NationStates Jolt Archive

May I please know the exact reason for the deletion of this nation?

A response from a moderator would be appreciated!

Maybe your flag was abusive? (i'm just guessing from the nation name so no offense intended) Maybe you insulted someone on the forum? There are numerous possible causes for deletion.

File a 'Getting Help' request at

http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/07277/page=help

Probably best under "Other: Response from Moderator."

Maybe your flag was abusive? (i'm just guessing from the nation name so no offense intended) Maybe you insulted someone on the forum? There are numerous possible causes for deletion.


Maybe he is Osama and the Mods found out? Maybe he wears girly-clothes at night and wants to be called Cindy? Maybe..........


The request was made to and for a Moderator. Why can't you postscratchers have the curtesy to respect such request.

Sub iudice lis est.

SW

For the record, I am not the Moderator who handled this case. However, official records indicate that he was deleted for using a puppet nation to flame another nation.

If you want further details, then you'll have to wait for the Moderator who handled this case.

Standarte Westland: A polite reminder will suffice.

Sanctaphrax: Standarte Westlands lack-of-tact aside, he is correct. This is a request for an explanation of a specific deletion. Only a Moderator can answer this.

--The Modified Democratic States of Cogitation

Sorry,
SHEEEEEEEEESHHHH so thats what I get for trying to help:)

A polite word of advise Sanctaphrax, if you want to help then join the Salvation Army. You'll like the little hat and don't waste time of others with help they don't require.


At Cogitation: I consider politeness as the most acceptable hypocrisy. I value honesty about my feelings more. When lacking tact, so be it.

Docendi ars docenda

A polite word of advise Sanctaphrax, if you want to help then join the Salvation Army. You'll like the little hat and don't waste time of others with help they don't require.


At Cogitation: I consider politeness as the most acceptable hypocrisy. I value honesty about my feelings more. When lacking tact, so be it.

Docendi ars docenda
Sally army? Aren't they christians? If they are then that presents a problem... i'm a Jew! They don't operate in Israel do they. Another problem, I live in Israel. Other than that I shall consider it:)

A polite word of advise Sanctaphrax, if you want to help then join the Salvation Army. You'll like the little hat and don't waste time of others with help they don't require.


At Cogitation: I consider politeness as the most acceptable hypocrisy. I value honesty about my feelings more. When lacking tact, so be it.

Docendi ars docenda

Eh-heh.

*snort*

--Felix

Eh-heh.

*snort*

--Felix

Said I'm honest about my feelings Kanania, that doesn't mean I got a good character. Hypocrisy is the vaseline of political intercourse and Politeness is half good manners and half good lying. Ergo sum; if I where pinocchio, my nose would be a lethal weapon.

@Sanctaphrax: Don't join the Salvation Army, its a goy thing. And besides, you already have a little hat.

i dont think this thread is the place fQuote:

Originally Posted by Konania
Eh-heh.

*snort*

--Felix



Said I'm honest about my feelings Kanania, that doesn't mean I got a good character. Hypocrisy is the vaseline of political intercourse and Politeness is half good manners and half good lying. Ergo sum; if I where pinocchio, my nose would be a lethal weapon.

@Sanctaphrax: Don't join the Salvation Army, its a goy thing. And besides, you already have a little hat.
Today 7:13 PM
Konania Quote:
Originally Posted by Standarte Westland
A polite word of advise Sanctaphrax, if you want to help then join the Salvation Army. You'll like the little hat and don't waste time of others with help they don't require.


At Cogitation: I consider politeness as the most acceptable hypocrisy. I value honesty about my feelings more. When lacking tact, so be it.

Docendi ars docenda



Eh-heh.

*snort*

--Felix
Today 6:57 PM
Sanctaphrax Quote:
Originally Posted by Standarte Westland
A polite word of advise Sanctaphrax, if you want to help then join the Salvation Army. You'll like the little hat and don't waste time of others with help they don't require.


At Cogitation: I consider politeness as the most acceptable hypocrisy. I value honesty about my feelings more. When lacking tact, so be it.

Docendi ars docenda


Sally army? Aren't they christians? If they are then that presents a problem... i'm a Jew! They don't operate in Israel do they. Another problem, I live in Israel. Other than that I shall consider it
Today 6:40 PM
Standarte Westland A polite word of advise Sanctaphrax, if you want to help then join the Salvation Army. You'll like the little hat and don't waste time of others with help they don't require.


