NationStates Jolt Archive

Is it stricktly forbidden to discuss FUA here on NS? Yes or no will do, there is no reason to delete this thread also. I appreciate opinions from everybody, although as said, yes or no will do.

Kisses and good dreams to everybody, BMV

This issue is currently under discussion.

FUA ? ( Found Under Arm(-chair) ? ) :?

- Le Représentant de Komokom, Ministre Régional de Substance.
http://www.nationstates.net/images/flags/uploads/komokom.jpg (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/24401/page=display_nation)
Aspirez a la legalite avec l'egalite

what is FUA?
Fark.com Uber Alles?

I know it's a forum that a lot of the general forum regulars post on .. and (apperently) has some rather suspect popups ...

Don't know what the acronym stands for though :?

"Flexible Use of Airspace"

This issue is currently under discussion.

It WAS under discussion, however it would appear that the hammer fell in favour of FUA being banned all together on NS. If and when that changes, we will let you know.

In the meantime BMV, the answer would be NO

Stephanie
Game Moderator

It WAS under discussion, however it would appear that the hammer fell in favour of FUA being banned all together on NS.

Stephanie
Game Moderator

It did?
Myrth said it was still under discussion.
Well you are the biggest mod so you over ride all.

Was just waiting for a GM to announce the policy.
I'm just an FM so I needed to buy time :wink:

I don't mean to be difficult or anything, I'm just confused atm.

"Is it stricktly forbidden to discuss FUA here on NS?" "NO"

But FUA is at the same time banned all together, well, except for discussions about FUA? Is that how it works? :?

I don't mean to be difficult or anything, I'm just confused atm.

"Is it stricktly forbidden to discuss FUA here on NS?" "NO"

But FUA is at the same time banned all together, well, except for discussions about FUA? Is that how it works? :?

I can't imagine a single reason why FUA needs to be discussed on Nationstates.. if it's so wonderful, discuss it there. It's a banned site here, therefore discussion on it might make people interested and wonder what it is and would lead to people wanting the link.. thus creating a problem. You are not going to advertise that garbage on Nationstates.. that has been agreed on.

Stephanie
Game Moderator

can someone please explain FUA to me? (sorry for being newbish)

can someone please explain FUA to me? (sorry for being newbish)
All the antisocial elements we have banned or deleted since the creation of NS, clubbed together to create a forum where they alternate between stroking each others' egos and flaming each other. That forum is FUA, a home for extinct NationStates flamers, trollers, spammers, griefers, etc.

Most of us here understand that this is only a game. For them however, the fights of months, sometimes a year ago are deeply personal matters, and they seem to have little else going on in their lives which would prevent them from continually revisiting the same tired old territory.

Thus, the reasoning goes that since their community centers around defamation of this site and its users, they can keep it out of here.

Tactical Grace
Forum Moderator

Thank you Tactical grace for clearing that up.

Thank you Tactical grace for clearing that up.

actually it has quite a few people from NS on it, and some other people who havent joined NS

All the antisocial elements we have banned or deleted since the creation of NS, clubbed together to create a forum where they alternate between stroking each others' egos and flaming each other. That forum is FUA, a home for extinct NationStates flamers, trollers, spammers, griefers, etc.

Most of us here understand that this is only a game. For them however, the fights of months, sometimes a year ago are deeply personal matters, and they seem to have little else going on in their lives which would prevent them from continually revisiting the same tired old territory.

Thus, the reasoning goes that since their community centers around defamation of this site and its users, they can keep it out of here.

Tactical Grace
Forum Moderator

So some people are bitter...who cares? Not all of the members focus on that. Some just easily got sick of the server going down...and since we "have little else going on in their[our] lives" we went somewhere else.

I have no problem with not sharing the site publicly, but we can't even mention "hey, this is where I have been..." or discuss? I have given out the link to a few people who have asked...but only when someone has asked.

There is no official policy at present, but promoting that site and linking to it in the NS forums are being viewed as things which are being banned. There should be clarification / an official ruling once the higher authorities review the proposal. In the meantime, simply mentioning it in passing is not a massively illegal activity, just promotion and linking.

