that, seeing how you feel so constrained in your personal freedom of speech here, you might want to think about moving.

It felt like "move".


I'm guessing that was supposed to read "threatened" - and I'm further guessing it refers to me saying "You might want to stop the flaming"? Oh dear. If you take that as a threat are you really sure you want a "total freedom of speech" forum? Really?

In a moddless forum, no modd would protect the ass of an old friend and threat the new people, isn't?


I am not? Huh. And here I thought I was replying to your posts of "Are you afraid that it would work?".

* Suggesting cynical that I have to move
* Protecting one who is flaming
* Warning me that I am flaming while I'm protecting myself 'cause you didn't do your job.
* Suggesting that I'm stupid

Yeps, you're giving real added value to the debate.

Thread winning post!! WTG!! :D

And what did you win now? The new cd of Britney Spears?

A dinner with the MODS?

Yes, it would be interesting if it hadn't been done countless times before, and failed countless times before.

There are, as has been pointed out, unmoderated forums. Some work, some don't and whether they work or not depends on what you're looking for.

You get what you get here.

No, not at all.

But I don't think that such a link would be the end of Jolt.

As a matter of fact, such links were posted here as well.

And few people would be interested in the link, so again, it would fade out soon.

Yuo weren't around in the days of posters such as Dark Shadowy Nexus were you? The CP would appear and we would all lose out when NS was shut down.

I don't know why the jolt servers keep deciding to suck, but I'm sure that lots more posts wouldn't help. Maybe it wouldn't make a differnece though. I don't know.


Ah, but if you fail to ban them, they will come back. Once word gets out that one can post CP and get away with it, the place will be chock full of naked kiddies. And the the party van will roll on up and smite us all.

And you still haven't said why you think a free speech forum would be a good thing. You just seem to be suggesting that it wouldn't be as bad as we think, which isn't much of a defense.

I think that it would regulate itself, I'm not sure it would but I'm not sure it would be the hell as well. :)

Part of the challenge of being a comedic entertainer is to find where the line is drawn and then to dance around it.

I've been dancing around the line here in NSG for 4 years now. I know I'm a fairly smart person, but I know that I'm not the smartest person here by a country mile. If I can dance around the line, I don't see why other people can't avoid it and still have the conversations they want.Yes, but the line is fuzzy and tends to move...

Yuo weren't around in the days of posters such as Dark Shadowy Nexus were you? The CP would appear and we would all lose out when NS was shut down.

Maybe I was, but not giving that DSN attention.

What did he do?

Part of the challenge of being a comedic entertainer is to find where the line is drawn and then to dance around it.

I've been dancing around the line here in NSG for 4 years now. I know I'm a fairly smart person, but I know that I'm not the smartest person here by a country mile. If I can dance around the line, I don't see why other people can't avoid it and still have the conversations they want.

You're suggesting I have to move and you just threaded me.? They sew your mouth shut?

Maybe I was, but not giving that DSN attention.

What did he do?

He was a lover of the Cee Pee.

Nothing will get you closed down faster than child porn. Well, almost.

It has meandered a bit over the years, yes. Especially in the spam department. I miss the word games and 'Ask a' threads. *nod*I mourn the epic lingerie thread :(

Yes, but the line is fuzzy and tends to move...

It has meandered a bit over the years, yes. Especially in the spam department. I miss the word games and 'Ask a' threads. *nod*

Maybe I was, but not giving that DSN attention.

What did he do?

Argued long and hard for the legalisation of sex with chidren across numerous threads. His arguements were allowed but the rules of the site meant he could not go any further, something I'm fairly glad about.

Ok, but if you all or at least most of you, didn't post in his threads...

Child porn is pretty sick, anyway

Yes, 'cause I don’t need a MOD to defend me.
?

I didn't say that he is an asshole, I suggested that he is sounding as an asshole expert which is a compliment in the given context.

He knows the asshole of the internet and I don't, so he is the expert;

That's not flaming.
Wow. A+ for creativity.

In a moddless forum, no modd would protect the ass of an old friend and threat the new people, isn't?
?

* Suggesting cynical that I have to move
See above. Check.

* Protecting one who is flaming
The fuck? The only one flaming so far in this thread has been you in your post to Ifreann, creative explanation above notwithstanding. What are you talking about?

* Warning me that I am flaming while I'm protecting myself 'cause you didn't do your job.
"Protecting yourself"? From what? From Ifreann informing you about the existance of a "total freedom of speech site"?
And "because [I] didn't do [my] job"? What on earth are you on about?

* Suggesting that I'm stupid
Seriously? When did that happen?

Yeps, you're giving real added value to the debate.
At this level of "understanding" I'm almost afraid I am.

Ok, but if you all or at least most of you, didn't post in his threads...

Child porn is pretty sick, anyway

On the contrary, his threads were some of the longest actual debate threads I've seen on the boards.

Controversial topics always attract posts. My point was that the rules on this forum meant that he was protected from the idiots enough that an actual debate could occur, while also being restricted from going too far himself.

Ok, but if you all or at least most of you, didn't post in his threads...

Child porn is pretty sick, anyway

The problem is that everyone DID post in his threads. Self policing communities like the one you suggest won't work without some form of power behind it.

Yes, 'cause I don’t need a MOD to defend me.
Wuh?

I'm not. I am just wondering if it would work such a moddless forum.
Depends what you want from it, really. If it's a smallish group of people who get on alright, then you'll probably be fine. A forum this size? We'd have trolls posting CP as fast as their computers can handle.

In a moddless forum, no modd would protect the ass of an old friend and threat the new people, isn't?
Nor would the mods be able to delete the epic amounts of gore and CP. Having mods around is something a double edged sword. You risk that they'll abuse their powers, but it's better than the alternative. Besides, if one of the mods abused their powers they'd just be de-modded.


* Suggesting cynical that I have to move
Well if you want to post in an unmoderated forum then you're going to have to go elsewhere to do it, NS doesn't have one.
* Protecting one who is flaming
When have the mods ever done that?
* Warning me that I am flaming while I'm protecting myself 'cause you didn't do your job.
Protecting yourself from what? What can anyone here possibly do to harm you that the mods or flaming them can prevent?

I think that it would regulate itself, I'm not sure it would but I'm not sure it would be the hell as well. :)
Regulate itself how? If there are no mods then you can't bad people, you can't delete or edit posts except you own. If someone started spamming CP on a hypothetical mod-free forum, then what could anyone do to prevent it?
Maybe I was, but not giving that DSN attention.

What did he do?
Sounds like he posted CP and got NS shut down for a while
Part of the challenge of being a comedic entertainer is to find where the line is drawn and then to dance around it.

I've been dancing around the line here in NSG for 4 years now. I know I'm a fairly smart person, but I know that I'm not the smartest person here by a country mile. If I can dance around the line, I don't see why other people can't avoid it and still have the conversations they want.
Not everyone has clown-fu as strong as yours
I mourn the epic lingerie thread :(
It still exists, but I wouldn't post in it, if I were you.

Part of the challenge of being a comedic entertainer is to find where the line is drawn and then to dance around it.

I've been dancing around the line here in NSG for 4 years now. I know I'm a fairly smart person, but I know that I'm not the smartest person here by a country mile. If I can dance around the line, I don't see why other people can't avoid it and still have the conversations they want.
You are the King of safely dancing (http://vids.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=vids.individual&videoID=769969399)here at NSG!! :D

The fuck? The only one flaming so far in this thread has been you in your post to Ifreann, creative explanation above notwithstanding. What are you talking about?


"Protecting yourself"? From what? From Ifreann informing you about the existance of a "total freedom of speech site"?
And "because [I] didn't do [my] job"? What on earth are you on about?

I suspect that Edwinasia was warned for flaming at some point and doesn't really agree with the mod's judgement on the matter.

You are the King of safely dancing (http://vids.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=vids.individual&videoID=769969399)here at NSG!! :D

YAY! :D

Tell me you didn't find yourself dancing along while watching that. ;)

Let's reconstruct a little...

[QUOTE]Such a place already exists, the so called asshole of the internet: 4chan /b/. Go there for your dark, sinister, whatever the fuck you're on about.

This was before I made up my asshole compliment.

If you were working according your 'own' rules, then you should have warn him, at least.

Now, you don't have to, I can handle such language.

You might want to stop the flaming.

And seriously - you're whining about how you want complete "freedom of speech" and don't know the "pinnacle" of that on the internet? What's up with that?

You accuse me for flaming, while I didn't.
Then you're accusing me that I'm whining, while I am not.
And you're suggesting that I'm stupid 'cause I don't know the asshole of the internet, I do know nothing about free speech.

But I don’t see something useful for the debate. It is more or less personal attacks.

Oh and btw, I'm not suggesting to get rid of all moderated forms. I can think about the advantages as well.

I'm just wondering if a moddless extra forum would be that bad.

I suspect that Edwinasia was warned for flaming at some point and doesn't really agree with the mod's judgement on the matter.
So why again is he listing that in this thread, in a reply to me, as something *I* did? Both sides of it, too, from what I gather? :confused:

Ride this one out? This little debate had a chance of changing the status quo in any way?

The only thing that really has a chance of changing the status quo in the direction desired by the OP is individuals choosing not to behave irresponsibly.

Let's reconstruct a little...



This was before I made up my asshole compliment.

If you were working according your 'own' rules, then you should have warn him, at least.

Now, you don't have to, I can handle such language.
Wuh? There's no rules against using the word 'asshole', nor were you being criticised for doing so, if that's what you think.

You accuse me for flaming, while I didn't.
But you can surely see how calling me an asshole expert might appear flame-y
Then you're accusing me that I'm whining, while I am not.
Where?
And you're suggesting that I'm stupid 'cause I don't know the asshole of the internet, I do know nothing about free speech.
Where?


Oh and btw, I'm not suggesting to get rid of all moderated forms. I can think about the advantages as well.

I'm just wondering if a moddless extra forum would be that bad.
It wouldn't add anything, and there are plenty of other, why would jolt bother?
So why again is he listing that in this thread, in a reply to me, as something *I* did? Both sides of it, too, from what I gather? :confused:

I'm not sure. He seems to think that you should be criticising me for using the word 'asshole'.
The only thing that really has a chance of changing the status quo in the direction desired by the OP is individuals choosing not to behave irresponsibly.
I don't think any of us will be holding our breath ;)

Let's reconstruct a little...



This was before I made up my asshole compliment.

If you were working according your 'own' rules, then you should have warn him, at least.

Now, you don't have to, I can handle such language.
Ahhhh... now I see. Important: just because a post contains a "rude word" doesn't mean it's "flaming" - if you call someone a rude word, however, that's flaming.

And you're suggesting that I'm stupid 'cause I don't know the asshole of the internet, I do know nothing about free speech.
:p Hee.

Actually, I wasn't even thinking about insinuating you're stupid in that post. I was expressing major surprise that someone who would so very dearly like to see such a forum created here had never heard of the most infamous ones of that sort. One would think you'd have found it somewhere along the line.

It wouldn't add anything, and there are plenty of other, why would jolt bother?


Yup. UK anti slander laws mean that Jolt are responsible for any slanderous material posted on their boards. Removal of offending material is one of the jobs of the mods. Without them, Jolt would probably be victim to the Big-Scary-Legal-Department of somewhere-or-other.

Why, Edwinasia? So you can further slander me (technically libel), and accuse me of irregular erotic activities? I think not.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?p=13120204&posted=1#post13120204

Yup. UK anti slander laws mean that Jolt are responsible for any slanderous material posted on their boards. Removal of offending material is one of the jobs of the mods. Without them, Jolt would probably be victim to the Big-Scary-Legal-Department of somewhere-or-other.

That too. I can't see jolt volunteering for a lawsuit like that.

Where?

Ifreann, you really should pay better attention to my precious posts!:You might want to stop the flaming.

And seriously - you're whining about how you want complete "freedom of speech" and don't know the "pinnacle" of that on the internet? What's up with that?
I still say he's whining. Mainly because he iiiiiiiiisssss.

Ifreann, you really should pay better attention to my precious posts!:
I still say he's whining. Mainly because he iiiiiiiiisssss.

OIC.
*pays moar attention*
Why, Edwinasia? So you can further slander me (technically libel), and accuse me of irregular erotic activities? I think not.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?p=13120204&posted=1#post13120204

http://209.85.12.231/11055/49/emo/lolani.gif

Yup. UK anti slander laws mean that Jolt are responsible for any slanderous material posted on their boards. Removal of offending material is one of the jobs of the mods. Without them, Jolt would probably be victim to the Big-Scary-Legal-Department of somewhere-or-other.



Well... I don't believe you're allowed to perform racist talks in public in UK.


I often see here racist postings, not deleted by any mod...

Does this mean as well, that the Big-Scary-Legal-Department isn't working that hard on Jolt?

would time warps be included in freedom of speech?

Why, Edwinasia? So you can further slander me (technically libel), and accuse me of irregular erotic activities? I think not.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?p=13120204&posted=1#post13120204

Why not? :)

And btw are you still not sleeping well due that topic? :)

Why not? :)


Because this forum would rapidly degenerate into a cesspool.

(see aforementioned 4chan)

Why not? :)

And btw are you still not sleeping well due that topic? :)

No, I still don't trust you. I don't know what it is you'd care to do with such forum, but I can tell you you can find them elsewhere. NationStates seems perfectly regulated to me. Why must we add-on an additional "free" forum to every damn site online? Plenty of parents , may very well trust this site, and if their kids go on this "free" forum, they might ban their kids from using NS.
And with you proposing this forum, I don't like the sound of it.

Because this forum would rapidly degenerate into a cesspool.

(see aforementioned 4chan)

Are we such pigs?

YAY! :D

Tell me you didn't find yourself dancing along while watching that. ;)
Catchy tune WOT? :D

Are we such pigs?

You have proven yourself one.

Because this forum would rapidly degenerate into a cesspool.

(see aforementioned 4chan)

Actually, a small benefit of 4chan and forced anon is that you can't really target any one poster.

Actually, a small benefit of 4chan and forced anon is that you can't really target any one poster.

Unless you're a tripfag ;)

No, I still don't trust you. I don't know what it is you'd care to do with such forum, but I can tell you you can find them elsewhere. NationStates seems perfectly regulated to me. Why must we add-on an additional "free" forum to every damn site online? Plenty of parents , may very well trust this site, and if their kids go on this "free" forum, they might ban their kids from using NS.
And with you proposing this forum, I don't like the sound of it.


I don't trust you either. Now that's not the issue


It would be an extra forum and thus it could be protected by so called worried parents.

Also, I don't believe it would be hell on Earth. I think it would pretty regulate itself.

Sure, it will be not perfect, but so is a regulated forum as well.

Or do you think that the so called worried parents like it that racist postings with real dumb opinions inside are visible for those so called unprotected children?

Unless you're a tripfag ;)

Well, yeah, but they're asking for it. :p

You have proven yourself one.

No. It says nothing about me.

Which United State has the abbreviation UK?


The 51st.

I don't trust you either. Now that's not the issue


It would be an extra forum and thus it could be protected by so called worried parents.

Also, I don't believe it would be hell on Earth. I think it would pretty regulate itself.

Sure, it will be not perfect, but so is a regulated forum as well.

Or do you think that the so called worried parents like it that racist postings with real dumb opinions inside are visible for those so called unprotected children?

Exactly how would it regulate itself?

What stops someone like me creating hundreds of accounts and spamming the place to death?