At Cogitation: I consider politeness as the most acceptable hypocrisy. I value honesty about my feelings more. When lacking tact, so be it.

Docendi ars docenda
Today 5:30 PM
Sanctaphrax Sorry,
SHEEEEEEEEESHHHH so thats what I get for trying to help
or this conversasion

To the moderators.

Are you that desperate to delete me that you take the feeblest, flimsiest excuse possible?

I received this from NationStates Moderators Received: 3 hours ago

I wasn't the one who deleted you, but records show that you got the ol' GORT for [apparently] using a puppet 'Nazi Zionist Jews' to irritate and inflame the region 'Israel.' You did not receive a warning, likely, because not being an ass is common sense. And also because it's posted on our FAQ and Terms of Service, which count as warnings in and of themselves. If you're not familiar with the rules I suggest you read them to avoid further mishaps.

Yes I will admit that I was 'Nazi Zionist Jews', a nation that I have logged in to maybe once in the past three months. But please tell me, what was so utterly offensive that warranted my deletion. No really, what did this nation say? I mean, let’s see, its currency was the ’Reichsmark’, its animal was the ‘non kosher pig’, maybe taking the piss slightly but certainly not offensive, and its motto was ‘God is a Nazi’, which is a belief rather than a statement of fact, or are the mods now trying to censor peoples beliefs that they do not agree with?

When I receive a message like 'Die you fucking nazi scum', is that offensive? Obviously the mods do not think so. I have numerous nations where I have received quite vile abuse from other nations, and have filed reports about this to the moderators through the getting help page. None of these nations have received a response whatsoever. Double standards, quite obviously!

No doubt this criticism of the mods will probably result in all of my nations becoming 'delete on site'! What would that prove? Basically that this site has become so sanitised that you disagree with the mods at your own peril. The response will probably be ‘If you don’t like it here then leave’ (which I have seen the mods do before), but why should I? Everybody’s beliefs and political point of view should be treated equally. Quite clearly this is not happening.

All I want is for the mods to come forward and debate this, explaining why Nazi / Fascist nations are treated differently to all others. If this had been almost any other nation than me, the puppet would have been deleted (even then maybe not), and the main nation given a warning (not that one was deserved).

If a nazi nation has 'jew' as his animal, it gets deleted instantly, yet I have seen many jewish nations with ‘Nazi’ as its animal where no action is taken. Again I have previously reported this and nothing has happened.

If the mods care to respond in a non-flippant manner I am more than happy to engage in debate with them, but more than likely by this time tomorrow none of my nations will still exist.

14/88

NDA

But please tell me, what was so utterly offensive that warranted my deletion.

Cog already told you the answer to this:

For the record, I am not the Moderator who handled this case. However, official records indicate that he was deleted for using a puppet nation to flame another nation.

For the record, I didn't delete you either, but I did send you that telegram. I'm not sure whether the mod who did delete you will choose to weigh in on the matter, but suffice to say I trust his judgement and the statements I make herein are likely to approxomate his--at least to the extent which I am able. My statements in this reply are based solely off the presumption that he had a good reason for deleting you, which I'm sure he did.

Yes I will admit that I was 'Nazi Zionist Jews', a nation that I have logged in to maybe once in the past three months. But please tell me, what was so utterly offensive that warranted my deletion. No really, what did this nation say? I mean, let’s see, its currency was the ’Reichsmark’, its animal was the ‘non kosher pig’, maybe taking the piss slightly but certainly not offensive, and its motto was ‘God is a Nazi’, which is a belief rather than a statement of fact, or are the mods now trying to censor peoples beliefs that they do not agree with?

First of all, the Moderation staff harbors no prejudice against any political groups while enforcing site policy. That said, I'm not exactly what you would call the biggest Hitler fan--I'm a civil libertarian. Political views nonwhistanding, you need to take a look at the facts. Your nation was called Nazi Zionist Jews. You were in the region Israel. Now lets extrapolate this data and assume that you did, at some point or another, post a message or send a telegram to another member of the region. Let us further assume that the majority of the region's population--being in a region named Israel--is jewish. You think Jews are fond of Nazis? You think they're going to put up with that kind of shit anymore? Does anyone really expect them to? The idea that we're censoring people based solely off their beliefs is totally groundless and wholly ignorant of you to assume. If this were the case, why didn't the moderator in question initiate a Holy Crusade [tm] to rid NS of Nazi-aligned nations? Why does the region "Nazi Deutschland Axis" still exist?