Tactical Grace
Forum Moderator

can someone please explain FUA to me? (sorry for being newbish)
All the antisocial elements we have banned or deleted since the creation of NS, clubbed together to create a forum where they alternate between stroking each others' egos and flaming each other. That forum is FUA, a home for extinct NationStates flamers, trollers, spammers, griefers, etc.

Most of us here understand that this is only a game. For them however, the fights of months, sometimes a year ago are deeply personal matters, and they seem to have little else going on in their lives which would prevent them from continually revisiting the same tired old territory.

Thus, the reasoning goes that since their community centers around defamation of this site and its users, they can keep it out of here.

Tactical Grace
Forum ModeratorI'm sorry, but I consider that itself flame. I am a member of FUA, a mod as well actually, and I have never been warned, deleted or banned. As a matter of fact, I believe I got along quite well with most of the people on this site, including you and the other mods. The forum is far from centered around the defamation of this site, nor that of its users. I have encountered little of that, far less than enough to consider it centered around that. There isn't as much flaming as you give the impression by these soundingly infaous and incorrigible users. While it is true that there is a flame forum over there, and that many banned or deleted nations have joined up, so far as it goes, the amount of this behavior you describe is rather low. We can afford to be far less authoritarian, whereas yourselves at nationstates need to worry that offensive material may lead to lawsuits.

I do not understand why it is banned to promote or link to this forum. Wee there a problem with it as any defamation or inslt to this site or its users, these "insults" should be restricted already as they are in posts themselves.

surely I would think that the mods are more openminded that what they are showing on this matter.

I believe the theory is that we don't feel the need to have advertisements to sites that have things like this:


Tell the world what you think of this vile bitch! No nice comments about her please, and if you flame anbody but her, those flames will be removed. When this thread is full of enough flames, I will give her a link, this way she knows what people really think of her. Post under puppets if you don't want her knowing who you are on NS

...or this:


and your just a shit dicked son of royal whorebag who grovels like a worm before anyone with just a little bit of power--take your bootlicking posts back to NS where they belong and let them ride on your backs with a stick stuck up your ass

Suffice it to say, that board contains many posts that violate NS T&C, and thus is not the kind of thing we want advertised here. The fact that it quite possibly violates the T&C of their own host is another matter altogether.

All the antisocial elements we have banned or deleted since the creation of NS, clubbed together to create a forum where they alternate between stroking each others' egos and flaming each other. That forum is FUA, a home for extinct NationStates flamers, trollers, spammers, griefers, etc.

Most of us here understand that this is only a game. For them however, the fights of months, sometimes a year ago are deeply personal matters, and they seem to have little else going on in their lives which would prevent them from continually revisiting the same tired old territory.

Thus, the reasoning goes that since their community centers around defamation of this site and its users, they can keep it out of here.

Tactical Grace
Forum Moderator


Well we at FUA will still allow the linking of NS, even though some, but not all of it's mods feel the need to make slanderous accusations about our board and it's members.

Nyborg
FUA Moderator
Nationstates member since 3/15/03

I believe the theory is that we don't feel the need to have advertisements to sites that have things like this:


Tell the world what you think of this vile bitch! No nice comments about her please, and if you flame anbody but her, those flames will be removed. When this thread is full of enough flames, I will give her a link, this way she knows what people really think of her. Post under puppets if you don't want her knowing who you are on NS

...or this:


and your just a shit dicked son of royal whorebag who grovels like a worm before anyone with just a little bit of power--take your bootlicking posts back to NS where they belong and let them ride on your backs with a stick stuck up your ass

Suffice it to say, that board contains many posts that violate NS T&C, and thus is not the kind of thing we want advertised here. The fact that it quite possibly violates the T&C of their own host is another matter altogether.


Now this was a valid arguement. At least Hack used real quotes instead of just lobbing insults.

a minority doesn't represent the majority hack

a minority doesn't represent the majority hack

Irrelevant.

