NationStates Jolt Archive

http://www.nationstates.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=144978&highlight=

Greece and Cyprus is flaming again, he already got a warning a few weeks ago, and is up to it again.

VoM'd.

VoM'd.
Excuse me for being newbish but HUH? :?

VoM'd.
Excuse me for being newbish but HUH? :?

I'd guess warned.

"Voice of Mod"

Telegrams sent via the Mod Centre that show up as being from the NationStates Moderators, or a similar address.

We should advertise for some mad Turks to play; serve 'em right.

http://www.nationstates.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=144978&highlight=

Greece and Cyprus is flaming again, he already got a warning a few weeks ago, and is up to it again.

Looks like normal political debate to me, some choice language but nothing too serious (well, the threats were a bit OTT). I would would say that this is a freedom of expression issue. He/she vioced their opinion, which they are surely entitled to, and received comment back. Fairly harmless. I would suggest it would be quite heavy handed to censor someone for this. After all, is this not an area for political expression?

This is not a forum for expressing insults, however.

Looks like normal political debate to me, some choice language but nothing too serious (well, the threats were a bit OTT). I would would say that this is a freedom of expression issue. He/she vioced their opinion, which they are surely entitled to, and received comment back. Fairly harmless. I would suggest it would be quite heavy handed to censor someone for this. After all, is this not an area for political expression?

There is no freedom of expression here. This site is not bound to the Constitution of the United States. This is Max Barry's private little Father Knows Best state (as he himself admitted), and the mods are his enforcers, so to speak.

Yes, you are entitled to your opinion, no you may not express yourself however you wish. There are limits as to what you may say and where.

This site is not bound to the Constitution of the United States.
Yes, you are entitled to your opinion, no you may not express yourself however you wish. There are limits as to what you may say and where.[/quote]

I was never bound to the constitution of the US, I'm not from there. Yeah 1-0 to me.

In regard to the other part of the sentence then most of the who expressed an opinion in that thread should be warned. They were equally as bad/good, whatever. 2-0.

On second thoughts.

"There is no freedom of expression here. " Ream.

I guess anyone who expresses an opinion should be warned/banned. 3-0.

What a whopping! Don't give your opinion on it, that's not allowed!! I was only stating the facts. See as facts are facts, you can't change them either! You are in a bind.

I guess it is the typical forum style. Ah well, not much point in having a nation states game if it run like that. Not very life like. Hmmmm......another good idea bites the dust.

This is not a forum for expressing insults, however.

The nature of insults are relative to those receiving them. I am sure the C and G was insulted by the comments made about him/her. Some of the comments made about C and G were of equal status as those which warrented him/her being warned.

If it is the choice of language used, then I supopse, the site should use a filter.

We have two filters, in fact.

One automatically censors certain words.

The other filter is the Moderators. Such as myself.

We have two filters, in fact.

One automatically censors certain words.

The other filter is the Moderators. Such as myself.

Fair enough.

What about the 'insults' comment. Is that reasonable? After all, just for example, one poster said that C&G (or is that the other way around) was getting excited about the death of just one protestor. Just one person killed. I imagine they found this to be an extremely insulting comment. Imagine if this was said to you about, perhaps, a family member. That's rough.

Anyway, formally warning someone about this only exercabats the situtation. The poster feels more alienated and prone to make futher rash comments. Surely, the way to go is to try and diffuse it. Of course it depends on the situation.

Awarding yourself points based on incomplete responses does no favors to your arguments.

This site is not bound to the Constitution of the United States.
Yes, you are entitled to your opinion, no you may not express yourself however you wish. There are limits as to what you may say and where.

I was never bound to the constitution of the US, I'm not from there. Yeah 1-0 to me.


The point stands. The site is not bound to the constitution of any government. It is a privately owned site, which you use at the whim of the owner. -1


In regard to the other part of the sentence then most of the who expressed an opinion in that thread should be warned. They were equally as bad/good, whatever. 2-0.


I never said that you could not express your opinion. To whit:
There are limits as to what you may say and where.

-2


On second thoughts.

"There is no freedom of expression here. " Ream.

I guess anyone who expresses an opinion should be warned/banned. 3-0.

What a whopping! Don't give your opinion on it, that's not allowed!! I was only stating the facts. See as facts are facts, you can't change them either! You are in a bind.