All of this, ultimately, is irrelevant. Do you really expect us to believe that you put 'Nazi Zionist Jews' in Israel to profess your love for the Judiast faith? Griefing is defined as playing the game for the sole intent of pissing off/flaming another user or group of users. The very presence of your nation in Isreal speaks volumes to this end, and frankly you ought to be ashamed of yourself for thinking for a second that anyone wouldn't see through this ploy.

When I receive a message like 'Die you fucking nazi scum', is that offensive? Obviously the mods do not think so. I have numerous nations where I have received quite vile abuse from other nations, and have filed reports about this to the moderators through the getting help page. None of these nations have received a response whatsoever. Double standards, quite obviously!

More misinfomred rhetoric. When we receive a complaint about an abusive telegram, we tend to check your inbox to see if it exists. If it doesn't, we ignore your task and move on. If it does we send a telegram to the offending nation and attach a 'Warned' tag to it, flagging the nation for rules violations every time it's examined in the Moderator Centre. Claiming that you know for sure that no action was taken is nothing more than a deployment of sophistry to acheive your own ends, and paint a picture of the Moderation staff that is wholly inaccurate and every bit as biased as you're claiming we are. We do not always send a telegram to the person who received the message; as a point of fact, I generally do not, though this policy varies from Moderator to Moderator. If you'd like to see this policy changed, take it up with the site admin. But don't go around claiming we don't do anything about it, because in every observable case to date, we have. It's just not something you can see.

No doubt this criticism of the mods will probably result in all of my nations becoming 'delete on site'! What would that prove? Basically that this site has become so sanitised that you disagree with the mods at your own peril. The response will probably be ‘If you don’t like it here then leave’ (which I have seen the mods do before), but why should I? Everybody’s beliefs and political point of view should be treated equally. Quite clearly this is not happening.

You will only acheive a 'Delete on Sight' order if you continue to flagrantly violate the rules in a manner subversive to the smooth operation of the game. Right now, you're not even close, so far as I know. The very fact that you still exist disproves your theory.

But just as a side note, how the hell do you get off espousing that "everybody's political point of view should be treated equally?" You're endorsing a group of people that put people in fucking ovens for their beliefs. I'm not passing judgement here, merely pointing out that your missive in this regard is somewhat flawed in premise.

All I want is for the mods to come forward and debate this, explaining why Nazi / Fascist nations are treated differently to all others. If this had been almost any other nation than me, the puppet would have been deleted (even then maybe not), and the main nation given a warning (not that one was deserved)

It might have something to do with the fact that Nazisim isn't what one would call the most benign of belief structures. Save for possibly the DEN and other assorted invader groups, Nazis are right up there as the site's top rulebreakers. It doesn't have anything to do with the fact that we don't like your beliefs [which we don't], it probably has to do more with the fact htat your beliefs stipulate imposing them upon others, and espouses racism and so forth--which is a touchy subject over a medium like the internet. I don't judge any Nazi-based nation or group on the offset any differently than I treat any other. I simply act when there's a violation of the rules, and it's not my fault or anyone else's that Nazis tend to break the rules a lot. If you want us to get off your asses, it's this simple: stop breaking the site's rules. Read the FAQ, and read the Terms and Conditions. Bottom line: obey those two documents and you won't be deleted or warned or anything. It's just that simple.

If a nazi nation has 'jew' as his animal, it gets deleted instantly, yet I have seen many jewish nations with ‘Nazi’ as its animal where no action is taken. Again I have previously reported this and nothing has happened.

We hold player entered fields such as flag, national motto, currency, and national animals to a higher standard than what's posted here in the forum because it's not open for debate or discussion. I've not yet seen any nation with 'Nazi' as their national animal. However, site policy stipulates that no political, ethnic, religious, whatever group of people may be used as a national animal. Apparently.