The 51st.

Haven't you heard? Ever since Brown came along, that honour belongs to the French! :D

Exactly how would it regulate itself?

What stops someone like me creating hundreds of accounts and spamming the place to death?

Yeps. But that behaviour can be detected by software. You don't need a modd to prevent or kill spam.

When flooding a board, you're out to hurt the system. If the system is down, then there's no board anymore.

Freedom of speech doesn't mean you, as a white, can throw a stone to a black or a jew.

You can use your mousewheel and the ctrl-button to get the fontsize smaller. :)

No I can't.:(

No. It says nothing about me.

Indirectly it says something of your character. If it didn't, then you wouldn't have been tempa-banned, would you?

No I can't.:(

I'm sorry.

If I promise that'll never do it again, can you forgive me then? :)

Indirectly it says something of your character. If it didn't, then you woudn't
have been tempa-banned, would you?

Look guy. It says nothing about me.

And if you didn't start whining at the mods, no tempa-ban would have taken place.

But poor soul, your being was so hurt... *snif*

Maybe you can write a book about it? All 'heroes' are doing that, lately

ROTTEN POLL.

There are lots of places where Mods don't exist. Why don't you go there? Why is that such a hard concept to grasp?

Look guy. It says nothing about me.

And if you didn't start whining at the mods, no tempa-ban would have taken place.

But poor soul, your being was so hurt... *snif*

Maybe you can write a book about it? All 'heroes' are doing that, lately

I think the Coprophilia thread says the most about you.

Seriously, if It's such a fascist nightmare here, go somewhere else.

I think the Coprophilia thread says the most about you.

Seriously, if It's such a fascist nightmare here, go somewhere else.


No, it is saying nothing. Besides it's been taken out its context.

But the subject isn't coprophilia, if you want to talk about that subject, start your own thread.
With some luck, you can get some help from some particular friends.

Did I call it a fascist nightmare? No.

And 65.38% of the people (at 17:29 GMT+1) are thinking that it could work...

They all have to leave?

No, it is saying nothing. Besides it's been taken out its context.

But the subject isn't coprophilia, if you want to talk about that subject, start your own thread.
With some luck, you can get some help from some particular friends.

Did I call it a fascist nightmare? No.

And 65.38% of the people (at 17:29 GMT+1) are thinking that it could work...

They all have to leave?

See my earlier post about how there's no shortage of the mentally challenged.

No, it is saying nothing. Besides it's been taken out its context.

But the subject isn't coprophilia, if you want to talk about that subject, start your own thread.
With some luck, you can get some help from some particular friends.

Did I call it a fascist nightmare? No.

And 65.38% of the people (at 17:29 GMT+1) are thinking that it could work...

They all have to leave?

65.38% of people are proven wrong by the many attempts across the history of the internet.

as for the 'With some luck, you can get some help from some particular friends.' comment, well...

65.38% of people are proven wrong by the many attempts across the history of the internet.

as for the 'With some luck, you can get some help from some particular friends.' comment, well...


Sure. And you have all the wisdom to determine what's good for the people?

Sure. And you have all the wisdom to determine what's good for the people?

Me? Nope.
History? Yes.

I has never worked. It will never work.

Regardless of if it can work or not, it seems just superfluous. There are already a plethora of boards out there that are unmodded, however to add a mod-free forum here would be unnecessary work and risk. It would still have to be modded to a degree, for things such as the aforementioned kiddie porn example and such, and the reduced level of mod checking would result in a greater risk of something being posted that could get the board shut down.

Pretty much, there is no justifiable reason to add such a forum to this board. And, really, those kinds of boards in general are bigger masturbatory sessions than crazy, fascist mod boards. We have a good balance here, imo, and as long as you don't do anything completely asinine or insulting you're in the clear.

Sidenote: People should never need to resize super large bolded font so as not to be extremely annoyed by someone's text. If you're too inconsiderate to not post ass annoying font size/types, then you really shouldn't post in general. That's not a mod-issue as much as it's a don't be a fucking asshat issue.

It would just get spammed so much that it will be unusable. That's the real problem with no moderation.

Regardless of if it can work or not, it seems just superfluous. There are already a plethora of boards out there that are unmodded, however to add a mod-free forum here would be unnecessary work and risk. It would still have to be modded to a degree, for things such as the aforementioned kiddie porn example and such, and the reduced level of mod checking would result in a greater risk of something being posted that could get the board shut down.

Pretty much, there is no justifiable reason to add such a forum to this board. And, really, those kinds of boards in general are bigger masturbatory sessions than crazy, fascist mod boards. We have a good balance here, imo, and as long as you don't do anything completely asinine or insulting you're in the clear.

Sidenote: People should never need to resize super large bolded font so as not to be extremely annoyed by someone's text. If you're too inconsiderate to not post ass annoying font size/types, then you really shouldn't post in general. That's not a mod-issue as much as it's a don't be a fucking asshat issue.


Why are people annoyed about a little resized font anyway? Hello, it doesn't bite. :)

Now, I had a look at such forums and what I see is people talking. Sometimes about serious stuff, sometimes about silly stuff.

Just like here.

I didn't saw hundreds of spam threads promoting child porn...

Now, I am not suggesting removing the existing system 'cause some people feel like they need those guiding mods.

But why not give it a try?

And I agree that some stuff still need to be moderated:

* deleting unlawful stuff
* preventing system hacks
* commercial spam


Imho, the mods are doing too much now and they are not consequent.

One day they allow some 'heated' topic, another day they do not.

It depends about the OP, the mod or the time of the month.

Sometimes they allow unlawful postings, so...

Make your own forums, and you can have whatever rules you want.

Use someone elses forums, and abide by their rules.

It's not difficult.

That doesn't mean you can't talk about improvements are changes in general.

Make your own forums, and you can have whatever rules you want.

Use someone elses forums, and abide by their rules.

It's not difficult.

-snip-
Look at it this way. However much of a good idea it may be, you, as someone with an apparent personal agenda, are not in a position to advocate it right now. Come back when you've cooled your head a bit and we can chat about it from a position of neutrality.

You're REALLY using your travesty of a poll to make a serious point?

Awesome.

It's awesome that you are still attacking me personal and not talk about the subject itself. :)

And 65.38% of the people (at 17:29 GMT+1) are thinking that it could work...
You're REALLY using your travesty of a poll to make a serious point?

Awesome.

It would turn into a dark realm of terrifying dickwaving and flaming. Hell, that even happens out in the open.

"War is a whole bunch of men standing in a field waving their pricks at one another." - George Carlin.

Look at it this way. However much of a good idea it may be, you, as someone with an apparent personal agenda, are not in a position to advocate it right now. Come back when you've cooled your head a bit and we can chat about it from a position of neutrality.

I'm cool. Trust me.

Yes. Ignore buttons exist for a reason people, as does the ability to ignore stupid posts.

Yes. Ignore buttons exist for a reason people, as does the ability to ignore stupid posts.


Who's guaranteeing that the controlling authority is reasonable?

That really just makes it worse. Didn't I just hear you mock someone for being overly sensitive and hurt and all that? "*snif*" indeed.

Since you do not attack my opinion, but my body, I can assume that you agree with my opinion.

Thanks for agreeing with my opinion.

I'm cool. Trust me.
That really just makes it worse. Didn't I just hear you mock someone for being overly sensitive and hurt and all that? "*snif*" indeed.

Why are people annoyed about a little resized font anyway? Hello, it doesn't bite. :)


It's visually offensive? It assaults the intellect like a baseball bat to the face assaults personal space? It's *loud* in the way things without sound are loud? There's a lot of perfectly valid reasons it's annoying. Extremely loud noises (but not loud enough to be painful) or semi-repetitive noises don't bite either, but they're pretty god damned annoying. It's akin to talking in a library. It doesn't cause any kind of harm to people, and your average person can ignore people talking nearby, but they shouldn't have to ignore them because it's rude of those people to do that and, people have different tolerance levels for different things, so you're likely to run into people who actually can't block out those noises.

So, yea, you're not actually causing damage by using needlessly large bolded font, but, by doing so, you are being a self-important prick for no other reason than you want to get in people's faces because, when done in an anonymous fashion, people can't shove your face into a wall for it.

And, yes, I will admit to being a little bit vehement in my absolute disgust for such practices. Also notice I use italicize to stress important words or concepts. It's effective and unobtrusive! And all you have to do is hit ctrl + I when highlighting something, it's actually fucking easier than idiotic bold font!

That really just makes it worse. Didn't I just hear you mock someone for being overly sensitive and hurt and all that? "*snif*" indeed.
Perhaps this might explain it?

http://www.cartoonstock.com/lowres/epa0263l.jpg

It's visually offensive? It assaults the intellect like a baseball bat to the face assaults personal space? It's *loud* in the way things without sound are loud? There's a lot of perfectly valid reasons it's annoying. Extremely loud noises (but not loud enough to be painful) or semi-repetitive noises don't bite either, but they're pretty god damned annoying. It's akin to talking in a library. It doesn't cause any kind of harm to people, and your average person can ignore people talking nearby, but they shouldn't have to ignore them because it's rude of those people to do that and, people have different tolerance levels for different things, so you're likely to run into people who actually can't block out those noises.

So, yea, you're not actually causing damage by using needlessly large bolded font, but, by doing so, you are being a self-important prick for no other reason than you want to get in people's faces because, when done in an anonymous fashion, people can't shove your face into a wall for it.

And, yes, I will admit to being a little bit vehement in my absolute disgust for such practices. Also notice I use italicize to stress important words or concepts. It's effective and unobtrusive! And all you have to do is hit ctrl + I when highlighting something, it's actually fucking easier than idiotic bold font!


Weird. :)

Perhaps this might explain it?

http://www.cartoonstock.com/lowres/epa0263l.jpg

Since you do not attack my opinion, but my body, I can assume that you agree with my opinion.

Thanks for agreeing with my opinion.

Perhaps this might explain it?

http://www.cartoonstock.com/lowres/epa0263l.jpg
Aww... That made me feel sorry for the poor emo croc.

Since you do not attack my opinion, but my body, I can assume that you agree with my opinion.

Thanks for agreeing with my opinion.
Actually, if you had read my comments in this thread (http://www.cartoonstock.com/lowres/epa0263l.jpg), you would have realized that I am totally against your opinion regarding an unmoderated forum here at NSG.

The pic of crocodile tears is purely for comic relief and a brief acknowledgement of your feigned sensibilities. :D

BTW, I did not vote my displeasure, therefore your poll is unscientific.

Actually, if you had read my comments in this thread (http://www.cartoonstock.com/lowres/epa0263l.jpg), you would have realized that I am totally against your opinion regarding an unmoderated forum here at NSG.

The pic of crocodile tears is purely for comic relief and a brief acknowledgement of your feigned sensibilities. :D

BTW, I did not vote my displeasure, therefore your poll is unscientific.


Since when should a poll on NSG be scientific?

I'm so sorry it doesn't run in line with EC, FDA & ISO standards.

There are a few dozen extant forums already dedicated to free speech and without rules or moderators.... or if you insist, you can make your own.

As at least six other people have already said.

There are a few dozen extant forums already dedicated to free speech and without rules or moderators.... or if you insist, you can make your own.

As at least six other people have already said.



The original NS game had just a few issues.

If 'we' just eat what was been served, both of us, should not be posting here right now.

It's by the comments of the users that it is what it is now.

I'm aware that people do not like changes and prefer to stay stuck to what they know.

Besides, I'm not out to destroy the current system.

I'm wondering if an extra added feature could work.

Why? Are you afraid?

Wait -- did you effectively just call WYTYG a "chicken"? How old are you?


Btw, I'm not whining, but you are. You're suggesting I have to move and you just threaded me.

All what I did, was starting a debate and in my initial posting I added the remark that I was not sure if it would work out.

You are not debating the issue, you just want to get rid of me. :)

You were not "threaded" (threatened?). You were politely reminded that flaming isn't tolerated here. See, this particular forum has Mods and rules. I honestly have no idea why that's so hard for you to understand.

That doesn't mean you can't talk about improvements are changes in general.

Absolutely! But that's not what you're doing. You've walked up to a tree and started asking those who enjoy the tree to change it into a rock. All I hear when you post on this topic is THIS TREE SHOULD BE A ROCK, UNLESS YOU'RE ALL AFRAID TO MAKE IT ONE. That's patently obnoxious, and I'm pretty sure you know it. Nothing in all the posts of yours I've read suggests anything but disingenuity and willful obtuseness just for the sake of being contrary.

You have heard the opinions of many regular contributors to this forum, and they unanimously agree that an unoderated forum is not needed here.

Since when should a poll on NSG be scientific?

I'm so sorry it doesn't run in line with EC, FDA & ISO standards.

Fine -- but notice your numbers are slipping.

The original NS game had just a few issues.

If 'we' just eat what was been served, both of us, should not be posting here right now.

It's by the comments of the users that it is what it is now.

I'm aware that people do not like changes and prefer to stay stuck to what they know.

Besides, I'm not out to destroy the current system.

I'm wondering if an extra added feature could work.

And a host of those with lots of experience here and elsewhere have told you, in no uncertain terms, that it wouldn't. Yet you continue to wonder as if none of them have spoken. You appear to be pressing an issue that is already unwrinkled. If that's how you have fun, that's fine by me, but you can't impugn the room for disagreeing with you.

The original NS game had just a few issues.
granted.

If 'we' just eat what was been served, both of us, should not be posting here right now.
Eh?

It's by the comments of the users that it is what it is now.
Intelligent and reasonable comments, made by mature users, without resorting to flaming and flamebait.

I'm aware that people do not like changes and prefer to stay stuck to what they know.
Actually, I'm all for change. I just think this change would be unproductive.

I'm wondering if an extra added feature could work.
It wouldn't. Welcome to the internet.

Wait -- did you effectively just call WYTYG a "chicken"? How old are you?

No I asked if he was afraid. I'm sorry to hear about your vision problem.



You were not "threaded" (threatened?). You were politely reminded that flaming isn't tolerated here. See, this particular forum has Mods and rules. I honestly have no idea why that's so hard for you to understand.

Giving one a compliment about his expertise in asshole business is not a flame.


Absolutely! But that's not what you're doing. You've walked up to a tree and started asking those who enjoy the tree to change it into a rock. All I hear when you post on this topic is THIS TREE SHOULD BE A ROCK, UNLESS YOU'RE ALL AFRAID TO MAKE IT ONE. That's patently obnoxious, and I'm pretty sure you know it. Nothing in all the posts of yours I've read suggests anything but disingenuity and willful obtuseness just for the sake of being contrary.

You mean wilful?


No, first of all, I recognize the few weak spots by myself.

What you are doing is just crying out 'ridiculous, how dare you, to think about a forum with few or no mod intervention !"


You have heard the opinions of many regular contributors to this forum, and they unanimously agree that an unoderated forum is not needed here.

Unmoderated, you mean?

Well, the poll is telling different, isn't?



Fine -- but notice your numbers are slipping.

Ah is it you that called your dad, sister & dog to vote the right thing? :)

Since the poll was mentioned inside the thread, it is indeed collapsing and since you can't be silent about it, it is being more suspicious, isn't? :)

granted.

Eh?

Intelligent and reasonable comments, made by mature users, without resorting to flaming and flamebait.

Actually, I'm all for change. I just think this change would be unproductive.

It wouldn't. Welcome to the internet.