We have to decide based on content of the site in question. The site contains content that is unacceptable by NS standards, therefore the ban.

and your just a shit dicked son of royal whorebag who grovels like a worm before anyone with just a little bit of power--take your bootlicking posts back to NS where they belong and let them ride on your backs with a stick stuck up your ass

Suffice it to say, that board contains many posts that violate NS T&C, and thus is not the kind of thing we want advertised here. The fact that it quite possibly violates the T&C of their own host is another matter altogether.

you didn't mention the fact that the red arrow wrote that

you didn't mention the fact that the red arrow wrote that

So? He is a member of the site, and wrote that on the site with the implicit blessing of the site's Admin. I fail to see how this supports your argument in the slightest. If anything, it hurts your argument as he's another ex-NSer deleted for rules violations.

very well. no need to argue with a partisan.

I've always wondered about this debate. Surely, people, there are better things to hate people for than just because they banned a specific website, right? Everyone, go and find something better to argue about, lest I taunt you all.

And as various witness around this site will attest, when I taunt, I taunt hard. As I can see it, FUA is banned from discussion. Nothing said can be done to unban it.


~Someday a real rain will come, and wash all this filth from the streets.

I've always wondered about this debate. Surely, people, there are better things to hate people for than just because they banned a specific website, right? Everyone, go and find something better to argue about, lest I taunt you all.

And as various witness around this site will attest, when I taunt, I taunt hard. As I can see it, FUA is banned from discussion. Nothing said can be done to unban it.


~Someday a real rain will come, and wash all this filth from the streets.

((This might be a double post... stupid NS SERVER GREMLINS! I CURSE YOU! AND ALL WHO LOOK LIKE YOU! AND ALL YOUR NEIGHBOURS! AND ALL THEIR FAMILIES!...I'm calm.))

Well we at FUA will still allow the linking of NS, even though some, but not all of it's mods feel the need to make slanderous accusations about our board and it's members.
And it is here that I see a difference. I have a very low opinion of that forum and a loud minority of its users, but I speak of this in general terms, without resorting to violently bad language. I do not attack specific, named individuals. FUA does not meet this standard.

Tactical Grace
Forum Moderator

I would rather not have the site linked on here anyway, because I would rather keep the problem people here on NS and not have their 'Who would win at arm wrestling, Bush or Nixon' banter on FUA. However, I would like to know if we are allowed to send a URL in a TM to a friend, as long as we aren't spamming. For instance, if I am exchanging tm's with one of my old chums here, and they ask "where have you been hiding?", can I then send them the URL?

Well we at FUA will still allow the linking of NS, even though some, but not all of it's mods feel the need to make slanderous accusations about our board and it's members.
And it is here that I see a difference. I have a very low opinion of that forum and a loud minority of its users, but I speak of this in general terms, without resorting to violently bad language. I do not attack specific, named individuals. FUA does not meet this standard.

Tactical Grace
Forum Moderator


Thankyou for at least saying "minority" this time. If you would care to take a better look sometime, there are many wonderful things that can happen when people are allowed to freely express themselves. I understand that this kind of free thought is no longer tolerated on NS, and I understand why. FUA was created as an outlet for those people who needed more freedom. I take no issue with the linking policy, so long as you make it a bit more clear.

Many of the sites that has been previously linked to on threads here have contained worse (granted none that were against NS that I know of) things but been allowed. Still that was in the Flame forum, I understand any flame being blockd directly from a persons post, but FUA being blocked all together is silly. It should only be blocked if meant to be used as flame or in flaming. In my opinion, blocking it all together is going a little too far.

I would rather not have the site linked on here anyway, because I would rather keep the problem people here on NS and not have their 'Who would win at arm wrestling, Bush or Nixon' banter on FUA. However, I would like to know if we are allowed to send a URL in a TM to a friend, as long as we aren't spamming. For instance, if I am exchanging tm's with one of my old chums here, and they ask "where have you been hiding?", can I then send them the URL?

That's fine by me.

