NationStates Jolt Archive

Steph said it was okay to talk crap about the Pope because he is an unregistered user on NS. So, there's this unregistered dude on NS General. Can I flame him since he is not registered?

What do you think? :rolleyes:

What do you think? :rolleyes:
...


your not helping

No user of NationStates may flame another.

Just to play Devil's Advocate (and because the question amuses me)...

Well, Myrth, it could be argued that someone posting as "guest" is not a member of NationStates, and thus a target for flaming, based on Stephistan's ruling.

Of course, further following this line of logic off a cliff leads one to be able to argue for the flaming of Kieth, PanZer, and [violet] as they are forum accounts, and have no nation attached to them, thus making them (by following a strict interpritation) not members.

Of course, this is silly, and it seems to me that the question was asked tongue-in-cheek, hence my responce in kind. Also, it should be noted that the reason new nations (and recently resurrected ones) are posting as 'Guest' because of a problem with the bridge, and not because they aren't members.

A guest may not be a "member," but they certainly are "users" within Jolt; couldn't an NS member be subject to Jolt's jurisdiction if they attack a non-member, Jolt-user?

A guest may not be a "member," but they certainly are "users" within Jolt; couldn't an NS member be subject to Jolt's jurisdiction if they attack a non-member, Jolt-user?

Personally, I feel that NationStates should be treated as its own domain, independent of Jolt; I don't consider myself a Jolt user and I don't consider the Jolt users to be the same as NationStatesers.

Just my two cents....

Technically, anyone posting on the forums is a user of NationStates.

See, I don't feel like we're on NS forums anymore. These are nothing like them, and even the old forum was more reliable than this one right now. I know it's new to the server, and we're experiencing technical difficulties, but I liked the old forums much better.

I still contend that Jolt users and Jolt users and we're NS users.

Technically, anyone posting on the forums is a user of NationStates.

Ah, but then the question becomes which forums? All Jolt forums or just NationStates forums? Personally, I would argue the latter.

Ah, but then the question becomes which forums? All Jolt forums or just NationStates forums? Personally, I would argue the latter.

I'd argue the same.

so can we flame on the other jolt boards where we are more guest like...

please...
pretty please...
with sugar and chocolate on top....

You can, but you might get DEATed for it.... just like you'd be subject to the rules of any other forum.

so can we flame on the other jolt boards where we are more guest like...

please...
pretty please...
with sugar and chocolate on top....

Nothing we can do about it, but if you get banned from Jolt's forums you get banned from the NationStates forums too.

See, I don't feel like we're on NS forums anymore. These are nothing like them, and even the old forum was more reliable than this one right now. I know it's new to the server, and we're experiencing technical difficulties, but I liked the old forums much better.

I still contend that Jolt users and Jolt users and we're NS users.

Try http://forums.jolt.co.uk/, not http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/

Steph said it was okay to talk crap about the Pope because he is an unregistered user on NS. So, there's this unregistered dude on NS General. Can I flame him since he is not registered?

I said that the Pope and Bush and Kerry and so on were not NS users therefore didn't fall under the same protection as NS users.. Just because some one is not registered and yet are still using NS, that to my mind would make them using NS thus be an NS users..Unless of course you think one of them is the Pope? :D

I said that the Pope and Bush and Kerry and so on were not NS users therefore didn't fall under the same protection as NS users.. Just because some one is not registered and yet are still using NS, that to my mind would make them using NS thus be an NS users..Unless of course you think one of them is the Pope? :D


So, can I flame at you, as soon as you stopped using this forum? :D

So, can I flame at you, as soon as you stopped using this forum? :D

Sure, however I will warn you, I will be here till the end of days.. ;)

Now I think of it; As long as there is one post of you in this forum, you will still be a NS forum ab/user. :headbang:

I stick to my own rule: "Thou shalt not be unkind to thy fellow wo/men". ;)

Try http://forums.jolt.co.uk/, not http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/

Meh, the latter one works much better than the first one for me to get here, as I still can't get here from the "Forum" link on the main NS page.