Well tell then why and keep your wisdom not hided for us, poor brained ones.

It's awesome that you are still attacking me personal and not talk about the subject itself. :)
Pointing out that a poll is biased and thus not fit to be used as evidence in a debate is a personal attack now?

Since you do not attack my opinion, but my body, I can assume that you agree with my opinion.

Thanks for agreeing with my opinion.
You should reconsider that reply, looking at the post it was for. Otherwise, I'm afraid you just retroactively declared yourself to be agreeing with The Parkus Empire's opinion and I'm sure you wouldn't want that.

Pointing out that a poll is biased and thus not fit to be used as evidence in a debate is a personal attack now?


You should reconsider that reply, looking at the post it was for. Otherwise, I'm afraid you just retroactively declared yourself to be agreeing with The Parkus Empire's opinion and I'm sure you wouldn't want that.



I don't hear you telling why. I don't hear you talking about why a mod-free or mod-poor board would not work.

Instead, you are just poking inside me.

Have a nice week-end, baby :)

Well, the poll is telling different, isn't?
...
Ah is it you that called your dad, sister & dog to vote the right thing? :)

Since the poll was mentioned inside the thread, it is indeed collapsing and since you can't be silent about it, it is being more suspicious, isn't? :)
I'm trying to keep my comments to a minimum, because although I disagree with the concept of self moderation, it would be unconstructive to use arguments against your idea as a means of dissuading you from its appropriateness.

Regardless, I feel like I have to point out to you that your poll is weighted. The poll's question provides 3 options of agreement with you and the only other one asserts that anyone who picks it is doing so out of groupthink. I suspect it hadn't been mentioned before because it was assumed that the poll was a joke until you started using it as a point of reference.

I'm trying to keep my comments to a minimum, because although I disagree with the concept of self moderation, it would be unconstructive to use arguments against your idea as a means of dissuading you from its appropriateness.

Regardless, I feel like I have to point out to you that your poll is weighted. The poll's question provides 3 options of agreement with you and the only other one asserts that anyone who picks it is doing so out of groupthink. I suspect it hadn't been mentioned before because it was assumed that the poll was a joke until you started using it as a point of reference.

3 yes - 1 no

Life isn't fair, isn't?

3 yes - 1 "I'm an idiot who can't think for themself"
See the correction. That's the poll you've made. I'm not talking about fairness; I'm talking about the value of such a poll in proving your point, which can be said to be negligible at best.

I say this purely for the sake of making it known, of course. Feel free to use it anyway, but don't expect it to be taken seriously.

Well tell then why and keep your wisdom not hided for us, poor brained ones.

I'd tell you, but it would be a waste of my time as you could simply read all the other arguments against your idea within this very thread.

I don't hear you telling why. I don't hear you talking about why a mod-free or mod-poor board would not work.

Instead, you are just poking inside me.

Have a nice week-end, baby :)
Because all it would do is be an outlet for racist/misogynist/otherwise lobotomized dumbfucks to post their shit (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13201830&postcount=27) when there are already only about a billion other webpages and fora to pick from (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13201797&postcount=12)for that?

Answer: Not really, no.

Long answer: No, but if you want it, you can find it elsewhere. Not far away, even. Hell, go down to Spam or *Shivers* Chat ...where nobody can hear you scream! :eek:

Maybe. But what's wrong with that?

If you have to ask this question, you wouldn't understand the answer.

3 yes - 1 no

Life isn't fair, isn't?

but you're not Life. :p

the Mods do respect Freedom of Speech. and just like the US constitution, that freedom has bounderies.

If you don't like it, you can go else where.

however, please note that alot of people... including folks like Neo Rogalia (sic) came back saying that they hated those other forums and realized our Mods were indeed better at moderating forums.

Look guy. It says nothing about me.

And if you didn't start whining at the mods, no tempa-ban would have taken place.

But poor soul, your being was so hurt... *snif*

Maybe you can write a book about it? All 'heroes' are doing that, lately

I'm far too lazy to compose such a book. I just think it would have better to start a thread attacking my arguments, rather then attacking me personally.

Your lack of respect for the fact that moderators backed my actions shows your disregard for their laws. They are in fact a toned-down version of police, and I have every right to request their assistance should you commit an infraction against me.

Like I said, I would not mind dueling you. Killing you would not be my aim, merely wounding your arm sufficiently curb your immature activities.

Of course, I being the challenger, you could choose an alternate weapon, or issue a formal apology. But I somehow doubt all this will happen.

I could instead insult you, but that would be stooping to your level.

I think what everyone really wants is a large forum in which any view other than their own is defined as "trolling" and in which they, and only they, have mod powers :)

No I asked if he was afraid. I'm sorry to hear about your vision problem.

Your paltry attempts at sarcasm are highly amusing.

You asked if she was afraid in the context of implying that she is. That, with very little stretch, is EFFECTIVELY (which is why I used that very word in the post you mis-read) calling her a "chicken" like some low-rate playground bully. Which is kinda your M.O. anyway.

Giving one a compliment about his expertise in asshole business is not a flame.

Context, junior, context. Don't feign innocence, it's insulting to your intelligence.

What you are doing is just crying out 'ridiculous, how dare you, to think about a forum with few or no mod intervention !"

No. I have said, repeatedly, that you've floated your idea, and it has been roundly rejected. You simply have chosen not to accept that. You're free to keep floating the idea, but it seems like a waste of time unless you get off on dragging out pointless arguments.

Well, the poll is telling different, isn't?

Is it? You clearly aren't looking at the same poll I am.

Ah is it you that called your dad, sister & dog to vote the right thing?

Since the poll was mentioned inside the thread, it is indeed collapsing and since you can't be silent about it, it is being more suspicious, isn't?

Ah, more ad hominem from the master who tried to claim it was being used on him. How typical. How is mentioning your poll ONCE, AFTER you mentioned it first as "support", in any way "not being silent" about it? You have a shabby little gift for hyperbole and misinterpretation. Ever thought of going into politics or talk radio?

Yeps. But that behaviour can be detected by software. You don't need a modd to prevent or kill spam.
Software can be circumvented. Ad spam can be disguised as legitimate posts.

When flooding a board, you're out to hurt the system. If the system is down, then there's no board anymore.

Freedom of speech doesn't mean you, as a white, can throw a stone to a black or a jew.
Spam is only one problem among several which have been pointed out.
No, it is saying nothing. Besides it's been taken out its context.
Actually it does. It says that you have no problem with blatantly ignoring the rules for your own amusement.

And 65.38% of the people (at 17:29 GMT+1) are thinking that it could work...

They all have to leave?
Who is suggesting they do? You complain when you think someone has put words in your mouth, then do it yourself.
Why are people annoyed about a little resized font anyway? Hello, it doesn't bite. :)
It's not the font, it's the childish idea that if you 'shout' louder than everyone else, you'll win that's so often associated with using large fonts for no obvious reason.

Now, I had a look at such forums and what I see is people talking. Sometimes about serious stuff, sometimes about silly stuff.

Just like here.

I didn't saw hundreds of spam threads promoting child porn...
Because of the mods. Spam gets moved to the spam forum, or just locked. Child porn gets deleted, and the user banned.

Now, I am not suggesting removing the existing system 'cause some people feel like they need those guiding mods.
The mods enforce, not guide.

But why not give it a try?
Because it would achieve nothing. It would be a waste of time and effort. There is nothing about NS that calls for an unmoderated forum. There is no need for one.

And I agree that some stuff still need to be moderated:

* deleting unlawful stuff
* preventing system hacks
* commercial spam
What, so you just want to be able to insult people without consequence? If so then you've come to the wrong forum.


Imho, the mods are doing too much now and they are not consequent.

One day they allow some 'heated' topic, another day they do not.

It depends about the OP, the mod or the time of the month.
An amusing correlation I've noted: The more one complains about the mods and their work, the more likely one is to have been on the recieving end of mod action.

Sometimes they allow unlawful postings, so...
Can you find me one thread that could be considered unlawful that was not acted on by any of the mods? Because I seriously doubt one exists, but you've apparently been doing a lot of research.
Yes. Ignore buttons exist for a reason people, as does the ability to ignore stupid posts.
Enjoy trying to ignore images of gore and CP from new made-for-the-purpose accounts.
Who's guaranteeing that the controlling authority is reasonable?
The posters. If the mods all started abusing their powers we'd simply leave.
Since when should a poll on NSG be scientific?

I'm so sorry it doesn't run in line with EC, FDA & ISO standards.

You're acting as if your biased, unscientific poll proves something. It does not.

Yeps. But that behaviour can be detected by software. You don't need a modd to prevent or kill spam.that's the worst kind of moderators you can have. Cold and meticulous.

with flesh and blood moderators, you can argue your points and get them to change their minds. you also can have punishments that will fit the situation and not just the crime.

in other words... by your posts alone on this thread, a software would've banned you many times over for flaming, trolling, and flamebaiting. at least the Flesh and Blood mods would understand what you are trying to say and what your intent would be... Computers and software won't.

I don't hear you telling why. I don't hear you talking about why a mod-free or mod-poor board would not work.

Instead, you are just poking inside me.

Have a nice week-end, baby :)

I asked you how the 'community self moderation' would work quite a few posts ago. You never answered me.

I assume that you're ignoring anything that will interrupt your poor attempt at trolling.

Feel free to prove me wrong.

You can use your mousewheel and the ctrl-button to get the fontsize smaller. :)

Wow, I completely fell for that.

No because people are stupid, the more restrictions on them spreading their stupid the better. Frankly the mods here aren't particularly restrictive.

Have you been reading Hobbes?

sure i WANT one. but i don't see how one could be expected in the context of existing legal reality. the only way such a thing would be possible, as it once was in the early days of the internet before it was discouvered and screwed up by bizdroidism and the political strong arming that fallowed, would be for admins and providers to be harmless under the law, for whatever content their members provided.

such sadly, the last i heard, is far from existing reality.

so before such a thing CAN exist, laws have to be chainged, mostly irrational ones recindid, to make allowing such a thing lawfully safe for those providing it.

otherwise, those doing so, face risks that virtually insure an extremely short lifespan for any forum attempting to honestly and completely be.

everyone attempting to provide as close to it as the law will allow, is to be comended for their heroic bravery in doing so.

=^^=
.../\...

Ok, I understand that some people can't handle the 'bad' people....

But that's why there should be a warning sign before they click the link then they know what to expect.

Why, precisely, is it that you don't like what we have here, but you don't want to leave...

...but you want us to change so you can "post freely" which basically seems to be "troll and flame."

Why not go to places that specialize in that or create your own?

I suspect that Edwinasia was warned for flaming at some point and doesn't really agree with the mod's judgement on the matter.

*hands a cigar*

Of course, you can simply use the search function to find out where, how, why, and how many.

Since you do not attack my opinion, but my body, I can assume that you agree with my opinion.

Thanks for agreeing with my opinion.

Thanks for absolutely proving that all you are trying to do is annoy people with putting words in their mouths.

You were saying something about trusting you?


Let's look at a little sample of how you work, shall we, just in this thread alone:


Why? Are you afraid? http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13201805&postcount=13
But you sound as an expert in asshole business. http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13201825&postcount=21
Why not?

And btw are you still not sleeping well due that topic? (response to being reminded of slander against The Parkus Empire )http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13202078&postcount=97

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13202123&postcount=115 And if you didn't start whining at the mods, no tempa-ban would have taken place.

But poor soul, your being was so hurt... *snif*

Maybe you can write a book about it? All 'heroes' are doing that, lately



We have two possibilities here. You either are willfully being as obnoxious and insulting as possible, or you don't understand the nuances of the English language.

Given that you have called Parkus an expert in coprophilia, I know which side of the fence I come down on.

Putting words into other poster's mouth is obnoxious and flamebaiting.

Calling people asshole experts is flaming.

Ignoring the many many posts explaining it did has not worked and why to repeat, "But why not, are you afraid?" is obnoxious.

Accepting your poll as gospel until it started to go against you, then accusing others of cheating, is obnoxious and flamebaiting.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13202311&postcount=149 I'm sorry to hear about your vision problem. (implying that posters don't understand/can't see what was written.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13202316&postcount=150 Well tell then why and keep your wisdom not hided for us, poor brained ones.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13202326&postcount=152 Have a nice week-end, baby

Are you willfully obnoxious about this, or are you incapable of seeing cause and effect re: your bans thus far?

I was going to rant about the pointlessness of this thread but then I realised that would be futile, so I have one question: given that there are other unmoderated forums out there, why bitch about this one instead of taking the easier way and going elsewhere?

Do you want a forum that is respecting total freedom of speech?



Why not having a separated forum on the main page?

A freedom of speech zone that is dark, sinister, dirty and MOD free.

It would be a nice experiment and I’m not sure if it would work, such an anarchistic forum…

What do you think?

There was such a place once. It was called DeviousTyrant. It was a dark place of vile language, politically incorrect thoughts, constant flaming (mostly used to kill time as we were bored) and only one rule: There is no way to get banned, except to hack the site.

Sadly, the Tyrant fell for a time and is now simply a subforum to another forum I'm on. Rather than risk some sort of mod swat by plastering the website address, I'll just tell you to Google the aforementioned name if you want a forum like that.

As for NS, it won't happen. Ever. I remember back when there were no Mods. Or not enough of them. You don't want a return to that here. Trust me.

I don't want to so much get into this conversation as just make a side-bar comment (with apologies in advance).

Re the OP question: No, I don't want a mod-free/mod-poor forum. If there were one, I would not go there. I am not interested in a bunch of trolls and flamers yelling at each other. I have never felt restricted from expressing myself in NSG, so I do not think the forum is over-moderated. It's fine as it is, imo.

Now, my sidebar: It struck me that the OP question is similar to a change going on in an MMORPG I play. The details aren't important, but the gist is, warfare (PK) in that game is restricted to certain areas, and there are a lot of costs to fighting in that game, and the game is rather strictly moderated for language, etc. (stricter than NSG, certainly). So PK-style players have complained so consistently for so long that the game isn't war-like enough (without ever actually leaving the game, of course), that the developers are going to launch a new PK server (completely segregated from the main server) where it will be much easier to fight and there will be little to no moderation - similar to what the OP suggested here. Everyone in that game's community is eagerly waiting for the experiment and speculating how it will go. The majority, however, believe it will be only a matter of 2 or 3 months before the PKers complain of being bored again. The reason for this is that only PKers will go to the PK server, so there will be no juicy targets for PKers to attack, because PKers prefer attacking non-Pkers rather than other PKers (especially if they are stronger).

There's a rather interesting academic article about this, and about the balance of different kinds of players/playing styles within online games, that suggests that, in general, "killer"-type players are primarily motivated by a desire to upset other players, because they think it's funny. Killers are much harder to upset than non-killer-type players, so killers don't like to play only against other killers.

Here's a link to the article, in case anyone is interested, though it's about MUDs, not forums. Its premises, however, could be applicable to NSG, with tweaking.

http://www.mud.co.uk/richard/hcds.htm

My personal tweak on this:

I suggest that, in a forum like NSG, trolls and flamers may be equivalent to killer-type players. Their main goal is to interfere with other people's ability to play the game -- i.e. carry on debates. Too many trolls/flamers in a forum (as opposed to other kinds of posters) will make for a target-poor environment for them, which will spoil their fun, just as too many killers makes a game boring for killers.