I would rather not have the site linked on here anyway, because I would rather keep the problem people here on NS and not have their 'Who would win at arm wrestling, Bush or Nixon' banter on FUA. However, I would like to know if we are allowed to send a URL in a TM to a friend, as long as we aren't spamming. For instance, if I am exchanging tm's with one of my old chums here, and they ask "where have you been hiding?", can I then send them the URL?

That's fine by me.


That's the kiss of death Hack. :lol:
Surely someone will overule you.

Many of the sites that has been previously linked to on threads here have contained worse (granted none that were against NS that I know of) things but been allowed. Still that was in the Flame forum, I understand any flame being blockd directly from a persons post, but FUA being blocked all together is silly. It should only be blocked if meant to be used as flame or in flaming. In my opinion, blocking it all together is going a little too far.
We cannot block just one part of it. The whole thing gets blocked. It is the same (and I apologise for the crudeness of this analogy) with sites that host pornographic content. We cannot selectively block one section, or just the porn content, it's the whole site. Besides, there is a principle at stake. That forum is used to drag people from this site through the mud. We are not about to block out just those bits, even if we could.

Tactical Grace
Forum Moderator

Still that was in the Flame forum, I understand any flame being blockd directly from a persons post, but FUA being blocked all together is silly. It should only be blocked if meant to be used as flame or in flaming. In my opinion, blocking it all together is going a little too far.

How do you propose that we block your flame forum? Linking to the forum is linking to the content, in total. In that spirit we must consider the total content.

And, again, ya'll might want to look at your DK3 AUP, especially this section:

Harassment: Use of the DK3 service to transmit any material (by e-mail, uploading, posting or otherwise) that harasses another.No emphasis added

It is not my intenion that part of it be blocked, it is that posts where it is used for flame here be blocked as they usually would, not the forum itself.

It is not my intenion that part of it be blocked, it is that posts where it is used for flame here be blocked as they usually would, not the forum itself.

And that is not going to happen. Drop it, and move on.

Someday a real rain will come and wash this filth from the streets.

Sorry, I'd at least like to have this considered.

The link to the FUA forums has been added to the Nationstates forums block list. It was initially banned not for the fact that a number of ex-nations are members, but for the fact that it had porn popup ads. After reviewing the forum's content, the mods reached a consensus that FUA was not something that should be promoted and linked on Nationstates, due to some of the contents, particularly in the 'flame' forum. Since we cannot just block out a single section, the entire thing has been banned.

This is still pending review by [violet] and Max, however, and the mods may be overturned in this ruling.

http://rpstudios.ian-justman.com/junk/CGgoods/RepProdtheModsig2.JPG
~Evil Empress [Rep Prod] the Ninja Mod
~Master of the mighty moderation no-dachi Kiritateru Teikoku

Sorry, I'd at least like to have this considered.

And there's your answer.


~Someday a real rain will come, and wash this filth from the streets
I am not, nor have I ever been, a moderator.

I can understand blocking it for having pr0n pop-ups (although I've never seen any because I have a blocker) but going as far as not to even mention it is pretty authoritarian :?

I can understand blocking it for having pr0n pop-ups (although I've never seen any because I have a blocker) but going as far as not to even mention it is pretty authoritarian :?

And your point is? This court is now closed. Next case?

~Someday a real rain will come, and wash this filth from the streets

I can understand blocking it for having pr0n pop-ups (although I've never seen any because I have a blocker) but going as far as not to even mention it is pretty authoritarian :?

And your point is? This court is now closed. Next case?

~Someday a real rain will come, and wash this filth from the streets

Sorry, when where you appointed mod?

Oh :o whats that? you haven't!

Then stop the snide, condescending remarks please and leave this thread for people who wish to discuss the issue.

] ...fact that it had porn popup ads.

In the entire time ive been there i have not seen one :? what are you basing this on?

] ...fact that it had porn popup ads.

In the entire time ive been there i have not seen one :? what are you basing this on?

The time that I went there and did see one.

Did you click it?

Hmm, what Reppy said about the 'flame forum' is very true.....and I haven't been on it in over 3 months.

All the antisocial elements we have banned or deleted since the creation of NS, clubbed together to create a forum where they alternate between stroking each others' egos and flaming each other. That forum is FUA, a home for extinct NationStates flamers, trollers, spammers, griefers, etc.