I said that the Pope and Bush and Kerry and so on were not NS users therefore didn't fall under the same protection as NS users.. Just because some one is not registered and yet are still using NS, that to my mind would make them using NS thus be an NS users..Unless of course you think one of them is the Pope? :D

So if President Bush got a NS nation, nobody would be able to flame him?

So if President Bush got a NS nation, nobody would be able to flame him?

As unlikely as that is, that is correct.

--The Modified Democratic States of Cogitation

So if President Bush got a NS nation, nobody would be able to flame him?

As I understand it yes. They could still call his policies counterproductive or misguided or whatever, but they couldn't call him an idiot.*


*Without substantive evidence that he was in fact an idiot.

As Max isn't officially registered (at least as himself) are we allowed to flame him to? :D

As Max isn't officially registered (at least as himself) are we allowed to flame him to? :D
I think so :D

Ohhhh, an experiment in Forum Darwinism! :D

Ohhhh, an experiment in Forum Darwinism! :D
oooh, lets see how it turns out shall we? ;)

As I understand it yes. They could still call his policies counterproductive or misguided or whatever, but they couldn't call him an idiot.*


*Without substantive evidence that he was in fact an idiot.

And we all know how hard that would be to find. *Snort guffaw*

Well you know, the Pope is here, kinda sorta... :P

Well you know, the Pope is here, kinda sorta... :P

Haha.

To understand such a "ruling" it is important to understand why a forum punishes flaming. Guess what? It's not in the {fairly standardised} Terms of Service because people don't like misbehaviour. (Well, actually it is, but that's a secondary reason)

It's to protect against law suits due to defamation of character. Now, public figures, like the pope or the POTUS, cannot really sue sucessfully for Defamation of Character, as it is largely seen as the price they pay for power and noteriety.

An unregistered user, or a "Jolt User" can. Thus, don't do it.

Not that lawsuits over flaming are common, but they're legally possible. ;)

To understand such a "ruling" it is important to understand why a forum punishes flaming. Guess what? It's not in the {fairly standardised} Terms of Service because people don't like misbehaviour. (Well, actually it is, but that's a secondary reason)

It's to protect against law suits due to defamation of character. Now, public figures, like the pope or the POTUS, cannot really sue sucessfully for Defamation of Character, as it is largely seen as the price they pay for power and noteriety.

An unregistered user, or a "Jolt User" can. Thus, don't do it.

Not that lawsuits over flaming are common, but they're legally possible. ;)
It's actually more serious then that. As Jolt is hosted in the UK it's under our (bloody stupid) libel laws. Because of that any libel on these forums would mean that Jolt were definately legally liable and Max probably is. Here's a layman's guide by a poster on another board I frequent. (He's a lawyer).

"I can find someone calling me an Ugly halfwit offensive, but that doesn't make it slanderous unless they can't back it up.

If the courts were to agree that the statement makers proof did constitute adaquate, then it is legally acceptable in a civil sense

Slander is to say something injurious and untrue. It can also be justified by way of opinion. I think that is a powerful statement which qualifies the subject as personal opinion rather then truth.

'I think that *Name Removed to Protect the Guilty* eats Babies from a pitchfork' is not defacto slander because I have qualified it as merely an opinion however if I said the same thing without the 'I think' proviso then *Name Removedwould have a very good right for suing me for besmeaching his character because (as far as I'm aware) the above statement is untrue.

Criminally offensive material is that which by it's nature (excessive violence or explicit pornography) contravenese one of the publication guidelines, but on the net these are pretty lax and tend ot be governed more by board policy then by any hard and fast rules.

I think that banning someone on here just because someone finds a post offensive is stupid. Someone could make a valid point which I being human may find offensive. I may misconstrue a point and take genuine offense. I think the independant well rounded 3rd party will be able to see more arbitrarily and decide if something is offensive on a broad scale or simply fired someone up the wrong way. "