So I would suggest that the only reason to have an un-moderated forum would be to allow trolling and flaming. However, that would eventually lead to people avoiding that forum because they don't want to be trolled or flamed, which would soon mean that there would be nothing for trolls and flamers to do there (no one to attack/upset). So they, too, would eventually abandon the forum that was expected to be ideal for them.

I read 9 pages of this before I got bored.
The thing is, no matter how much you argue, if a moderator/moderators say it's not going to happen, then you can sure as hell bet it's not going to happen.

This thread makes me giggle.

This forum already has a great deal of free speech, at least more than many forums I've seen. It allows for the free discussion of ideas without getting stupid.

*hands a cigar*

Of course, you can simply use the search function to find out where, how, why, and how many.
Just call me Sherlock Holmes *puffs cigar*

I think what everyone really wants is a large forum in which any view other than their own is defined as "trolling" and in which they, and only they, have mod powers :)

:D QFT.

I know this is old in terms of the thread, but it's so mind boggling stupid that for some reason I can't let it go.
Yes, 'cause I don’t need a MOD to defend me.

I didn't say that he is an asshole, I suggested that he is sounding as an asshole expert which is a compliment in the given context.

He knows the asshole of the internet and I don't, so he is the expert;

That's not flaming.

* Protecting one who is flaming
* Warning me that I am flaming while I'm protecting myself 'cause you didn't do your job.
* Suggesting that I'm stupid
.

Let's reconstruct a little...



This was before I made up my asshole compliment.

If you were working according your 'own' rules, then you should have warn him, at least.

Now, you don't have to, I can handle such language.



You accuse me for flaming, while I didn't.

He called 4Chan /b/ the asshole of the internet, not you. It is not flaming to refer to a place as the asshole of the internet. Are you really bent out of shape because he disparaged 4Chan /b/? No, you have somehow twisted in your brain that when someone referred to a website not related to you as the asshole of the internet that it was somehow a slight against you.

And you quoted it twice, still thinking that it was somehow a flame even though it didn't even attack a person but a place on the internet. We are more than able to disparage public figures on this forum, places on the internet surely fall into that category. Either way, there is no way to connect insulting 4Chan /b/ as flaming you.

Jesus Zombie Christ. Reading that took years off my life. If you misread something, fine. But for christ's sake, don't hold onto that misreading like developmentally challenged pitbull. It's embarrassing.
The original NS game had just a few issues.

If 'we' just eat what was been served, both of us, should not be posting here right now.

It's by the comments of the users that it is what it is now.

I'm aware that people do not like changes and prefer to stay stuck to what they know.

Besides, I'm not out to destroy the current system.

I'm wondering if an extra added feature could work.
Actually, a whole lot of us sticking around Max's more successful than he had anticipated publicity scheme created the demand for new issues.

I know this is old in terms of the thread, but it's so mind boggling stupid that for some reason I can't let it go.



He called 4Chan /b/ the asshole of the internet, not you. It is not flaming to refer to a place as the asshole of the internet. Are you really bent out of shape because he disparaged 4Chan /b/? No, you have somehow twisted in your brain that when someone referred to a website not related to you as the asshole of the internet that it was somehow a slight against you.

And you quoted it twice, still thinking that it was somehow a flame even though it didn't even attack a person but a place on the internet. We are more than able to disparage public figures on this forum, places on the internet surely fall into that category. Either way, there is no way to connect insulting 4Chan /b/ as flaming you.

Jesus Zombie Christ. Reading that took years off my life. If you misread something, fine. But for christ's sake, don't hold onto that misreading like developmentally challenged pitbull. It's embarrassing.
To be fair, I think he honestly thought that "flaming" referred to using rude language, period.

To be fair, I think he honestly thought that "flaming" referred to using rude language, period.

What fucking forum has he been reading?

What fucking forum has he been reading?
*shrug*

Well, now that he knows the place is less restricted than he thought it was, maybe we can have less bitching...[/wishful thinking]

And fewer ad hominem attacks on others whilst complaining of same in less-than-obvious circumstances?

I'd like that, too.

*shrug*
Well, now that he knows the place is less restricted than he thought it was, maybe we can have less bitching...[/wishful thinking]

Because all it would do is be an outlet for racist/misogynist/otherwise lobotomized dumbfucks to post their shit (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13201830&postcount=27) when there are already only about a billion other webpages and fora to pick from (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13201797&postcount=12)for that?

I saw not that long ago, in a moderated forum, an OP starting a thread like this:

Are Jews smarter?
________________________________________
Are Jews smarter than everyone else? They score all the Nobel Prizes, all the chess championships, etc. Einstein, Bohr, Freud, Marx, Engels... to name a few illustrious Jews of the past 200 years, for better or worse. I say this should be attributed to a combination of innate genetic tendency toward intelligence among Jews + environmental pressures toward high education in the Jewish community. Thoughts?

Source: http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=542000


My point is: with moderation or not, some racist post seems to be allowed.

So the reason that mods are needed to ban racist or unlawful words doesn’t work.

We can’t expect that mods knows everything about the law in any country either.

And again, I’m not out to demolish moderated forums, all what I say is, the above ‘Are jews smarter?’ posting is a nice candidate to have its life in a moderated-poor channel.

Oh and thanks to change my poll, very brave of you.

Question:

Can you manipulate the result as well?

There was such a place once. It was called DeviousTyrant. It was a dark place of vile language, politically incorrect thoughts, constant flaming (mostly used to kill time as we were bored) and only one rule: There is no way to get banned, except to hack the site.

Sadly, the Tyrant fell for a time and is now simply a subforum to another forum I'm on. Rather than risk some sort of mod swat by plastering the website address, I'll just tell you to Google the aforementioned name if you want a forum like that.

As for NS, it won't happen. Ever. I remember back when there were no Mods. Or not enough of them. You don't want a return to that here. Trust me.



Maybe yes. I never stated I was sure, that a mod poor forum would work.

But I am still not convinced it will not work as well.

I read 9 pages of this before I got bored.
The thing is, no matter how much you argue, if a moderator/moderators say it's not going to happen, then you can sure as hell bet it's not going to happen.

Indeed. You should always listen to daddy.

And btw, I’m not suspecting they would change it.
After all, most debates here about things in the real world will not happen either.

But I am still not convinced it will not work as well.It might work. It depends a lot on the kind of users it would attract. If an overwhelming number of users sharing your vision are present from the start, the forum will likely torn out how you want. If not, it won't.

I frequent a couple of unmoderated, anonymous political fora that are just as "serious" and spam-free as NSG.

there is exactly one and only one reason completely mod free boards can't and don't exist, and that is that governments have discouved that the internet exists and won't tollerate their existence.

any admin attempting to provide one would very soon find themselves in jail and their short lived boards shut down.

that is the one and only reason they can't and don't exist, and why the internet isn't the completely open free and borderless mind space it started out to be when it was the world's greatest public library before it got usurped by the worlds most obese shopping mall.

i would love, give almost anything, for there to be able to be, completely total free speach forums, somewhere.

i don't see how anyone with brains enough to know what a conscounse is, and consciounse enough to use them, could expect, or even ask, anyone to put themselves at the risk involved in providing such a thing, nor imagine it would last longer then a fart in a windstorm if anyone tried to.

this isn't a parlour game of taste and the internet isn't a magic bubble vest pocket universe in which anything and everything can be gotten away with.

and again the reason it is not, has nothing to do with anyone running forums, other perhapse then their own good sense, which is the only thing that keeps them from being shut down and themselves out of trouble.

and everything to do with governments being run of, by and for, absurdly extreme and arbitrary perspectives. some day, when people and governments, once again get their heads out of their assess, THEN, it MIGHT once again be even possible, for such a thing as a truely free speach free for all kind of forum to exist.

=^^=
.../\...

I saw not that long ago, in a moderated forum, an OP starting a thread like this:



Source: http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=542000


My point is: with moderation or not, some racist post seems to be allowed.

So the reason that mods are needed to ban racist or unlawful words doesn’t work.

We can’t expect that mods knows everything about the law in any country either.

And again, I’m not out to demolish moderated forums, all what I say is, the above ‘Are jews smarter?’ posting is a nice candidate to have its life in a moderated-poor channel.
Except there's nothing racist about that thread.

Oh and thanks to change my poll, very brave of you.
Oh dear, I guess your highly accurate poll has now been tainted.

Except there's nothing racist about that thread.


Oh dear, I guess your highly accurate poll has now been tainted.


Stating that one ethnic, culture or race is superior due their genes is racism

Yes indeed, I consider it as very brave to change the poll

Stating that one ethnic, culture or race is superior due their genes is racismTrue enuff.

Yes indeed, I consider it as very brave to change the pollWhat was it before?

Stating that one ethnic, culture or race is superior due their genes is racism
Did you read what you quoted? The title is 'Are the Jews superior?'. A question. Not a statement. The answers, IMS, was generally 'No'.

Yes indeed, I consider it as very brave to change the poll
Just as brave as intentionall biasing the poll when you made it.
What was it before?

The last option wasn't there.

Did you read what you quoted? The title is 'Are the Jews superior?'. A question. Not a statement. The answers, IMS, was generally 'No'. Damn, I fell for a strawman.Just as brave as intentionall biasing the poll when you made it.

The last option wasn't there.Thanks. Happens to be the one I voted for.

Damn, I fell for a strawman.Thanks. Happens to be the one I voted for.

I voted for the other one, mainly because I knew it was the one that we weren't meant to vote for. :)

Did you read what you quoted? The title is 'Are the Jews superior?'. A question. Not a statement. The answers, IMS, was generally 'No'.



I say this should be attributed to a combination of innate genetic tendency toward intelligence among Jews...

He answered his own question. The answer is pure racism.


Just as brave as intentionall biasing the poll when you made it.

It was not.

There are good reasons to have a moderated section:

• It prevent flames
• They kick out spam
• They delete illegal or unlawful things (such as promoting child porn or racism)
• …

And that’s all good.

In my opinion in a moderator-poor channel, these entire things should continue.

But in the moderator-rich channels they do more:

• Allow racism, ‘cause it fits in their line of thinking, like: http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=542000
• Delete threads ‘cause they just don’t like it
• Adjust polls, like they did with the one in this thread (the last option, wasn’t created by me)
• Protect ‘old’ posters, by allowing that they flame or perform personal insults, which is strictly forbidden for new ones.
• Discourage new ones to have a different opinion as the average moderator his/her opinion.

I understand that the moderator don’t like the idea. It is reducing their privileges and nobody likes that. You’ll see in the thread above by the personal attacks, the insults and the abuse of their ‘power’ (oh well), the modifications of the poll (maybe the results as well?) how particular they don’t like it.

I say this should be attributed to a combination of innate genetic tendency toward intelligence among Jews...

He answered his own question. The answer is pure racism.
I think you'll find that the sentence is 'I say this should be attributed to a combination of innate genetic tendency toward intelligence among Jews + environmental pressures toward high education in the Jewish community.'. But not a bad attempt at out-of-context quoting to prove your point. But you're still right, that is a pretty racist view. So? Can you find somehwere in the rules that says that one can't put forward a racist view, even if one does it civilly?


It was not.
It wasn't brave to post a biased poll? It wasn't as brave to post a biased poll as it was to edit said poll? It wasn't as brave to edit the poll as it was to post it?
There are good reasons to have a moderated section:

• It prevent flames
• They kick out spam
• They delete illegal or unlawful things (such as promoting child porn or racism)
• …

And that’s all good.

In my opinion in a moderator-poor channel, these entire things should continue.

But in the moderator-rich channels they do more:

• Allow racism, ‘cause it fits in their line of thinking, like: http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=542000
So you're basically accusing all the mods here of being Zionists(or whatever that word is for the jewish version of white supremacist). What utter bullshit.
• Delete threads ‘cause they just don’t like it
Which they don't do.
• Adjust polls, like they did with the one in this thread (the last option, wasn’t created by me)
God forbid the mods have a sense of humour. Besides, your poll was a pile of very biased shit.
• Protect ‘old’ posters, by allowing that they flame or perform personal insults, which is strictly forbidden for new ones.
Except they don't do that. Older posters seem to get away with more because they know, often from direct experience, where the line is drawn. The mods don't favour them.
• Discourage new ones to have a different opinion as the average moderator his/her opinion.
Oldest complaint ever made agaisnt the mods. Usually it's very conservative posters who don't understand why they can't insult everyone. They get banned, the come back and cry about the evil liberal mods enforcing their evil liberal agenda.


Except all the mods aren't liberals. HotRodia is the favoured example, though I'm not sure about any of the others. Further, the mods only agenda is enforcing the rules. That's what they do. That's why they're still mods. If they didn't do that they'd be demodded.

I understand that the moderator don’t like the idea. It is reducing their privileges and nobody likes that.
Speak for your self. Besides, being a moderator isn't all that great a job. You have to put up with shit like this, thinly veiled insults and constant accusations of bias and working towards your own agenda. I would have gotten pissed off by now and declared open flaming season on you, then banned you. Which is probably why I'm not a mod, among other reasons.
You’ll see in the thread above by the personal attacks, the insults
I defy you to link to a post of a mod insulting you. I won't hold my breath.
and the abuse of their ‘power’ (oh well), the modifications of the poll (maybe the results as well?)
Oh noes, your totally biased poll is slightly less biased. A curse on those dastardly mods. What kind of evil person would stoop so low as to edit a biased and totally worthless poll? :rolleyes:

I think you'll find that the sentence is 'I say this should be attributed to a combination of innate genetic tendency toward intelligence among Jews + environmental pressures toward high education in the Jewish community.'. But not a bad attempt at out-of-context quoting to prove your point. But you're still right, that is a pretty racist view. So? Can you find somehwere in the rules that says that one can't put forward a racist view, even if one does it civilly?



It wasn't brave to post a biased poll? It wasn't as brave to post a biased poll as it was to edit said poll? It wasn't as brave to edit the poll as it was to post it?

So you're basically accusing all the mods here of being Zionists(or whatever that word is for the jewish version of white supremacist). What utter bullshit.

Which they don't do.

God forbid the mods have a sense of humour. Besides, your poll was a pile of very biased shit.

Except they don't do that. Older posters seem to get away with more because they know, often from direct experience, where the line is drawn. The mods don't favour them.

Oldest complaint ever made agaisnt the mods. Usually it's very conservative posters who don't understand why they can't insult everyone. They get banned, the come back and cry about the evil liberal mods enforcing their evil liberal agenda.


Except all the mods aren't liberals. HotRodia is the favoured example, though I'm not sure about any of the others. Further, the mods only agenda is enforcing the rules. That's what they do. That's why they're still mods. If they didn't do that they'd be demodded.


Speak for your self. Besides, being a moderator isn't all that great a job. You have to put up with shit like this, thinly veiled insults and constant accusations of bias and working towards your own agenda. I would have gotten pissed off by now and declared open flaming season on you, then banned you. Which is probably why I'm not a mod, among other reasons.

I defy you to link to a post of a mod insulting you. I won't hold my breath.

Oh noes, your totally biased poll is slightly less biased. A curse on those dastardly mods. What kind of evil person would stoop so low as to edit a biased and totally worthless poll? :rolleyes:


Who are you? The mods favourite lapdog?

First you fight, silly, the racism in that specific thread.

Then you admit it is about racism. But then you state it happened civilly…
How can you be a civil racist, anyway?

According your view, one can be a racist but he has to be polite.... :p

Well, sir, racists are never polite, even if they wear their white collar suite.