Most of us here understand that this is only a game. For them however, the fights of months, sometimes a year ago are deeply personal matters, and they seem to have little else going on in their lives which would prevent them from continually revisiting the same tired old territory.

Thus, the reasoning goes that since their community centers around defamation of this site and its users, they can keep it out of here.

Tactical Grace
Forum Moderator

You know, I find that sweeping generalisation of FUA users just slightly offensive.

________________________

http://www.eunos.com/keith/brb/images/brb_sm.gif
DO NOT PRESS
THIS BUTTON

http://instagiber.net/smiliesdotcom/contrib/geno/mofo.gif

All the antisocial elements we have banned or deleted since the creation of NS, clubbed together to create a forum where they alternate between stroking each others' egos and flaming each other. That forum is FUA, a home for extinct NationStates flamers, trollers, spammers, griefers, etc.

Most of us here understand that this is only a game. For them however, the fights of months, sometimes a year ago are deeply personal matters, and they seem to have little else going on in their lives which would prevent them from continually revisiting the same tired old territory.

Thus, the reasoning goes that since their community centers around defamation of this site and its users, they can keep it out of here.

Tactical Grace
Forum Moderator

Come on dude that's kind of f***ed up.
And how am I anti-social?
And when the outcasts do defamize NS users it's normally just the mods.
Like...uh...you...and...the others.
Like this time when Beeker was drunk or something and he fell asleep on his keyboard.
Good times. Good times.
And p0rn pop-ups. I think they're gone man. Gone. Like dust in the wind brotha.
So come on stop preachen the hate and embrace change and flowers.

if anything we are more social.

i dunno about you, but in my opinion socialized = having a pleasureable time talking to someone.

not "Bush looks like a monkey!" "shut up you commie!" "I sacrifice 22 virgin n00bs to the great ninja mod!" "Jews run the media!" "Gays go to hell!" "Mormons should stop baptising dead jews!" "<----NOT a mod :wink: "

???

I am personally surprised and saddened at the amount of unwarranted hatred FUA receives from the moderators of NationStates. Let it be known that the content of FUA is much more friendly and civil than that of NS General*. I personally have a great dislike for forums full of trolling, flaming and similarly practices, which is why I frequent FUA more than NS.

I personally have a great dislike for forums full of trolling, flaming and similarly practices, which is why I frequent FUA more than NS.

Like, say, the Flaming Forum of FUA?

the flame forum was created so you dont have to be bothered by flamers. IF you want to flame and be flamed, enter the forum. if you dont, well, dont go in. its pretty simple. nobody is forcing you to enter the danger zone.

I personally have a great dislike for forums full of trolling, flaming and similarly practices, which is why I frequent FUA more than NS.

Like, say, the Flaming Forum of FUA?

What, the one that keeps the vast majority of the flaming & trolling out of the other FUA forums and allows those users who don't want to get involved in that sort of thing to get on with their discussions in peace? That Flame Forum?

________________________

http://www.eunos.com/keith/brb/images/brb_sm.gif
DO NOT PRESS
THIS BUTTON

http://instagiber.net/smiliesdotcom/contrib/geno/mofo.gif

I personally have a great dislike for forums full of trolling, flaming and similarly practices, which is why I frequent FUA more than NS.

Like, say, the Flaming Forum of FUA?

Like, all the other parts, which as a result of the flaming forum have no flame in whatsoever.

I can't see why you hate FUA so much.

On a side note, will expressing pro-FUA sentiment (in the form I already have) result in any form of punishment, because I would like to avoid having any of my nations DEATed.

I have nothing against NationStates mods. From what I see they are usually nice people. I want to know if the NS mods will be against me for liking FUA.

On a side note, will expressing pro-FUA sentiment (in the form I already have) result in any form of punishment, because I would like to avoid having any of my nations DEATed.

Oh, I'd hate to think that the NS mods would go in for that sort of narrow-minded censorship...