I guess it is the typical forum style. Ah well, not much point in having a nation states game if it run like that. Not very life like. Hmmmm......another good idea bites the dust.

Whoops. Looks like you managed to confuse restriction of expression with a complete ban on all expression. Never once did I say that you could not express your opinions. Once more...
There are limits as to what you may say and where.

Your arguments are flawed. Try reading the entire post next time.

-3

Awarding yourself points based on incomplete responses does no favors to your arguments.

Probably not, but I was trying to make it more light-hearted. This seems to have evaded your perception. How are the responses incomplete? Please explain.

[quote=Costelloism]This site is not bound to the Constitution of the United States.
Yes, you are entitled to your opinion, no you may not express yourself however you wish. There are limits as to what you may say and where.

I was never bound to the constitution of the US, I'm not from there. Yeah 1-0 to me.


The point stands. The site is not bound to the constitution of any government. It is a privately owned site, which you use at the whim of the owner. -1

Fair point, can't agrue with that


In regard to the other part of the sentence then most of the who expressed an opinion in that thread should be warned. They were equally as bad/good, whatever. 2-0.


I never said that you could not express your opinion. To whit:
There are limits as to what you may say and where.

Ah, this is what I thought at first as well. Then I read the entire post again (you see, I read it completely twice, not just once.) It was the use of the following -

"There is no freedom of expression here. " Ream.

That's game, set and match. The use of an all inclusive negative. "There is no freedom of expression here. " You see, you wrote "no freedom". Thus you mean there is none at all. That's why I had my second thoughts.

Whoops. Looks like you managed to confuse restriction of expression with a complete ban on all expression. Never once did I say that you could not express your opinions. "Please see paragraph above" Once more...
There are limits as to what you may say and where.

Your arguments are flawed. Try reading the entire post next time.

Perhaps you should read your own posts entirely before submitting them. Or even my post properly and you would have seen why I made the last statement.

1) You wrote "no freedom" preceding the statement "There are limits as to what you may say and where". As you have stated that there is "no freedom" this implies that the following sentence, "There are limits as to what you may say and where", means that the limits are complete. Thus, it follows on that action can be taken against anyone who states their opinion.

2) I read your post twice and with great care, perhaps this courtesy can also be extended to my posts.

Thank you.

1) You wrote "no freedom" preceding the statement "There are limits as to what you may say and where". As you have stated that there is "no freedom" this implies that the following sentence, "There are limits as to what you may say and where", means that the limits are complete. Thus, it follows on that action can be taken against anyone who states their opinion.


I also stated that the site is not bound to the Constitution of the United States of America, which guarantees the right to freedom of expression to its citizens. Then I said that freedom did not exist here, and I qualified my statement. If you choose to only respond to part of my statement, it's not my fault.


2) I read your post twice and with great care, perhaps this courtesy can also be extended to my posts.

Thank you.

I read your post several times, firstly in the thread, secondly in the process of dividing the post into sections, to which I responded individually, thirdly as I was writing the responses, and lastly in an overall review. My points stand, and you're welcome.

1) You wrote "no freedom" preceding the statement "There are limits as to what you may say and where". As you have stated that there is "no freedom" this implies that the following sentence, "There are limits as to what you may say and where", means that the limits are complete. Thus, it follows on that action can be taken against anyone who states their opinion.


I also stated that the site is not bound to the Constitution of the United States of America, which guarantees the right to freedom of expression to its citizens. Then I said that freedom did not exist here, and I qualified my statement. If you choose to only respond to part of my statement, it's not my fault.


On the contrary I took the statment as a whole. I think you need to read what you write before posting it. (BTW I did agree with your point on the US Constitution Vs. the rules here. It was concise and very exact and I conceded the point immediately)

In regard to the rest of the post, please ask anyone else if

a) your post is contraditionary, and
b) that it would be fair so that sentence re: "no freedoms" predicates the sentence re"limits". Thus, it can be concluded that you said that the Forum has no freedom which is limited. It is a valid interpretation.


2) I read your post twice and with great care, perhaps this courtesy can also be extended to my posts.

Thank you.

I read your post several times, firstly in the thread, secondly in the process of dividing the post into sections, to which I responded individually, thirdly as I was writing the responses, and lastly in an overall review. My points stand, and you're welcome.

I genuinely appreciate you taking the time to read my post properly, many people skim and post. I can see that you do not. Your coutesy is also welcome.

Again thanks.