My poll wasn’t biased. People could select a ‘no’
It’s maybe not scientific, but so is the board as well.

No, I don’t accuse the mods to be Zionist. But I see that they allow that someone is posting racist lines about someone who’s putting Jews above the rest.

Yes they delete threads, for obscure reasons, they don’t like. They deleted one about the worth of polls by instance.

Humour? What a joke, changing a poll. It’s almost killing me.

If it is an old complaint, that “Discourage new ones to have a different opinion as the average moderator his/her opinion” and thus I am not the first that is recognizing that one, then maybe, my point is having some value, no?

What’s shitty about talking a moderator-poor forum? And btw, why are you cursing that much? Did you grew up in a ghetto?
And if you don't like this shit, why taking time to post answers in it?

They did personal attack me and they allowed insults. They abused their power by changing the polls and manipulating (if not changing) the results.
Just scroll up.

Changing a poll is pretty lame, you don't do like that, unless you are lame of course.

I think you’ll receive a cookie now from some moderator.

Who are you? The mods favourite lapdog?
You'd have to ask them who their favourite is ;)

First you fight, silly, the racism in that specific thread.

Then you admit it is about racism.
What? Am I not allowed to change my mind?
But then you state it happened civilly…
How can you be a civil racist, anyway?
It's the difference between 'Slaughter all those damned worthless [race X]' and 'I think that the people of [race X] are inherently inferior to the people of [race Y], and here's why....'. One of these is racist trolling. The other is legitimate discussion of a racist view. Can you tell which is which?

According your view, one can be a racist but he has to be polite.... :p

Well, sir, racists are never polite, even if they wear their white collar suite.
According to my views people are entitled to believe whatever they wish. Similarly, I am allowed to think those views are racist garbage, total nonsense, factually incorrect, or anything else. How they act on those beliefs are of more concern than what those beliefs are.

Being prejudiced against racists isn't hugely different from being prejudiced against any other group of people, you know.

My poll wasn’t biased. People could select a ‘no’
It’s maybe not scientific, but so is the board as well.
But the 'no' option came with a qualification. What about the people who wanted to vote 'no', but didn't agree with the qualification you put on it?

No, I don’t accuse the mods to be Zionist. But I see that they allow that someone is posting racist lines about someone who’s putting Jews above the rest.
Because there aren't rules against putting forward racist views. Don't belive me? Feel free to re-read the rules sticky yourself.

Yes they delete thread they don’t like. They deleted one about the worth of polls by instance.
They delete threads that break the rules. Whether they like them or not doesn't matter.

Humour? What a joke, changing a poll. It’s almost killing me.
Yes, nearly as funny as making chicken noises when people disagree with you. But some people just have different tastes in humour.

If it is an old complaint, that “Discourage new ones to have a different opinion as the average moderator his/her opinion” and thus I am not the first that is recognizing that one, then maybe, my point is having some value, no?
Your point has no value because it ignores reality. The fact that others have also ignored reality in the same way adds nothing.

What’s shitty about talking a moderator-poor forum?
Nothing at all. What's shitty is your constant implications that the mods here are all childishly abusing their powers to quash dissenting opinions and do favours for old posters.
And btw, why are you cursing that much? Did you grew up in a ghetto?
No.
And if you don't like this shit, why taking time to post answers in it?
I have time to spare.

They did personal attack me
Where? Link to the post, if it exists.
and they allowed insults.
You've been personally insulted? So why haven't you made a thread in moderation to complain about it?
They abused their power by changing the polls and manipulating (if not changing) the results.
Just scroll up.
'Oh noes, your totally biased poll is slightly less biased. A curse on those dastardly mods. What kind of evil person would stoop so low as to edit a biased and totally worthless poll? :rolleyes:'
I stand by that.

Changing a poll is pretty lame, you don't do like that, unless you are lame of course.
What's this? A personal insult towards another poster? But weren't you complaining that people were insulting you? That can't be. I mean, it'd be complete hypocrisy to complain about how people are insulting you, only to insult them in return.

I think you’ll receive a cookie now from some moderator.
I'm sure you like to think that just because you got banned, the mods must be playing favourites. But that's just not true. I mean, if I'm one of their favourites, then why, oh why did they ban me for pic spamming a while back? How does that fit into your little conspiracy theory?

Yes, ‘cause I’m old enough to ignore the lamers
Thank you, that just about captures my thoughts exactly.

One needs mods, because sometimes people actually try and disrupt the use of the board as a medium of exchange.

But one doesn't need mods to ban people for the content of their posts. If people get insulting and unreasonable, we have the ignore button. Better yet, we have the ability to just not look at something we don't like and leave it be.

And the PG-13 rule is stupid. There is virtually no one here that young. Even with those who are...this is the internet. If they want to see nasty things, it's just a mouseclick away and all the forum rules of the world aren't gonna change that.

Edwinasia, despite your complaints about the abuse of power by the mods, I think you ought to realise something. You've made a thread that specifically complains about their actions, yet it is still not locked after 14 pages. That ought to tell you something about the mods here.

Boo-hoo, so what if they made your poll balanced. They didn't censor the other options. They merely added one so your otherwise bias, unpalatable poll was actually now slightly less repulsive. I don't see how ADDING is censoring. Yes they changed it but they're still allowing the poll and thread to exist.

It tells us one thing, the mods are more lenient than you're making them out to be.

Am I brown-nosing? Hell no. Have I been forum-banned? Sure. Once... Did I deserve it? I don't think I did but the mods thought I did. So much for the theory that mods never ban lefties eh. I'm pretty far left.

You'd have to ask them who their favourite is ;)


What? Am I not allowed to change my mind?

Sure.

It's the difference between 'Slaughter all those damned worthless [race X]' and 'I think that the people of [race X] are inherently inferior to the people of [race Y], and here's why....'. One of these is racist trolling. The other is legitimate discussion of a racist view. Can you tell which is which?

It's all racism.


According to my views people are entitled to believe whatever they wish. Similarly, I am allowed to think those views are racist garbage, total nonsense, factually incorrect, or anything else. How they act on those beliefs are of more concern than what those beliefs are.

Can I believe that a mod-poor forum could work?

Being prejudiced against racists isn't hugely different from being prejudiced against any other group of people, you know.

And again you're protecting the racists...


But the 'no' option came with a qualification. What about the people who wanted to vote 'no', but didn't agree with the qualification you put on it?

Then you don't answer. I'm sure that even now, people can't find their desired answer as well.

Because there aren't rules against putting forward racist views. Don't belive me? Feel free to re-read the rules sticky yourself.

No?

What can't I post?

Any content that is:

• obscene
• illegal
• threatening
• malicious
• defamatory
• spam

Btw, shouting racism is illegal as well in UK and since Jolt is located in UK it has to obey UK laws...

They delete threads that break the rules. Whether they like them or not doesn't matter.

First you said they "they don't do", now it's "only the ones that break rules".

Well, one that is promoting racismn isn't deleted, while it should.
One that is questioning the worth of polls is deleted, while it shouldn't.


Yes, nearly as funny as making chicken noises when people disagree with you. But some people just have different tastes in humour.

I can't help it, I always make chicken sounds when people are afraid for something that doesn't exist.

Your point has no value because it ignores reality. The fact that others have also ignored reality in the same way adds nothing.

I don't understand how I do ignore reality while I'm not doing that one.


Nothing at all. What's shitty is your constant implications that the mods here are all childishly abusing their powers to quash dissenting opinions and do favours for old posters.

They do. Like deleting threads for no reasons, keep the ones that are unlawful, giving favors to old poster, changing polls, banning, delete and insulting people that are not on their line of thinking.

You've been personally insulted? So why haven't you made a thread in moderation to complain about it?

I rarely do. As I figured out, it doesn't help. Even with clear silly personal attacking insults, they always say 'ah no, no insult'.

Hey, if you report an unlawful racist thread and they keep it going, then I know which colour the mods are...


'Oh noes, your totally biased poll is slightly less biased. A curse on those dastardly mods. What kind of evil person would stoop so low as to edit a biased and totally worthless poll? :rolleyes:'
I stand by that.

It's my poll. And the toook tok tok mods didn't like the voting results of the people, thats why they changed the poll and blow up the worth of the poll.


What's this? A personal insult towards another poster? But weren't you complaining that people were insulting you? That can't be. I mean, it'd be complete hypocrisy to complain about how people are insulting you, only to insult them in return.

Changing the setup of a poll is lame. I don't see how that one is insulting.

I'm sure you like to think that just because you got banned, the mods must be playing favourites. But that's just not true. I mean, if I'm one of their favourites, then why, oh why did they ban me for pic spamming a while back? How does that fit into your little conspiracy theory?

No. You're wrong

Edwinasia, despite your complaints about the abuse of power by the mods, I think you ought to realise something. You've made a thread that specifically complains about their actions, yet it is still not locked after 14 pages. That ought to tell you something about the mods here.

Boo-hoo, so what if they made your poll balanced. They didn't censor the other options. They merely added one so your otherwise bias, unpalatable poll was actually now slightly less repulsive. I don't see how ADDING is censoring. Yes they changed it but they're still allowing the poll and thread to exist.

It tells us one thing, the mods are more lenient than you're making them out to be.

Am I brown-nosing? Hell no. Have I been forum-banned? Sure. Once... Did I deserve it? I don't think I did but the mods thought I did. So much for the theory that mods never ban lefties eh. I'm pretty far left.


They are not out of control all the time. I even think that the guarding mods are needed.

However, I think a corner with minimal intervention could be fun.

And besides this, some mods aren't doing what they should do and are doing what they shouldn't.

I understand that the moderator don’t like the idea. It is reducing their privileges and nobody likes that. You’ll see in the thread above by the personal attacks, the insults and the abuse of their ‘power’ (oh well), the modifications of the poll (maybe the results as well?) how particular they don’t like it.You have no idea what responsibilities come with those "privileges." Particularly because most of those "privileges" are tools needed for meeting those responsibilities. Not to mention the fact that they're sacrificing their spare time to clean up the messes of other people, and aren't getting paid for it.

You have no idea what responsibilities come with those "privileges." Particularly because most of those "privileges" are tools needed for meeting those responsibilities. Not to mention the fact that they're sacrificing their spare time to clean up the messes of other people, and aren't getting paid for it.

Yes, I am aware.

It's not that you're an underpaid policman that you can arrest people just for fun.

Yes, I am aware.

It's not that you're an underpaid policman that you can arrest people just for fun.Do they arrest people just for fun? There's a bunch of mechanisms in place to avoid that, and you can see them for yourself if you open your eyes to them.

Do they arrest people just for fun? There's a bunch of mechanisms in place to avoid that, and you can see them for yourself if you open your eyes to them.


Then the bunch of mechanisms are not working, ‘cause they delete threads about the worth of polls.


THAT thread wasn't fighting with any rule.

Parkus Empire didn't like it and he started moaning that it was spam.

Several mods agreed it was NOT spam.

But Parkus searched for a mod that agreed it was spam.

And he found one.

In that same thread Parkus was insulting me. According the rules, Parkus should be banned. It didn't happen.

A few weeks earlier I was doing a parody about some subject and Parkus. It was very lucid that it was not serious. But Parkus, having no feeling for Belgian absurd humour, started moaning like a weasel.

And guess what? Yeps, I was banned. :)


I don't moan about it, that's life. But it seems that something is rotten in the mechanism.

I don't moan about it...
You had me fooled.

It's my poll. And the toook tok tok mods didn't like the voting results of the people, thats why they changed the poll and blow up the worth of the poll.


Well, dear, if you post a biased poll which has absolutely no answers that most of us could agree with, the only answerers are going necessarily to be the ones that agree with your point. Thus the "worth" of your poll is "not any". If you had posted a poll that read "Do you think that a mod free forum is a good idea? 1. Yes 2. No" the mods would have left it alone entirely. And that might have been a worthwhile poll.

Instead you loaded the poll with your opinions on the topic, and gave no one a chance to dissent without having to pick an option that insulted the person picking it.

The mods adding another choice has absolutely nothing to do with their opinions about the voting results, it merely allows YOU to see that there ARE a significant number of people around here who don't agree with you and find your answers biased. Sorry if that upsets your little applecart.

Well, dear, if you post a biased poll which has absolutely no answers that most of us could agree with, the only answerers are going necessarily to be the ones that agree with your point. Thus the "worth" of your poll is "not any". If you had posted a poll that read "Do you think that a mod free forum is a good idea? 1. Yes 2. No" the mods would have left it alone entirely. And that might have been a worthwhile poll.

Instead you loaded the poll with your opinions on the topic, and gave no one a chance to dissent without having to pick an option that insulted the person picking it.

The mods adding another choice has absolutely nothing to do with their opinions about the voting results, it merely allows YOU to see that there ARE a significant number of people around here who don't agree with you and find your answers biased. Sorry if that upsets your little applecart.


It wasn’t biased, people had a nice choice:

“No, I really need a MOD to decide what’s good for my eyes”

Some people, congratulate me with this option, ‘cause it was basically expressing what they feel about it.

And even if you insist it is biased, after the intervention of the mods it still is. Dozen of possible answers are not included.

People who don’t like the answers, could opt not to answer.

Hey, it’s again, why do the holy moderators think to decide what’s good for our eyes?

Is it not better that they do what they are paid for? Such as deleting racist postings, by instance?

I find it highly amusing that you think we get paid. Oh yes. No, nobody in all of NationStates gets paid for their work, except Max if you happen to buy his books because you enjoy the site. I don't know about all my comrades, but I guess I accepted Modhood to help the community. God knows I didn't do it for the praise and adulation, because that doesn't much exist.

And it's been repeatedly pointed out that what you want exists. I'm not saying you should go away to those places and leave us, but why don't you have a gander and see what they are like? This kind of research would add weight to your conclusions.

~ Tsaraine

It wasn’t biased, people had a nice choice:

“No, I really need a MOD to decide what’s good for my eyes”

Some people, congratulate me with this option, ‘cause it was basically expressing what they feel about it.

If you seriously cannot see the bias in this choice, then there is no point to this discussion at all. I do not "need a mod to decide what's good for my eyes", but I DO appreciate the level of civility that is maintained by the mods.

The people who congratulate you are, as I noted, ones who agree with you. Those who do not were not at all represented by your poll, so the mods gave them an option.

And even if you insist it is biased, after the intervention of the mods it still is. Dozen of possible answers are not included.

People who don’t like the answers, could opt not to answer.

Of course it is still biased. But it is less biased than it was. Let me refer you to my last post, which proposed a relatively unbiased poll, with answers that were YES and NO, not YES I AGREE WITH YOU and NO I DON'T AGREE WITH YOU SO I AM AN IDIOT.

Hey, it’s again, why do the holy moderators think to decide what’s good for our eyes?



They didn't hide anything by adding another poll choice... in fact, they are PRESENTING YOU with more info than you had. Hmmm.... are you now going to argue that the mods should not be allowed to have free speech?


Is it not better that they do what they are paid for? Such as deleting racist postings, by instance?

They aren't paid to do anything. They volunteer (and at times I wonder what ever could have possessed them to volunteer for all this grief?). And has been noted, they do not delete posts BECAUSE THEY ARE RACIST. They delete posts because they are:

• obscene
• illegal
• threatening
• malicious
• defamatory
• spam

Racist isn't even on the list. If a racist post IS any of those things, it is deleted for those reasons. Many of us may not care for racists around here, but they are allowed to express their opinions as long as they do it in a civil manner. And if those who disagree don't obey the rules, THEIR posts are deleted.