________________________

http://www.eunos.com/keith/brb/images/brb_sm.gif
DO NOT PRESS
THIS BUTTON

http://instagiber.net/smiliesdotcom/contrib/geno/mofo.gif

So let me get this straight,its alright for people to bad mouth fua,but if someone says something good about it,you run the risk of getting in trouble

Folks are welcome to defend FUA, but pending review by Max or [violet], the ban is in place. Not to stereotype FUA users, but the fact does remain that a number of past problem players have gone there (again, the Flame forum is the biggest issue- if somebody was promoting a forum here that was basically a "<so-and-so invaders> SUK BALLS!" or <so-and-so delegate> IS A EFFING *BLEEP!*", or had a considerable section dedicated solely to that, it'd get banned promptly), and some of those people continue to cause us problems. I won't swear to it, but I seem to recall something awhile back around when FUA was first formed about a plot to spam the beejeebus out of the NS forums with porn, goatse, tubgirl, and so on and so forth.

http://rpstudios.ian-justman.com/junk/CGgoods/RepProdtheModsig2.JPG
~Evil Empress Rep Prod the Ninja Mod
~Master of the mighty moderation no-dachi Kiritateru Teikoku

I won't swear to it, but I seem to recall something awhile back around when FUA was first formed about a plot to spam the beejeebus out of the NS forums with porn, goatze, tubgirl, and so on and so forth.

First I've heard about it. I seem to recall that some of the first people banned from FUA got shafted for posting tubgirl pics. In fact, I've seen far less offensive material there than I ever have here.

Are you sure it was an actual plot and not just some disgruntled NS-user mouthing off? :lol:

________________________

You know, linking to FUA in a thread which is about the banning of FUA is a bad idea.

I'm wondering... if discussion about FUA isn't allowed, shouldn't you stop using that signature, Cyril? Because, I'm not sure if anyone else noticed this, but that button leads to FUA.

Roania, this matter does not concern you.

I find it strange that you seem to be on a mission to lower people's opinion of you.

Roania, this matter does not concern you.

I find it strange that you seem to be on a mission to lower people's opinion of you.

And I find it strange that a new nation is lecturing me. Quite frankly, the opinion of a bunch of rule-breakers is as worthless to me as the opinions of cockroaches.

I'm wondering... if discussion about FUA isn't allowed, shouldn't you stop using that signature, Cyril? Because, I'm not sure if anyone else noticed this, but that button leads to FUA.

*slaps forehead*

Oh my God, does it? :shock:

Thanks for pointing that out Roan. Lucky someone went and wrote "DO NOT PRESS THIS BUTTON" under it in large friendly letters, eh? Otherwise dozens of innocent people might have had their minds needlessly corrupted by the Flame Forum!

________________________

SIG = GONE!

Roania, this matter does not concern you.

I find it strange that you seem to be on a mission to lower people's opinion of you.

And I find it strange that a new nation is lecturing me. Quite frankly, the opinion of a bunch of rule-breakers is as worthless to me as the opinions of cockroaches.

Well, Mr. "NS founding date is more important than social skills", this is not my only nation, merely the one I happen to be logged in with.

As for the "bunch of rule breakers", I, along with the majority of FUA's users do not belong to that group.

I do not think your baseless accusations belong in Moderation quite frankly, and I don't care if you are almost as old as my oldest living nation, I'm sure that most people would agree with me.

I'm wondering... if discussion about FUA isn't allowed, shouldn't you stop using that signature, Cyril? Because, I'm not sure if anyone else noticed this, but that button leads to FUA.

*slaps forehead*

Oh my God, does it? :shock:

Thanks for pointing that out Roan. Lucky someone went and wrote DO NOT PRESS THIS BUTTON under it in large friendly letters, eh. Otherwise dozens of innocent people might have had their minds needlessly corrupted by the Flame Forum!

________________________

http://www.eunos.com/keith/brb/images/brb_sm.gif (-FUA link removed-index.php)
DO NOT PRESS
THIS BUTTON

http://instagiber.net/smiliesdotcom/contrib/geno/mofo.gif

Yeah, lucky, that. :wink: :roll: Just fair warning... the way this debate seems to be rolling towards, that might get you in trouble.