EDIT: not so sure the last sentance is true, upon further deliberation. As a point of fact, I tend to judge each case individually; that is to say if the field in question is being used to offend a certain group of people, then no, it should not be allowed. A lot of it is about context. If a Nazi nation has 'jew' as it's national animal, it makes some pretty strong stipulations. I can't say I'd see a problem with, say, a Republican nation with 'George W Bush' as it's national animal. Even though I don't like him. :P

If the mods care to respond in a non-flippant manner I am more than happy to engage in debate with them, but more than likely by this time tomorrow none of my nations will still exist.

You're on.

Just to add to what Melkor said:

If a nazi nation has 'jew' as his animal, it gets deleted instantly, yet I have seen many jewish nations with ‘Nazi’ as its animal where no action is taken. Again I have previously reported this and nothing has happened.
I have seen no such cases. Then again, I haven't been on the Getting Help Tasklist, recently. Care to give me names?

--The Modified Democratic States of Cogitation

Probably none of my bleeping bisuness, but I feel like contributing my two cents anyway.

It's clear as crystal to me that you're only here to stir up trouble. Your nation names have all been clear allusions to the third Reich, and your player-customizable fields have ranged from the relatively harmless to the @^)%ing obscene.

Okay? Seriously, you expect people to not take offense at statements like 'god is a nazi' and using 'non-Kosher pig' as your animal? You're stirring the shit, plain and simple. You, sir, are spoiling for a rumble.

Okay, let's get this clear. The Nazi party started out as a workers' union. Fairly harmless stuff. Then they started getting radial whackjobs and people like Hitler, and it snowballed.

What we were left with, in the end, was not so much a pollitical party as it was, to use the terminology common today, a Jihad. The Nazis - note I say Nazis, not Germans, because in a state like Nazi Germany, saying that no, you do NOT fully support the government is a good way to die - fully believed that they were a superior race. To quote one of the SS propagandas, the Nordic people were the most superior race on earth, and of the Nordic people, the Germans were the most superior, and of the Germanic peoples, the Aryans were superior.

Now, am I the only one who sees some similarities between this and the drumhead ole' Osama is beating?

Said whackjobs then proceed to blaze a trail of terror across Europe, but not before commiting atrocities that will be revilied in history for as long as there is history. If a person with any sense of compassion whatsoever had seen the video shot at the concentration camps by the soldiers who liberated them, they would immideately feel first a sense of deep, overwhelming sorrow for what these people went through, and then a cold sensation of shaking rage at the people who did it.

To support Hitler and start spouting off words like zionist and jew, while waving the banner of the third reich, you have to be something less than human with no senses of compassion or sensitivity, or a total loonie-bird psychotic whackjob. That's why the only 'nazis' left around are Klansmen, ex-Klansmen, and other assorted hate groups.

Now, ask yourself this. And don't even try to wiggle by denying the Holocaust. It happened, there's records, there's video and still photographs. Ask yourself, "what kind of a person do you have to be to support what happened here? What kind of a person do you have to be to mock people who may very well have numbers still tattooed on their @^*%ing arms, and what kind of person do you have to be to continually do it?"

Now, take a good look at yourself, and ask yourself. What kind of person are you?

I've not yet seen any nation with 'Nazi' as their national animal.
That gives me an idea... if I would have [animal] as my animal, then have 'Every day citizens serve [animal] on the dinner table', would changing tje animal to Nazi be bad? Would a mod not like that?

14/88Just FYI to anyone else who didn't know this:Hate Symbology (http://www.adl.org/hate_symbols/numbers_14-88.asp)
14/88 - Often, the two numbers are used in conjunction to indicate a belief both in the ideology of National Socialism and the validity of the "14 words." This symbol can often be found at the close of a letter.

The eighth letter of the alphabet is "H." Eight two times signifies "HH, " shorthand for the Nazi greeting, "Heil Hitler." 88 is often found on hate group flyers, in both the greetings and closing comments of letters written by neo-Nazis, and in e-mail addresses.

This numeral represents the phrase "14 words," the number of words in an expression that has become the battle cry and rallying slogan for the white supremacist movement: "We must secure the existence of our people and a future for white children."Sorry, I just can't work up any inclusionist sympathy for an ideology that bases itself around exclusion. Irrespective of the rules of this site, it makes me ill to see someone hypocritically demanding their rights while esposing beliefs that specifically deny rights to others.