It's all racism.
I know. But you understand how one example is civil and the other option is not, yes?


Can I believe that a mod-poor forum could work?
Of course.

And again you're protecting the racists...
Your point being? Go ahead, jump right into that guilt by association fallacy. Claim I'm wrong because I'm defending racists.

Then you don't answer. I'm sure that even now, people can't find their desired answer as well.
So you can see that the poll is basically worthless, yes?

No?
Is racism obscene, illegal, malicious, defammatory or spam in every case? I wouldn't think so, and given that the thread you keep refferencing survived, I assume the mods agree with me, to some extent.


Btw, shouting racism is illegal as well in UK and since Jolt is located in UK it has to obey UK laws...
Is it really? And where did you get this information from?


First you said they "they don't do", now it's "only the ones that break rules".
Nothing about what I said is contradictory. They delete threads that break the rules. It doesn't matter whether they like them or not. This isn't a complicated concept.
Well, one that is promoting racismn isn't deleted, while it should.
One that is questioning the worth of polls is deleted, while it shouldn't.
Your opinion on what should and shouldn't be deleted has no bearing on what the rules of this site are.


I can't help it, I always make chicken sounds when people are afraid for something that doesn't exist.
OCD, eh? I hear that can be sucky.

I don't understand how I do ignore reality while I'm not doing that one.
Well you're making claims that are obviously false. Either you're ignorant of this, or you're lying.

They do. Like deleting threads for no reasons, keep the ones that are unlawful, giving favors to old poster, changing polls, banning, delete and insulting people that are not on their line of thinking.
I've never seen them do any of these things. Has any of this ever really happened, or is it all just in your head?


I rarely do. As I figured out, it doesn't help. Even with clear silly personal attacking insults, they always say 'ah no, no insult'.
Has it ever occured to you that you're wrong about what constitutes an insult?

It's my poll. And the toook tok tok mods didn't like the voting results of the people, thats why they changed the poll and blow up the worth of the poll.
The poll was utterly worthless. It was blatantly biased, and intentionally so. Besides, do you think the mods give a shit about whether people would like an unmoderated forum or not? What possible difference could it make to their lives?


Changing the setup of a poll is lame. I don't see how that one is insulting.
You're calling whichever mod changed it lame (http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=lame), which is clearly an attempt to insult them.



No. You're wrong
Wrong about what exactly?
Do they arrest people just for fun? There's a bunch of mechanisms in place to avoid that, and you can see them for yourself if you open your eyes to them.
Careful, your facts might erode his prescious conspiracy theory.
Then the bunch of mechanisms are not working, ‘cause they delete threads about the worth of polls.
Ever asked them why? Ever appealed the decision? Or are you just enjoying your persecution complex too much?

Parkus Empire didn't like it and he started moaning that it was spam.

Several mods agreed it was NOT spam.

But Parkus searched for a mod that agreed it was spam.

And he found one.
If you don't think it was spam, there's an appeals process.

In that same thread Parkus was insulting me. According the rules, Parkus should be banned. It didn't happen.
Did you report it? Mods aren't all knowing, you know.

A few weeks earlier I was doing a parody about some subject and Parkus.
The infamous coprophilia thread?
It was very lucid that it was not serious.
Doesn't matter, it was still flaming.
But Parkus, having no feeling for Belgian absurd humour, started moaning like a weasel.
Oh dear, you were called on your rule breaking? Tough shit.

And guess what? Yeps, I was banned. :)
It happens when you break the rules. C'est la vie.


I don't moan about it, that's life.
You're moaning about it right now.
But it seems that something is rotten in the mechanism.
Seems fine to me. But if you have a problem with the mods, try complaining to the admins instead of moaning about it and making thinly veiled insults.
It wasn’t biased, people had a nice choice:

“No, I really need a MOD to decide what’s good for my eyes”

Some people, congratulate me with this option, ‘cause it was basically expressing what they feel about it.
You're clearly being intentionally obtuse. You were putting words in peoples' mouths. You biased the fuck out of that poll. Everyone knows this. You know this. Evers knows that you know this. Don't bother trying to lie about it.

And even if you insist it is biased, after the intervention of the mods it still is. Dozen of possible answers are not included.
Perhaps that's because there's only so much they can do to edit a poll? Seriously, try thinking tthings through before you start jumping up and down screaming about mod abuse.

People who don’t like the answers, could opt not to answer.
The answers were designed so that most people who disagree with you would not like the single 'no' answer. It was a childish attempt to get one over on the mods.

Hey, it’s again, why do the holy moderators think to decide what’s good for our eyes?
They don't. They enforce the rules of the site. The rules were made by jolt and Max Barry.

Is it not better that they do what they are paid for? Such as deleting racist postings, by instance?

Paid? The mods aren't paid.

I find it highly amusing that you think we get paid. Oh yes. No, nobody in all of NationStates gets paid for their work, except Max if you happen to buy his books because you enjoy the site. I don't know about all my comrades, but I guess I accepted Modhood to help the community. God knows I didn't do it for the praise and adulation, because that doesn't much exist.

And it's been repeatedly pointed out that what you want exists. I'm not saying you should go away to those places and leave us, but why don't you have a gander and see what they are like? This kind of research would add weight to your conclusions.

~ Tsaraine

paid as in paid is not the same.

If you seriously cannot see the bias in this choice, then there is no point to this discussion at all. I do not "need a mod to decide what's good for my eyes", but I DO appreciate the level of civility that is maintained by the mods.

The people who congratulate you are, as I noted, ones who agree with you. Those who do not were not at all represented by your poll, so the mods gave them an option.



Of course it is still biased. But it is less biased than it was. Let me refer you to my last post, which proposed a relatively unbiased poll, with answers that were YES and NO, not YES I AGREE WITH YOU and NO I DON'T AGREE WITH YOU SO I AM AN IDIOT.



They didn't hide anything by adding another poll choice... in fact, they are PRESENTING YOU with more info than you had. Hmmm.... are you now going to argue that the mods should not be allowed to have free speech?




They aren't paid to do anything. They volunteer (and at times I wonder what ever could have possessed them to volunteer for all this grief?). And has been noted, they do not delete posts BECAUSE THEY ARE RACIST. They delete posts because they are:

• obscene
• illegal
• threatening
• malicious
• defamatory
• spam

Racist isn't even on the list. If a racist post IS any of those things, it is deleted for those reasons. Many of us may not care for racists around here, but they are allowed to express their opinions as long as they do it in a civil manner. And if those who disagree don't obey the rules, THEIR posts are deleted.

How can you say that racism isn't obscene?
How can you say that racism is legal?
Do you really think that racism isn't threating the other races?
And isn't racism malicious?
And defamatory?
Most of the times it's even spam. It's just a guy who's poking a bold statement and then leaves without commenting anything in such threads...*


So it's fighting not one point, but all of them!

Jolt is located in UK, racism isn't legal in UK, so why are those mods putting themselves above UK law?

In my poll options, in not one, you had to make a fool of yourself.

And paid isn't the same as paid.



* This f*cking racist replied 2 times in his OWN thread of #210 posting and let us have a look at his smart words of wisdom:

"And just because Nazi Germany was wrong on some things doesn't mean it was wrong on everything. For example Hitler may have stupidly invaded Russia, but he also bet on Volkswagen, and that turned out to be a smashing hit."

Nazi German was wrong in some little innie minnie things, but Volkswagen was a hit!!! :p And a Jew is stating this? Come one, get real!

"Can any race produce as many geniuses per capita as the Jews?

Statistical probability is the important thing, from which we can make predictions and valid generalizations."


This guy, Trilateral Commission (who has no nation...), was not banned by the current moderators, while he was just provocating by releasing unlawful racist words.

I was banned 'cause I called all racists cockroaches! :)

I find it highly amusing that you think we get paid. Oh yes. No, nobody in all of NationStates gets paid for their work, except Max if you happen to buy his books because you enjoy the site. I don't know about all my comrades, but I guess I accepted Modhood to help the community. God knows I didn't do it for the praise and adulation, because that doesn't much exist.

And it's been repeatedly pointed out that what you want exists. I'm not saying you should go away to those places and leave us, but why don't you have a gander and see what they are like? This kind of research would add weight to your conclusions.

~ Tsaraine

... but you mods do get Paid. For all your hard work, you get accusations of Mod Bias, you get complaints, grumblings, and even sniped at by users who can't follow the rules.


I think you mods are due for a reduction in pay tho... ;)

And paid isn't the same as paid.


It's incredible the power italics have to change meanings isn't it

... but you mods do get Paid. For all your hard work, you get accusations of Mod Bias, you get complaints, grumblings, and even sniped at by users who can't follow the rules.


I think you mods are due for a reduction in pay tho... ;)
Including this special pre-holiday bonus of an entire thread dedicated to how horrible they are. They must have been really good at their jobs this year.

Keep up the good work, Mods! :D

It's incredible the power italics have to change meanings isn't itNo shit.

It wasn’t biased, people had a nice choice:

“No, I really need a MOD to decide what’s good for my eyes”

Some people, congratulate me with this option, ‘cause it was basically expressing what they feel about it.
Some people, uh, did? I must have missed their congratulatory posts, I guess. Strange.

Also, you should really scrap the "racism is illegal in the UK" argument. Because it isn't. It's illegal to kill someone just because you don't like the color of their skin. But then, it's also illegal to kill someone, period.
If "harbouring of racist thoughts" was illegal about half of the populace of any country in the world would be behind bars.

That doesn't mean you have to like racist threads on this forum, the vast majority of posters don't, but as long as the threads don't veer into the clearly defamatory or flamebaiting or trolling they're not against the rules and they won't be deleted.

This forum allows a very wide range of opinions. Wider than I personally would like but I have to deal with that if I want to keep hanging around here. By a crazy coincidence, they even gave us a way to deal with racists on a debate forum. Hmm, I wonder what that might be...

It's incredible the power italics have to change meanings isn't it

Yes it is.

I don't know for sure how it works in English but in Dutch we use italics for several things:

• Using a non-existing word
• Using a foreign word
• Using an invented composition of 2 or more existing words
• To make clear you are exaggerating a little.
• …

No shit.


Some people, uh, did? I must have missed their congratulatory posts, I guess. Strange.

Also, you should really scrap the "racism is illegal in the UK" argument. Because it isn't. It's illegal to kill someone just because you don't like the color of their skin. But then, it's also illegal to kill someone, period.
If "harbouring of racist thoughts" was illegal about half of the populace of any country in the world would be behind bars.

That doesn't mean you have to like racist threads on this forum, the vast majority of posters don't, but as long as the threads don't veer into the clearly defamatory or flamebaiting or trolling they're not against the rules and they won't be deleted.

This forum allows a very wide range of opinions. Wider than I personally would like but I have to deal with that if I want to keep hanging around here. By a crazy coincidence, they even gave us a way to deal with racists on a debate forum. Hmm, I wonder what that might be...


You can be a racist in your own living room or in your own thoughts.
But you can't express your racist ideas in a public room, such as this board.

And it's interfering with the house rules of Max, isn't?

Can I ask you a question? Are you a racist by yourself?

For the compliments, scroll up, it isn't that much work, oh brave poll modifying moderator!

My personal tweak on this:

I suggest that, in a forum like NSG, trolls and flamers may be equivalent to killer-type players. Their main goal is to interfere with other people's ability to play the game -- i.e. carry on debates. Too many trolls/flamers in a forum (as opposed to other kinds of posters) will make for a target-poor environment for them, which will spoil their fun, just as too many killers makes a game boring for killers.

So I would suggest that the only reason to have an un-moderated forum would be to allow trolling and flaming. However, that would eventually lead to people avoiding that forum because they don't want to be trolled or flamed, which would soon mean that there would be nothing for trolls and flamers to do there (no one to attack/upset). So they, too, would eventually abandon the forum that was expected to be ideal for them.

THREADWINNER.

Indeed. You should always listen to daddy.

And btw, I’m not suspecting they would change it.
After all, most debates here about things in the real world will not happen either.

What? I have heard many of the debates on NSG happen in Real Life. Unless I've misunderstood you.

paid as in paid is not the same.

Why, because one "paid" is in italics? What the hell are you talking about? The Mods are NOT PAID, how hard is that to grasp?

How can you say that racism isn't obscene?

NOBODY IS SAYING THAT!!! What you, or I or the Mods THINK about racism DOES NOT MATTER. DISCUSSING is it NOT OBSCENE, get it? We can discuss things that are perceived to be obscene or malicious WITHOUT THE DISCUSSION ITSELF -- which means THE THREAD -- being obscene. It is just that simple, and I'm sorry if you can't understand that. Stopping a reasoned discussion about something distasteful is censorship. Even things we find unpleasant are acceptable topics so long as the thread remains civil.

How can you say that racism is legal?

NOBODY IS SAYING THAT. We are free to have discussions -- THREADS -- about illegal topics all the time! Or haven't you noticed topics about drugs, speeding, pedophilia (which is itself legal as long as you don't act on it or traffic in its materials), the Iraq war...all kinds of illegal concepts get discussed here. Racism gets discussed all the time, and as long as nobody comes into a thread and starts hurling insults or racist epithets designed to be insulting, guess what? The thread and the discussion may proceed. GOT THAT?

Do you really think that racism isn't threating the other races?

WHAT we think does not matter. How we DISCUSS it DOES.

And isn't racism malicious?

It certainly can be. And if a thread discussing racism becomes malicious or deliberately inflammatory, guess what? IT WILL BE DELETED.

And defamatory?

See last.

A thread in which people talk about racism and hte ideas behind it only becomes an Mod-actionable thread when someone BECOMES insulting, defamatory, malicious or otherwise breaks a forum rule.

Have you even thought about how much GOOD it can to to have people come in and try to discuss racism in a civil manner? Perhaps someone who is defending racism will get shot down by someone who knows how to poke holes in racist arguments, and perhaps the person who was shot down will -- wait for it -- LEARN SOMETHING!!!

People like you, who wish to cleave to the politically correct notion that out of sight is out of mind are actually doing racists a favor! If nobody talks about racism and the ideas aren't tested in the free market of ideas (or the court of public opinion), those racist ideas are allowed to fester and grow because they go UNCHALLENGED! Can't you see that? For someone who is SO concerned about racism, you sure don't know anything about how to truly fight it.

Jolt is located in UK, racism isn't legal in UK, so why are those mods putting themselves above UK law?

UK law does NOT PROHIBIT the FREE EXCHANGE OF IDEAS, no matter HOW UMPOPULAR THOSE IDEAS ARE. RACISM ITSELF is NOT ILLEGAL. ACTING ON IT (through verbal or physical assault, discrimination, etc.) IS. Please learn the difference -- it's very, very important.

In my poll options, in not one, you had to make a fool of yourself.

Which means your poll was childishly biased. End of story.

[The following sentence was pulled out of its original place to connect it contextually to it's asterisked content]

Most of the times it's even spam. It's just a guy who's poking a bold statement and then leaves without commenting anything in such threads...*

* This f*cking racist replied 2 times in his OWN thread of #210 posting and let us have a look at his smart words of wisdom:

"And just because Nazi Germany was wrong on some things doesn't mean it was wrong on everything. For example Hitler may have stupidly invaded Russia, but he also bet on Volkswagen, and that turned out to be a smashing hit."