I think it's only fair to point out that I don't have an opinion one way or another on this. It doesn't matter to me if the rules are just, or unjust, or whatever. What matters is that they are rules, and as such, must be obeyed.

Yeah, lucky, that. :wink: :roll: Just fair warning... the way this debate seems to be rolling towards, that might get you in trouble.

I think it's only fair to point out that I don't have an opinion one way or another on this. It doesn't matter to me if the rules are just, or unjust, or whatever. What matters is that they are rules, and as such, must be obeyed.

Ta ever so. But I think I've had all the warning, fair or otherwise, that I'm ever likely to need. :roll:

________________________

We obviously haven't made it clear enough.
No. Linking. To. FUA.

I'm wondering how many players defending FUA remember Max Barry's comment in the F.A.Q. regarding this not being a place of free speech, that he, and thus those whom serve him, the Moderation Staff, have the right to restrict content in relation to this being a web site with terms and conditions ...

I also wonder how many remember this is a site used by school kids.

Now, as I read it,

FUA, linking to it from here, is banned,

On pain of being "Voice of Mod'd" :wink:

As is promoting it ?

( I would think even talking of it would be promotion in most cases ... )

And thats the end of it, right ?

( Naturally taking into consideration the reserved right of Moderation and Administration to alter or re-set rules at any time at their will for any reason ... Hey, I wrote a disclaimer ! )

- Le Représentant de Komokom.
Ministre Régional de Substance.
L'Ordre de Vaillant États.
http://www.nationstates.net/images/flags/uploads/komokom.jpg (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/24401/page=display_nation)
Aspirez a la legalite avec l'egalite

Yeah, we know that, FUA's are not usually NS n00bs.

If they ban it, they ban it.

Personally, I'm more bothered by the fact that otherwise respected mods (well I respect them anyway) are spreading slanderous lies about it.

[shrugs]

As an advocate of free speech, what can I say but...

________________________

Edited by Nationstates Moderator

If you keep linking to FUA even after it's quite obvious it's been banned, you may risk deletion.

( Resists urge to slap down certain people with a frying-pan )

Yes, free speech is all very well and good.

But.

In regards to free speech on Nation States ... Screw it.

Because this game has rules, terms and conditions which must be obeyed, things you should abide by in the interests of a good playing environment for the player individual and player society.

While we admire some peoples ideals, namely here being free speech ...

Free speech is a bad argument to hide behind though, if your going to flagrantly breech these rules mentioned above, and disregard the people who police this game and act as the rule enforcement agency, for free, in their own time, for our good.

Its disrespectful to the Moderators and any player who abides by the rules.

* Polite cough, discrete point at big red button.

- Le Représentant de Komokom.
Ministre Régional de Substance.
L'Ordre de Vaillant États.
http://www.nationstates.net/images/flags/uploads/komokom.jpg (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/24401/page=display_nation)
Aspirez a la legalite avec l'egalite

( By the by, is this thread going to be closed soon, it has pretty much dealth with the ... simple question, and is starting into ... well, a debate me-thinks )

( Resists urge to slap down certain people with a frying-pan )

Yes, free speech is all very well and good.

But.

In regards to free speech on Nation States ... Screw it.

Because this game has rules, terms and conditions which must be obeyed, things you should abide by in the interests of a good playing environment for the player individual and player society.

While we admire some peoples ideals, namely here being free speech ...

Free speech is a bad argument to hide behind though, if your going to flagrantly breech these rules mentioned above, and disregard the people who police this game and act as the rule enforcement agency, for free, in their own time, for our good.

Its disrespectful to the Moderators and any player who abides by the rules.

* Polite cough, discrete point at big red button.