Furthermore, if you really feel that put-upon by having to follow the rules of a free internet site, what the hell are you doing hanging around? Go somewhere that makes you welcome, like a skinhead convention or a Klan rally.

That’s a very articulate defense of NS moderation policy without a doubt. But it would be better to state a truly clear violation of the rules, and so to truly justify a deletion, without recourse to a subjective call on causing possible offense to a certain region through using a certain name for your nation. If you knew more about politics you’d know that “Nazi Zionist Jews” is a fairly common condemnation of Israel for acting in ways similar to how the Nazis were supposed to have acted. I’ve heard leftists and Palestinians use the same phrase.

You write:

“But just as a side note, how the hell do you get off espousing that "everybody's political point of view should be treated equally?" You're endorsing a group of people that put people in fucking ovens for their beliefs. I'm not passing judgement here, merely pointing out that your missive in this regard is somewhat flawed in premise.”

Of course you are passing judgment, and of course your dislike of the far right will influence you, and the other moderators who have the same dislike (almost all of you), in your actions towards the far right in here. This is fairly common knowledge. The idea that any other group of people are targeted, politically, in quite the same way as the far right is not really realistic, is it now?

It’s fair enough to say that the Nazis killed many people - that some of them were “put in fucking ovens for their beliefs”. And it’s also fair enough to point out that communists killed far more millions of people in the Soviet Union, China, Cambodia etc, “for their beliefs”. But for some reason communists are not censored in NS in the same way fascists are.

So please, drop the impartiality thing. The pretense is becoming very, very lame…

For the record, if it was up to me, the swastika would not be banned [to cite a small example] for that very reason. I find the communist/nazi disparity somewhat unfair as well. The commies just didnt get as bad a rep for it as they should have on account for they worked on our side and all.

That said, I don't make the rules, I just enforce them.

And no, I wans't passing judgement, I was pointing out a fact. There's a bit of a difference. If you're determined to belive that I was expressing an inherent prejudice*, then I don't suppose there's anything I can do about that.

*Important Note: When I say "inherent prejudice" here--or anywhere else I am referring to a lack of prejudice as it pertains to site policy and rules enforcement. I'll readily admit to despising every known tenant of fascism and Nazism in my private life being--as I mentioned earlier--a civil libertarian.

Ironically, my address right now is 1488.. :eek:

Of course it could just mean that Nazi Deutschland Axis2 owns a lot of pianos.

This is interesting, topics like this are very hard to negotiate in...

Now, am I the only one who sees some similarities between this and the drumhead ole' Osama is beating?



Osama accepts anybody who is a muslim, you can convert. Nobody can convert to White, you're either born white (it's a genetic thing, and you can't change your genes) or you aren't. It's that simple.

This is really getting into a matter that we should take to general or to TGs, if you'd like to start a thread on general, comparing nazis to muslim radicals, I'll gladly drop by and get into a debate with you over the topic, but let's take this debate out of here because it doesn't belong here. Cool?

And enter the Wonder Sketch (TM), asshat extraordinaire, who charges in with a unique solution - if you want so badly to be a nazi and impose your belief system upon others, go make your own damn forum(s).

OMG, I'm a genius! You may bask in my glory at your liesure.

He's right, you know. The pertinent subject matter here appears to be whether or not mod impartiality actually exists. Any debates concerning Nazism vs. Osama should probably be taken up in General.

If a nazi nation has 'jew' as his animal, it gets deleted instantly...

In my experience, as a watcher from the sidelines, I have seen several, if not many nations with 'Jew' or variants thereof having it changed by the moderators without the nation getting deleted immediately.

This whole nazi/jew/communist thing has been taken out of proportion to say the least. He was flaming in Israel, so what. Israelites kill Palestines daily and when you say something about that it's suddenly justified because of the 'war on terror'. Nazi vs Jew is evil vs evil. I can't seem to remember where both of them actually did something good for the world... But this is off topic.

A guy called IDF calls an alliance I take part in nazis and I'm highly offended by that since family of mine has been gassed by them. Do you hear a mod about that? No of course not. When a nazi in an online game yes it's a game. A heap of PHP and HTML code, nothing more nothing less, 'flames' (define flame) with a rather silly name. It's nothing more than that. Nazi Zionist Jews, I think the name is quite funny actually. If the regional ownser was annoyed by his presense he should have been ejected. Did it happen? Apparantly not.
The rules are the rules, but sometimes they need to be relaxed and this is one of those cases. Jews flamed him and he flamed them. I'd say they're even. End of story and move on. Warn them both but deletion of his nation? What a nonsense. It's almost if the mods were looking for a reason to delete him...