Nazi German was wrong in some little innie minnie things, but Volkswagen was a hit!!! :p And a Jew is stating this? Come one, get real!

Hitler took a Germany that was utterly destroyed by both WWI and the Treaty of Versailles and in some 15-20 years whipped inflation, unemployment and economic catastrophe. These are not little things. It is not racist to suggest that Hitler did some positive things. However, as soon as you look at why he did them and who he blamed for Germany's earlier downfall, THEN you start getting into racism if you think things like The Final Solution were good and just actions.

]"Can any race produce as many geniuses per capita as the Jews?

Statistical probability is the important thing, from which we can make predictions and valid generalizations."


This guy was not banned by the current moderators, while he was just provocating by releasing unlawful racist word.

He's asking a question. He can do that. If you can't understand the difference between overt racism and discussing racism, I pity you.

Then the bunch of mechanisms are not working, ‘cause they delete threads about the worth of polls.

They deleted them because the nature of the entire thread either grew hostile, fostering ideal conditions for flaming or was just plain outside the rules. They don't need to spell out everything because you hate seeing some not justified.

Parkus Empire didn't like it and he started moaning that it was spam.

Several mods agreed it was NOT spam.

But Parkus searched for a mod that agreed it was spam.

And he found one.

Well, we come back to the point that the threads that typically get targeted are those reported by users. The mods responded.

Of course, as your thread is clearly demonstrating, not everyone can be happy. You're doing quite your fair share of moaning, something you have no problem accusing others have. Pot, meet kettle.

In that same thread Parkus was insulting me. According the rules, Parkus should be banned. It didn't happen.

Either the insult was not enough to warrant a warning or any kind of action, or you didn't report it thus it went unnoticed. I imagine that it was a combination of the two.

You seem to hate the idea of mods changing your threads but yet you have been consistently whining about how someone should have been banned for certain activities. You can't have your cake and eat it too.

A few weeks earlier I was doing a parody about some subject and Parkus. It was very lucid that it was not serious. But Parkus, having no feeling for Belgian absurd humour, started moaning like a weasel.

And guess what? Yeps, I was banned. :)

I don't moan about it, that's life. But it seems that something is rotten in the mechanism.

Even if it is a parody, you did target a poster and it could have been considered flaming and trolling even if meant in jest.

And what's this? You're again stating how you didn't moan about it, yet your tone throughout this post of yours says otherwise. Does the irony burn?

How can you say that racism isn't obscene?
How can you say that racism is legal?
Do you really think that racism isn't threating the other races?
And isn't racism malicious?
And defamatory?
Most of the times it's even spam. It's just a guy who's poking a bold statement and then leaves without commenting anything in such threads...*

I'm glad you view racism as obscene. Maybe now you'll then change your mind about Muslims. You had no problem in earlier threads with branding them with generalisations and broad sweeping statements that were clearly biased despite multiple posts pointing this out to you. In fact, I believe I called you on on it and yet now you're bemoaning about racism and other unsavoury types of opinions.

Or are Muslims separate but equal and thus not subject to the same protection because you have twisted views?

Jolt is located in UK, racism isn't legal in UK, so why are those mods putting themselves above UK law?

Racist activities are illegal, however, there are laws that protect freedom of expression to a certain degree. Racism can appear as pure hate speech or it can be civil. It's up the the messenger on how the message is conveyed to the masses. It's all in how the sentiments are expressed.

There are many civil ways to discuss racial issues and often it means debating unsavoury points, and talking about them. Some people still hold their own prejudices (like you and your views on Muslims).

In my poll options, in not one, you had to make a fool of yourself.

Your poll options are a bloody joke. It's clearly biased.

* This f*cking racist replied 2 times in his OWN thread of #210 posting and let us have a look at his smart words of wisdom:

"And just because Nazi Germany was wrong on some things doesn't mean it was wrong on everything. For example Hitler may have stupidly invaded Russia, but he also bet on Volkswagen, and that turned out to be a smashing hit."

Nazi German was wrong in some little innie minnie things, but Volkswagen was a hit!!! :p And a Jew is stating this? Come one, get real!

That is not racist! It's being reasonable. They did admit that Nazi Germany was hardly a beacon of equality and democracy but at the same time, they didn't discount the achievements of the regime. How is that racist? Your example is made of fail.

Find something that's actually...RACIST. How is that proof of racism? It just shows that despite that the nation engaged in genocidal activities against the Jewish population as well as others that they still did contribute to humanity's technological advance.

Those statements could be racist if the poster said that the Jews deserved to be killed through mass genocide.

Before you interpret, learn a little something called "reading comprehension". It's a valuable skill if you're going to debate here.

"Can any race produce as many geniuses per capita as the Jews?

Statistical probability is the important thing, from which we can make predictions and valid generalizations."

It's asking a legitimate question. It's not racist, though we could call it positive discrimination. It's discrimination but it gives a positive label instead of a negative one.

And exactly what is racist about that statement you're quoting?

This guy, Trilateral Commission (who has no nation...), was not banned by the current moderators, while he was just provocating by releasing unlawful racist words.

I was banned 'cause I called all racists cockroaches! :)

Let's see, he wasn't banned because well... those weren't racist statements.

You got banned for trolling. Even if racists are assholes, it doesn't justify trolling under any circumstance. There are two ways of dealing with racists, and you picked possible suicide by mod.

To the OP:

The poll is biased. I don't want freedom of speech because there are idiots (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/) in this world.

THREADWINNER.


What? I have heard many of the debates on NSG happen in Real Life. Unless I've misunderstood you.

Many items we discuss here will not be implemented in the real world. So why should we only talk about things that should be implemented?
So why can't we talk about a mod-poor forum?



Why, because one "paid" is in italics? What the hell are you talking about? The Mods are NOT PAID, how hard is that to grasp?

Sorry, I didn't know that English spoken people are not using italics as Dutch spoken people do.



NOBODY IS SAYING THAT!!! What you, or I or the Mods THINK about racism DOES NOT MATTER. DISCUSSING is it NOT OBSCENE, get it? We can discuss things that are perceived to be obscene or malicious WITHOUT THE DISCUSSION ITSELF -- which means THE THREAD -- being obscene. It is just that simple, and I'm sorry if you can't understand that. Stopping a reasoned discussion about something distasteful is censorship. Even things we find unpleasant are acceptable topics so long as the thread remains civil.



NOBODY IS SAYING THAT. We are free to have discussions -- THREADS -- about illegal topics all the time! Or haven't you noticed topics about drugs, speeding, pedophilia (which is itself legal as long as you don't act on it or traffic in its materials), the Iraq war...all kinds of illegal concepts get discussed here. Racism gets discussed all the time, and as long as nobody comes into a thread and starts hurling insults or racist epithets designed to be insulting, guess what? The thread and the discussion may proceed. GOT THAT?





WHAT we think does not matter. How we DISCUSS it DOES.

It certainly can be. And if a thread discussing racism becomes malicious or deliberately inflammatory, guess what? IT WILL BE DELETED.



See last.

A thread in which people talk about racism and hte ideas behind it only becomes an Mod-actionable thread when someone BECOMES insulting, defamatory, malicious or otherwise breaks a forum rule.

Have you even thought about how much GOOD it can to to have people come in and try to discuss racism in a civil manner? Perhaps someone who is defending racism will get shot down by someone who knows how to poke holes in racist arguments, and perhaps the person who was shot down will -- wait for it -- LEARN SOMETHING!!!

People like you, who wish to cleave to the politically correct notion that out of sight is out of mind are actually doing racists a favor! If nobody talks about racism and the ideas aren't tested in the free market of ideas (or the court of public opinion), those racist ideas are allowed to fester and grow because they go UNCHALLENGED! Can't you see that? For someone who is SO concerned about racism, you sure don't know anything about how to truly fight it.



UK law does NOT PROHIBIT the FREE EXCHANGE OF IDEAS, no matter HOW UMPOPULAR THOSE IDEAS ARE. RACISM ITSELF is NOT ILLEGAL. ACTING ON IT (through verbal or physical assault, discrimination, etc.) IS. Please learn the difference -- it's very, very important.


So you agree that racism is obscene, illegal, threating, malicious and defamatory ?

But you think that a line as "I say this should be attributed to a combination of innate genetic tendency toward intelligence among Jews" isn't all of above but a nice clean try to conversate about racism?


Which means your poll was childishly biased. End of story.

Doh! So people didn't have to make a fool of themselves thus the poll was childishly biased? whahaha

[The following sentence was pulled out of its original place to connect it contextually to it's asterisked content]



Hitler took a Germany that was utterly destroyed by both WWI and the Treaty of Versailles and in some 15-20 years whipped inflation, unemployment and economic catastrophe. These are not little things. It is not racist to suggest that Hitler did some positive things. However, as soon as you look at why he did them and who he blamed for Germany's earlier downfall, THEN you start getting into racism if you think things like The Final Solution were good and just actions.

I didn't call it 'little' things. The original author dud




He's asking a question. He can do that. If you can't understand the difference between overt racism and discussing racism, I pity you.

No you can't. You clearly can't.

'Cause the same guy is answering his own question by:

"I say this should be attributed to a combination of innate genetic tendency toward intelligence among Jews"

No you can't. You clearly can't.

'Cause the same guy is answering his own question by:

"I say this should be attributed to a combination of innate genetic tendency toward intelligence among Jews"

Let me clear up something for you. Due to centuries of persecution, Jews were driven to procreate with people who were also part of the minority, hence why they seem to share many of the same physical features. This could be attributed to a coping or survival mechanism. This it after thousands of years could be attributed to innate genetic tendencies. And this isn't racism, my Jewish mother-in-law admitted to this, that it was extremely normal for Jews to marry other Jews, even when the populations were minute.

Explain how this is racist? It's an assessment of racial characteristics. Discussing what appears to be racial characteristics of a group of people is NOT racism.

You can be a racist in your own living room or in your own thoughts.
But you can't express your racist ideas in a public room, such as this board.
Um, yes, you can. Unless it's against the rules of the board...

And it's interfering with the house rules of Max, isn't?
... which it isn't in this case. Because, no, it's not against the house rules of Max. As you would know had you read my last post. The one you're replying to.

Can I ask you a question? Are you a racist by yourself?
You REALLY didn't read my post, did you? That's not very polite, is it now?

For the compliments, scroll up, it isn't that much work, I just told you that I didn't see any, didn't I? I thought you might want to enlighten me.

oh brave poll modifying moderator!
Okay, until now I thought I was maybe merely misunderstanding your phrasing, or you simply chose posts addressed to me as places to also vent at the moderators, but this one seems clear enough.

So, let me ask you: you DO know that I am not a moderator, right? Because you CAN see that it doesn't say "Moderator" below my name, right? And that I also do NOT have the avatar that moderators have, right?

So, let me ask you: you DO know that I am not a moderator, right? Because you CAN see that it doesn't say "Moderator" below my name, right? And that I also do NOT have the avatar that moderators have, right?

Methinks it matters not to him, as moderators and their "loyal lapdogs" are apparently one in the same.

Methinks it matters not to him, as moderators and their "loyal lapdogs" are apparently one in the same.

Seeing how I apparently ended up in the latter category simply for not thinking 4chan was so very spiffing, that's an awful lot of new moderators we're suddenly getting there.

Let me clear up something for you. Due to centuries of persecution, Jews were driven to procreate with people who were also part of the minority, hence why they seem to share many of the same physical features. This could be attributed to a coping or survival mechanism. This it after thousands of years could be attributed to innate genetic tendencies. And this isn't racism, my Jewish mother-in-law admitted to this, that it was extremely normal for Jews to marry other Jews, even when the populations were minute.

Explain how this is racist? It's an assessment of racial characteristics. Discussing what appears to be racial characteristics of a group of people is NOT racism.


Being Jewish isn't a race.

So how could they genetically be separated from the rest, anyway?

Black Jewish Ethiopians are they genetically closer related to other black non-Jewish Ethiopians or to white Russian Jews? What do you think?

Stating that Jews are genetically superior is not only incredible stupid, it is still pure racism as well.

In 2000, the European Union explicitly banned racism along with many other forms of social discrimination in the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, the legal effect of which, if any, would necessarily be limited to Institutions of the European Union:

Article 21 of the charter prohibits discrimination on any ground such as race, color, ethnic or social origin, genetic features, language, religion or belief, political or any other opinion, membership of a national minority, property, disability, age or sexual orientation and also discrimination on the grounds of nationality.[21]

Source:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racism

Being Jewish isn't a race.

So how could they genetically be separated from the rest, anyway?
Ashkenazy Jews, about whom those studies actually talk? Hmm, how about because of many hundreds of years of intergroup marriage?

In 2000, the European Union explicitly banned racism along with many other forms of social discrimination in the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, the legal effect of which, if any, would necessarily be limited to Institutions of the European Union:

Article 21 of the charter prohibits discrimination on any ground such as race, color, ethnic or social origin, genetic features, language, religion or belief, political or any other opinion, membership of a national minority, property, disability, age or sexual orientation and also discrimination on the grounds of nationality.[21]

Source:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racism
If you read your source you will see it says that what is prohibited is discrimination on grounds of race, not racism.
Nobody can sue you because you're a racist but they can sue you if you don't give someone a job in your factory solely because they're, say, black.

Ashkenazy Jews, about whom those studies actually talk? Hmm, how about because of many hundreds of years of intergroup marriage?


If you read your source you will see it says that what is prohibited is discrimination on grounds of race, not racism.
Nobody can sue you because you're a racist but they can sue you if you don't give someone a job in your factory solely because they're, say, black.

Wahaha! Ok! Go to a police station or a school or make sure you're on TV and just say "Whites are the superior race and blacks are not only ugly but man so dumb..."

Wahaha! Poor soul, I want to hear you moaning "I'm not discriminating, I'm just a racist"

And please, don't misuse my source.

Being Jewish isn't a race.

So how could they genetically be separated from the rest, anyway?

Black Jewish Ethiopians are they genetically closer related to other black non-Jewish Ethiopians or to white Russian Jews? What do you think?

Stating that Jews are genetically superior is not only incredible stupid, it is still pure racism as well.

In 2000, the European Union explicitly banned racism along with many other forms of social discrimination in the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, the legal effect of which, if any, would necessarily be limited to Institutions of the European Union:

Article 21 of the charter prohibits discrimination on any ground such as race, color, ethnic or social origin, genetic features, language, religion or belief, political or any other opinion, membership of a national minority, property, disability, age or sexual orientation and also discrimination on the grounds of nationality.[21]

Source:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racism

I'm not saying that there aren't Jews of different colours, nor are they a race as per a traditional definitive. But for the most part, it isn't surprising that there are Jews with many similar physical characteristics as well as shared values as they have fewer schisms (sects or denominations if you will) in their religion than the Christians do.

Prove that it was stated that Jews are genetically superior (though this would work in favour for me when I pass my genetics on), and not just possibly due to limited association as a result of centuries of persecution that they have certain traits that can be attributed to them, and hence appear to be more of a race than a religion.

In fact, prove that it is racist. Often with certain groups there are prevailing values, and education (thus intelligence) is highly prized in Judaism (I'm not saying it's not in other groups, just more so in this one).

But you can't prove its racist in the traditional sense. Nor can you prove that discussing racial characteristics in a neutral tone is actually racist. If it was then many of us would be locked up for saying, "that man is a black Christian". That is not a racist statement, but it does say something about his race, though it's an observation of the man's skin colour and his religion.