- Le Représentant de Komokom.
Ministre Régional de Substance.
L'Ordre de Vaillant États.
http://www.nationstates.net/images/flags/uploads/komokom.jpg (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/24401/page=display_nation)
Aspirez a la legalite avec l'egalite

( By the by, is this thread going to be closed soon, it has pretty much dealth with the ... simple question, and is starting into ... well, a debate me-thinks )

Ah, the positivist approach: "It is the law, therefore it must be right". Trouble is, I disagree with the rules and with the unreasonable attitude that the powers that be take to FUA, which from what I've seen appear to be based largely on prejudice and half-baked conspiracy theories. :D

________________________
Edited by Nationstates Moderator

If you keep linking to FUA even after it's quite obvious it's been banned, you may risk deletion.

You're both incorrect. Wrong or right, it's the law, and it must be obeyed until it's changed.

Even if it does seem to be 'based on prejudice and half-baked conspiracy theories', it must be obeyed. Are we savages?

You're both incorrect. Wrong or right, it's the law, and it must be obeyed until it's changed.

I thought that is what I said. :roll:

:wink:

- Le Représentant de Komokom.

Ministre Régional de Substance.
L'Ordre de Vaillant États.
http://www.nationstates.net/images/flags/uploads/komokom.jpg (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/24401/page=display_nation)
Aspirez a la legalite avec l'egalite

I think we're going over the same old ground here.

The fact is, FUA's FlameWar forum is highly objectionable. Its content on its own is sufficient to merit a ban. The content of the other forums is irrelevant to such considerations and in no way offsets the fact that the flame forum breaches the ToS. In addition, I have just heard that someone has received a porn pop-up while visiting that site today. Rare they may be, but too bad.

And lastly, Foxxinnia's apparent defence that the defamation is usually limited to the Mods, speaks volumes about the attitude of that community. Obviously the flaming extends way beyond the Mods, but just imagine that. "It's OK, we're defaming only a handful of people here!" Do you really think I would think better of you people if your hate speech was limited to just one individual, rather than several? That's your logic, huh? Thus I stand by my earlier comments.

Tactical Grace
Forum Moderator

* A bloody great big round of appplause ....

- Le Représentant de Komokom.

Ministre Régional de Substance.
L'Ordre de Vaillant États.
http://www.nationstates.net/images/flags/uploads/komokom.jpg (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/24401/page=display_nation)
Aspirez a la legalite avec l'egalite

In addition to what Tactical Grace said, I want to expand upon this particular comment of his:

Do you really think I would think better of you people if your hate speech was limited to just one individual, rather than several?

Linking to any offsite webpage (whether it's a static webpage or a forum) for the purpose of defaming any NationStates player (Moderator or otherwise) is a violation of NationStates rules.

"Think about it for a moment."

--The Modified Democratic States of Cogitation
NationStates Game Moderator

I think that as far as this issue goes, the mud-slinging should cease.

FUA was created because the NS server was so bogged down, the forums were not even accessible. When we started a couple NS mods even joined. It was a nice friendly place to chat, rp, post pics, poetry.. etc. then, and it still is today. But like NS, Fua has evolved. Our members have shaped the board into what we wanted, and what we needed. We post there, because we like too. I realize that alot of the mods were not around when the general forum community that is now FUA were welcome here, but some of you were. I remember Hack and Reploid, as well as many ex-mods spamming and chatting with the best of us. Those were fun times when you could log on, and always find a good laugh. I understand that times have changed, some say for the good, and I'm ok with that. Let NS be.. whatever it shall be. FUA exists so that NS mods don't have to keep after us for not fitting into the new culture and standards.

Basically, I think it is pointless to this discussion, and debases NS to sit here and argue about the content of FUA. The mods have made their decision, and it will most likely be supported by Violet and Max. Being a free speech site, I cannot, and will not stop people from making comments about NS, good or bad. However, this site is held to a different, some say higher standard, where free speech is not a priority. Therefore, I think it would behoove the NS mods, mainly Tactical Grace, to not be quite so flagrant in his comments about FUA, in fact there is little need to mention it at all.

-Nyborg
(still a member)

You're both incorrect. Wrong or right, it's the law, and it must be obeyed until it's changed.

Even if it does seem to be 'based on prejudice and half-baked conspiracy theories', it must be obeyed. Are we savages?


I actually agree with you.