He was flaming in Israel, so what.

Yes, well, that would be the rub, now wouldn't it? You see... flaming is against the rules. Doesn't much matter where, or what context.

More misinfomred rhetoric. When we receive a complaint about an abusive telegram, we tend to check your inbox to see if it exists.

Off topic: You can see our inboxes?!? Whoa... :o

Yes, well, that would be the rub, now wouldn't it? You see... flaming is against the rules. Doesn't much matter where, or what context.

I'm sure if people flamed in NDA they wouldn't be deleted would they? And when people invade a region I thought it was against the rules if everybody gets ejected. Just take a look there...

14/88 is not a motto that has ever been removed from NS, to the best of my knowledge, and I've never used it myself, but am now going to start using it. Just so you can hate me some more.
[Emphasis mine.]

Doing something for the explicit purpose of making another player mad is "trolling" and is a warnable/deleteable offense.

--The Modified Democratic States of Cogitation

I'm sure if people flamed in NDA they wouldn't be deleted would they?

They would be warned. If they continued, they would be deleted.

Yes the amount of natives ejected in NDA is an impressive number. I know people who have not got away with that.

But that is off topic, even if the flaming was the legitimate reason for the deletion, I feel deleting ones main nation is going to far. Delete the puppet warn his main nation, if you must delete something.

as a side note, if people have not seen nazi as a national animal then they have not bothered looking, because I have seen it several times, but I was told it was reported and nothing happened, so I have not reported it. But if somethign will be done I will start reporting it.

They would be warned. If they continued, they would be deleted.

But NDA was deleted...? He was warned by Melkor and deleted by someone else. Or am I wrong?

He was warned previously and then committed a second offence.

In essence this the point NDA is trying to make is that nations with different political or even religious views (doesn’t matter if they RP’ing or not) are treated different by the ones upholding the NS-law.

Melkor Unchained wrote

But just as a side note, how the hell do you get off espousing that "everybody's political point of view should be treated equally?" You're endorsing a group of people that put people in fucking ovens for their beliefs. I'm not passing judgement here, merely pointing out that your missive in this regard is somewhat flawed in premise.

So if I endorse a group of people that “put people in the ovens for their beliefs” I can’t expect to be treated the same as others whom don’t endorse a group of people. So if I endorse a Roman-Catholic “group of people” I could receive the same treatment because the Roman-Catholics burned people for a long, long time when found “guilty” of witchcraft. And if I endorse a communist “group of people” the same cause communists through time killed millions for their beliefs. And if I endorse an American “group of people” I will receive the same treatment because the murdered their natives a while back.

So all receive a different kind of treatment through their actions in the past? Never noticed it happen here. Never even brought up if there was a dispute involving Moderators and for example Communist, Roman-Catholic, or US nations/regions.

Could it be that some of the groups are more matching your own values and beliefs and therefor you don’t use their behaviour in the past, conscious or unconscious, as fact that flaws your objectivity and only when your personally aversive to the religious/political beliefs you take their past into consideration?

In my opinion you are not treating every group equally unequal. But being human makes objectivity a priori impossible but it would be pleasant that you try to keep your ruling as a Mod free from your political and religious beliefs.


Melkor wrote:
I'm not passing judgement here, ……

Prejudice is opinion without judgement. So not prejudice but just an opinion? Right? But Nobody outside of a baby carriage or a judge's chamber believes in an unprejudiced point of view. Even the fact that you brought in a line as " You're endorsing a group of people that put people in fucking ovens for their beliefs” flaws the discussion. One should be judged on ones actions. Not who his friends are, his political views or whatever. Just his actions.

I still don't get it. Why was he deleted when other people get a few day ban?

He was warned previously and then committed a second offence.

I thought people got more then 2 warnings. From what i've seen its about 3 or 4 or am i missing something?

I thought people got more then 2 warnings. From what i've seen its about 3 or 4 or am i missing something?
I have always learned that mods only gave 1 warning. Second time the offender gets no warning, and will be deleted. My experience is that it all depends on the mood of the mod and the severity of the offence.