If racism really did cover the discussion of racial features then you'd have a pint about the topic being illegal for even discussion but discussing racial features is not racist.

However, if the statement was, "that damn ****** is stupid because he has an inferior ****** brain" then it would be racist. There are differences and it's all a matter of how its worded and what the actual topic is.

Hence why the moderators didn't lock the thread about the discussion of Jewish genetic characteristics because it was just that, a discussion about characteristics. Yes the stats made it look favourably but stats are just numbers.

In fact, I've remember seeing threads; posts here about the ratio of crimes committed by Americans; black people versus that of hispanics and whites. Posters here then have twisted it to say blacks will commit crimes more. Does this mean blacks are automatically criminals by birth? It means that because they're fewer of them and a higher number of criminals that the stats appear distorted.

Another example of a racial thread that wasn't locked until there was actually people making racist comments and not discussing the factors.

The mods have locked plenty of threads that talk about race... only when it descends into trolling and flaming. Racial discussions aren't not racist until someone makes it racist through the use of words.

Btw, shouting racism is illegal as well in UK and since Jolt is located in UK it has to obey UK laws...
Bollocks. Freedom of expression, mate. With an exception of during football matches, you've got a lot if latitude at expressing your opinion.

How can you say that racism is legal?
Because it is. Freedom of speech allows you to be a racist. It does not allow you to commit certain acts based upon the race of others though. Like inciting hatred and violence.
Also, you should really scrap the "racism is illegal in the UK" argument. Because it isn't. It's illegal to kill someone just because you don't like the color of their skin. But then, it's also illegal to kill someone, period.
If "harbouring of racist thoughts" was illegal about half of the populace of any country in the world would be behind bars.
Absolutely true.

But aaaw, you stole my thunder :(

*Is sad*
You can be a racist in your own living room or in your own thoughts.
But you can't express your racist ideas in a public room, such as this board.
Yes, you can actually. Though it all depends on how you do it:

Hatred is a strong term that goes beyond simply causing offence or hostility. Hate crime is any criminal offence committed against a person or property that is motivated by an offender's hatred of someone because of their:
* race, colour, ethnic origin, nationality or national origins
* religion
* gender or gender identity
* sexual orientation
* disability

Hate crime can take many forms including:

* physical attacks – such as physical assault, damage to property, offensive graffiti, neighbour disputes and arson
* threat of attack – including offensive letters, abusive or obscene telephone calls, groups hanging around to intimidate and unfounded, malicious complaints
* verbal abuse or insults - offensive leaflets and posters, abusive gestures, dumping of rubbish outside homes or through letterboxes, and bullying at school or in the workplace

Our definition of a hate crime:

*Any incident, which constitutes a criminal offence, which is perceived by the victim or any other person as being motivated by prejudice or hate.

UK Home office (http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/crime-victims/reducing-crime/hate-crime/)


In 2000, the European Union explicitly banned racism along with many other forms of social discrimination in the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, the legal effect of which, if any, would necessarily be limited to Institutions of the European Union:

Article 21 of the charter prohibits discrimination on any ground such as race, color, ethnic or social origin, genetic features, language, religion or belief, political or any other opinion, membership of a national minority, property, disability, age or sexual orientation and also discrimination on the grounds of nationality.[21]

Source:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racism
Yes - you can't discriminate based on race etc.

You can, however, hold racist beliefs. Freedom of expression usually trumps this.

Read all about racist and religious crime here, (http://www.cps.gov.uk/publications/prosecution/rrpbcrbook.html#Section1) mate. Maybe you'll understand it.

Wahaha! Ok! Go to a police station or a school or make sure you're on TV and just say "Whites are the superior race and blacks are not only ugly but man so dumb..."

Wahaha! Poor soul, I want to hear you moaning "I'm not discriminating, I'm just a racist"
It's like talking to a deaf person.

No matter what you think how it works, you are wrong. You can absolutely do this and nobody can arrest you for it. Seriously. It's not my job to spend post after post telling you that you REALLY don't have your facts straight. Go read up on it.

And please, don't misuse my source.
You're killing me.

Ashkenazy Jews, about whom those studies actually talk? Hmm, how about because of many hundreds of years of intergroup marriage?


If you read your source you will see it says that what is prohibited is discrimination on grounds of race, not racism.
Nobody can sue you because you're a racist but they can sue you if you don't give someone a job in your factory solely because they're, say, black.


Oh and btw how do we measure that Jews are smarter anyway?

And did you know that they score lower on IQ Test as Belgians ? 94 vs. 100

Wahaha! Ok! Go to a police station or a school or make sure you're on TV and just say "Whites are the superior race and blacks are not only ugly but man so dumb..."
And then what? You won't get arrested nor punished by the courts.


And please, don't misuse my source.
Please, understand your own sources. It makes you look extremely silly when you don't.

Absolutely true.

But aaaw, you stole my thunder :(

*Is sad*
Sorry. *fluffles* But you're so much more patient than I am at this point, you even gave him links! Truly commendable. I, on the other hand, am starting to have this twitch in my left eyeball...


*twitch*

There are good reasons to have a moderated section:

• It prevent flames
• They kick out spam
• They delete illegal or unlawful things (such as promoting child porn or racism)
• …

And that’s all good.

In my opinion in a moderator-poor channel, these entire things should continue.

But in the moderator-rich channels they do more:

• Allow racism, ‘cause it fits in their line of thinking, like: http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=542000
• Delete threads ‘cause they just don’t like it
• Adjust polls, like they did with the one in this thread (the last option, wasn’t created by me)
• Protect ‘old’ posters, by allowing that they flame or perform personal insults, which is strictly forbidden for new ones.
• Discourage new ones to have a different opinion as the average moderator his/her opinion.

I understand that the moderator don’t like the idea. It is reducing their privileges and nobody likes that. You’ll see in the thread above by the personal attacks, the insults and the abuse of their ‘power’ (oh well), the modifications of the poll (maybe the results as well?) how particular they don’t like it.

I'm a Zionist now because I allowed that thread to continue?

Well, I guess I'm a libertarian because I allowed this thread (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=542699).

And clearly, I'm in favor of poison because I allowed this thread (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=542768).

Obviously, I hate babes because I closed this thread (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=538959).

And it's really quite apparent that I find apologies distasteful, because I closed this thread (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=537894).

I'm also an atheist, because I allowed this thread (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=521348).

Let's not forget that I'm a nudist, because hey, I let this thread (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=516893) continue.

You can clearly see that I am highly opposed to waterboarding by the fact that I closed this thread (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=506115).

My opinions are so easy to figure out from which threads I lock.

Article 21 of the charter prohibits discrimination on any ground such as race, color, ethnic or social origin, genetic features, language, religion or belief, political or any other opinion, membership of a national minority, property, disability, age or sexual orientation and also discrimination on the grounds of nationality.[21]

Source:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racism

"Every day, immigrants robs, rapes and kills Norwegians.
Every day, our people and our country is looted and destroyed by the jews, whom suck our country dry and steal our wealth, only to replace it by immorality and un-Norwegian thoughts."

That's an example from what was allowed by the Norwegian supreme court in december 2002.

Why I'm mentioning it? To show you that article 21 doesn't directly affect the criminal legislation in member states. Article 21 does not have a direct affect - you'll have to look at the national law in each country to find out what's penalized and how far the threat of punishment go.

You have yet to provide the text of any laws outlawing "Racism" in the UK.

Also, learn the difference between discrimination and racism.

No Hot Rodia. I never said you are.

I quoted a guy that stated that Jews are smarter due their superior genes.

I complained that such line is pure racism.

And another labelled you as a Zionist.

Btw, are you a Zionist?




I'm a Zionist now because I allowed that thread to continue?

Well, I guess I'm a libertarian because I allowed this thread (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=542699).

And clearly, I'm in favor of poison because I allowed this thread (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=542768).

Obviously, I hate babes because I closed this thread (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=538959).

And it's really quite apparent that I find apologies distasteful, because I closed this thread (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=537894).

I'm also an atheist, because I allowed this thread (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=521348).

Let's not forget that I'm a nudist, because hey, I let this thread (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=516893) continue.

You can clearly see that I am highly opposed to waterboarding by the fact that I closed this thread (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=506115).

My opinions are so easy to figure out from which threads I lock.

I'm a Zionist now because I allowed that thread to continue?

Well, I guess I'm a libertarian because I allowed this thread (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=542699).

And clearly, I'm in favor of poison because I allowed this thread (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=542768).

Obviously, I hate babes because I closed this thread (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=538959).

And it's really quite apparent that I find apologies distasteful, because I closed this thread (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=537894).

I'm also an atheist, because I allowed this thread (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=521348).

Let's not forget that I'm a nudist, because hey, I let this thread (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=516893) continue.

You can clearly see that I am highly opposed to waterboarding by the fact that I closed this thread (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=506115).

My opinions are so easy to figure out from which threads I lock.

Well... duh! It should be obvious! Your opinions dictate how you lay down the law, selectively allowing certain topics to pass while locking others because it contradicts your opinion. *nods* Plus you OBVIOUSLY have it in for certain groups because you deliberately smoother their opinions...

*pours more of her speciality sarcasm sauce on it*

Mmmm... that's gooooood....

Sorry. *fluffles* But you're so much more patient than I am at this point, you even gave him links! Truly commendable. I, on the other hand, am starting to have this twitch in my left eyeball...


*twitch*
:p

Understandable. After all, he's uncovered your secret mod-hood, and unmasked you as the racist you are since you're claiming that there's a difference between the act of discrimination and the ideology or belief of racism. I think I'd be twitchy too! Who knows, he'll uncover your connections to the Freemasons and the Illuminati if he keeps this up. Not that the Illuminati exists, mind you, hehe, of course they don't - what a silly idea! Fnord! :eek:

As for the links... Do you think he'll even click on them? After this thread? I'm not sure I believe that. So I looked for them mostly for my own benefit :)

No Hot Rodia. I never said you are.

I quoted a guy that stated that Jews are smarter due their superior genes.

I complained that such line is pure racism.

And another labelled you as a Zionist.

Btw, are you a Zionist?

No. I tend to disagree with claims of genetic superiority in general, as well as claims of cultural superiority, etc.

Sorry, I didn't know that English spoken people are not using italics as Dutch spoken people do.

What?!? You said "paid" and then said it again in the same sentence in italics -- how does that change the meaning of the word if you have no other context around it for us to draw from? Mods don't get pain in any way, shape or form.

So you agree that racism is obscene, illegal, threating, malicious and defamatory ?

I think it's more misguided, pitiful and stupid than obscene, but the concept -- the IDEA -- itself isn't illegal. ACTING on it is.

But you think that a line as "I say this should be attributed to a combination of innate genetic tendency toward intelligence among Jews" isn't all of above but a nice clean try to conversate about racism?

That is exactly what it is. What's so hard for you to understand about that? He's putting forth an idea and the rest of the thread either agrees or disagrees and presents support for their arguments. That's called a debate, whether you're in Belgium, Belgrade or Belle Fourche, South Dakota, my friend.


Doh! So people didn't have to make a fool of themselves thus the poll was childishly biased? whahaha

I realize English isn't your first language, but...huh? People who disagree with your poll should have to be insulted in order to register their disagreement. I went for your fourth option out of spite because your insults mean nothing to me, and I think we need Mods. The Mods added the fifth option and it got nearly as many votes as the largest segment that agreed with you. Doesn't that say that the vast majority disagree with you, and many were content to choose your insulting fourth option?

How could you possibly claim your poll was in any way accurate if your answer to not being mocked by your fourth option was "don't answer". How does that make the poll anything but biased in your favor?

I didn't call it 'little' things. The original author did.

This is exactly what you posted, and it was NOT in quotes like everything else:

Nazi German was wrong in some little innie minnie things, but Volkswagen was a hit!!! And a Jew is stating this? Come one, get real!

You just lied to me. Any particular reason why?

No you can't. You clearly can't.

'Cause the same guy is answering his own question by:

"I say this should be attributed to a combination of innate genetic tendency toward intelligence among Jews"

That's what he says he believes. Your response should be to disagree and tell him why. THAT's a debate! Running to the Mods to clamor for the thread to be deleted is not debate. Absence of debate is what racists want. By trying to stifle legitimate debate on racism, you are doing more for the racists than you are for tolerance and fairness. Censorship only proves them right when they claim persecution and it only makes their followers more determined and dedicated.

I will say it one more time, and then I will waste no more time on you, sir:

Racism ITSELF is not illegal. It is not illegal to think racist thoughts and speak them. What is illegal is acting on them in any way that breaks the law, whether that be assault, defamation, slander, discrimination (in things like hiring or serving the public). Debate and reasoned discussion are the only things which will shed light on how pitiful and sad racists really are. Censorship gives racism the shadows it needs to thrive.

Isn't this whole thread a contradiction? Edwinasia wants a forum "respecting total freedom of speech" and yet has been arguing against letting racist views be discussed.

Is that not unfree speech, aka censored speech?

Is the sum and substance of this thread that Edwinasia wants the right to be able to say whatever he wants to or about whomever he wants in whatever way he wants no matter what the rules actually say, but he wants to manipulate or create rules to muzzle anyone he disagrees with?

Wahaha! Ok! Go to a police station or a school or make sure you're on TV and just say "Whites are the superior race and blacks are not only ugly but man so dumb..."

Wahaha! Poor soul, I want to hear you moaning "I'm not discriminating, I'm just a racist"


Swing and a miss. I can walk into any police station in the US or UK and say exactly what you just said, and while I will likely be looked at like I'm a mental patient, and certainly looked at harder by any Black policeman, unless I look right in his eye can call him a ******, or use that term pejoratively in any way, I'm sound as a pound. Incredibly foolish, but not in danger of arrest.

:p

Understandable. After all, he's uncovered your secret mod-hood, and unmasked you as the racist you are since you're claiming that there's a difference between the act of discrimination and the ideology or belief of racism. I think I'd be twitchy too! Who knows, he'll uncover your connections to the Freemasons and the Illuminati if he keeps this up. Not that the Illuminati exists, mind you, hehe, of course they don't - what a silly idea!

Fnord! :eek:


That line does not exist.

Isn't this whole thread a contradiction? Edwinasia wants a forum "respecting total freedom of speech" and yet has been arguing against letting racist views be discussed.

Is that not unfree speech, aka censored speech?

Is the sum and substance of this thread that Edwinasia wants the right to be able to say whatever he wants to or about whomever he wants in whatever way he wants no matter what the rules actually say, but he wants to manipulate or create rules to muzzle anyone he disagrees with?

I can't believe I didn't think of that sooner, but that's exactly right.

Edwinasia! YOU clearly don't want a free-speech forum, what are you griping about?

Isn't this whole thread a contradiction? Edwinasia wants a forum "respecting total freedom of speech" and yet has been arguing against letting racist views be discussed.

Is that not unfree speech, aka censored speech?

Is the sum and substance of this thread that Edwinasia wants the right to be able to say whatever he wants to or about whomever he wants in whatever way he wants no matter what the rules actually say, but he wants to manipulate or create rules to muzzle anyone he disagrees with?

No, that's not my intention.

I think even racist postings can have a life in a mod-poor forum.

Currently, the mods say 'we are here to protect YOU from racism and stuff'.

While they sometimes allow racism and then I'm starting to ask questions about the purpose of a mod...