I still don't get it. Why was he deleted when other people get a few day ban?

This was not an in-forum offence.

This was not an in-forum offence.

Ah. I see

One should be judged on ones actions. Not who his friends are, his political views or whatever. Just his actions.

Exactly. Thank you.

Exactly. Thank you.

So this is your reply to this:


In essence this the point NDA is trying to make is that nations with different political or even religious views (doesn’t matter if they RP’ing or not) are treated different by the ones upholding the NS-law.

Melkor Unchained wrote


Quote:
But just as a side note, how the hell do you get off espousing that "everybody's political point of view should be treated equally?" You're endorsing a group of people that put people in fucking ovens for their beliefs. I'm not passing judgement here, merely pointing out that your missive in this regard is somewhat flawed in premise.



So if I endorse a group of people that “put people in the ovens for their beliefs” I can’t expect to be treated the same as others whom don’t endorse a group of people. So if I endorse a Roman-Catholic “group of people” I could receive the same treatment because the Roman-Catholics burned people for a long, long time when found “guilty” of witchcraft. And if I endorse a communist “group of people” the same cause communists through time killed millions for their beliefs. And if I endorse an American “group of people” I will receive the same treatment because the murdered their natives a while back.

So all receive a different kind of treatment through their actions in the past? Never noticed it happen here. Never even brought up if there was a dispute involving Moderators and for example Communist, Roman-Catholic, or US nations/regions.

Could it be that some of the groups are more matching your own values and beliefs and therefor you don’t use their behaviour in the past, conscious or unconscious, as fact that flaws your objectivity and only when your personally aversive to the religious/political beliefs you take their past into consideration?

In my opinion you are not treating every group equally unequal. But being human makes objectivity a priori impossible but it would be pleasant that you try to keep your ruling as a Mod free from your political and religious beliefs.


Melkor wrote:

Quote:
I'm not passing judgement here, ……



Prejudice is opinion without judgement. So not prejudice but just an opinion? Right? But Nobody outside of a baby carriage or a judge's chamber believes in an unprejudiced point of view. Even the fact that you brought in a line as " You're endorsing a group of people that put people in fucking ovens for their beliefs” flaws the discussion. One should be judged on ones actions. Not who his friends are, his political views or whatever. Just his actions.



Wow, compression rules your thinking isn't it? Is this the level the Moderators think and discuss? Ignore arguments and take a little piece of ones statement and use it out of context? That is the way the Moderators of this game function?

MWAAAAAAAHAAAAAAHHAAAAA. :) Sorry, that's not polite to laugh at people. When you think of it, it is rather sad for any community when the ruling class is somewhat ehhhh..... how can I describe this with tact, not ruled by "enlightened spirits"?

Mmmmm, quidquid delirant reges, plectuntur Achivi.
For the children of a lesser god a translation of this classic quote: Whatever foolish things the King does, his Achivers (Trojan Soldiers) must pay the price.

And NDA paid the price.

Actually, the real reason why that last post was so brief is mainly because the majority of your rhetoric above it was already addressed in my previous post. I don't see much point in going over the same thing over and over.

Ultimately, there's nothing I can do, no words I can write here that can express to you or anyone else convincing you of my [or anyone else's] objectivity. Philospohically and politically, I am an objectivist. If you don't want to belive it; fine. If you want to think we're biased bleeding-heart liberal scum that delete Nazi nations when we're in a bad mood, then more power to you. I can't stop you from thinking that. All I can do is my job.

Essentially, you're going to come to one of two conclusions: one, you'll acknowledge the possibility that, perhaps, the blame isn't with us, but it's with those with whom you choose to associate . Political/philosophical/racial views aside, it's a simple [i]fact of life that certain people are more prone to rulebreaking than others. You can accept this or not; really it doesn't make much of a difference to me. You can accept that maybe, just maaaybe the Moderation staff is capable of just that: Moderation. Maybe that's why we were picked in the first place. Want this looked into? Take it up with the site admin. We're not the be-all end-all of site policy here, so if you have a problem with us that can't be resolved here [as appears to be the case], the admin needs to be contacted.

The second conculsion [and the more likely one] is that you will continue to believe that the Moderation staff unjustly and unfairly biases itself against those with whom you profess to share your beliefs. If you feel this way there's obviously nothing we can do to convince you otherwise, since it's more than likely you're determined to not believe anything we say. Again, go to the admin. And if you don't like what the site administrator has to say, you can either live with it or leave. Moderator rulings can be appealed, site admin rulings cannot.

Basically, I sense this will turn into a large scale pissing match, which will promptly deteriorate into a competition to see who has more time to waste. Ultimately the arguments will boil down to: "You guys are biased" "No we're really not" "Are too!" "Are not!" and I'm not really interested in continuing down that path.

Bottom line: When enforcing site rules and site policy, no known political/ethnic/ideological bias --or any other manifestation thereof-- enters into my mind when judging a situation.

Wow, compression rules your thinking isn't it? Is this the level the Moderators think and discuss? Ignore arguments and take a little piece of ones statement and use it out of context? That is the way the Moderators of this game function?

MWAAAAAAAHAAAAAAHHAAAAA. :) Sorry, that's not polite to laugh at people. When you think of it, it is rather sad for any community when the ruling class is somewhat ehhhh..... how can I describe this with tact, not ruled by "enlightened spirits"?

Mmmmm, quidquid delirant reges, plectuntur Achivi.
For the children of a lesser god a translation of this classic quote: Whatever foolish things the King does, his Achivers (Trojan Soldiers) must pay the price.

And NDA paid the price.

If you're so "enlightened", why do you have to resort to nothing more than pointless ad hominem (a little more Latin for ya) attacks?

Actually, the real reason why that last post was so brief is mainly because the majority of your rhetoric above it was already addressed in my previous post. I don't see much point in going over the same thing over and over.

Ultimately, there's nothing I can do, no words I can write here that can express to you or anyone else convincing you of my [or anyone else's] objectivity. Philospohically and politically, I am an objectivist. If you don't want to belive it; fine. If you want to think we're biased bleeding-heart liberal scum that delete Nazi nations when we're in a bad mood, then more power to you. I can't stop you from thinking that. All I can do is my job.

Essentially, you're going to come to one of two conclusions: one, you'll acknowledge the possibility that, perhaps, the blame isn't with us, but it's with those with whom you choose to associate . Political/philosophical/racial views aside, it's a simple [i]fact of life that certain people are more prone to rulebreaking than others. You can accept this or not; really it doesn't make much of a difference to me. You can accept that maybe, just maaaybe the Moderation staff is capable of just that: Moderation. Maybe that's why we were picked in the first place. Want this looked into? Take it up with the site admin. We're not the be-all end-all of site policy here, so if you have a problem with us that can't be resolved here [as appears to be the case], the admin needs to be contacted.

The second conculsion [and the more likely one] is that you will continue to believe that the Moderation staff unjustly and unfairly biases itself against those with whom you profess to share your beliefs. If you feel this way there's obviously nothing we can do to convince you otherwise, since it's more than likely you're determined to not believe anything we say. Again, go to the admin. And if you don't like what the site administrator has to say, you can either live with it or leave. Moderator rulings can be appealed, site admin rulings cannot.

Basically, I sense this will turn into a large scale pissing match, which will promptly deteriorate into a competition to see who has more time to waste. Ultimately the arguments will boil down to: "You guys are biased" "No we're really not" "Are too!" "Are not!" and I'm not really interested in continuing down that path.

Bottom line: When enforcing site rules and site policy, no known political/ethnic/ideological bias --or any other manifestation thereof-- enters into my mind when judging a situation.

Actually, the real reason why that last post was so brief is mainly because the majority of your rhetoric above it was already addressed in my previous post. I don't see much point in going over the same thing over and over.
For example; I brought up your “oven” hypotheses and compared it with some other religions/political views and made an argument that I haven’t seen a Moderator bringing up their somewhat murderous past in any dispute. On this argument I haven’t received any counter-argument.

Ultimately, there's nothing I can do, no words I can write here that can express to you or anyone else convincing you of my [or anyone else's] objectivity. Philosophically and politically, I am an objectivist. If you don't want to belive it; fine. If you want to think we're biased bleeding-heart liberal scum that delete Nazi nations when we're in a bad mood, then more power to you. I can't stop you from thinking that. All I can do is my job.
An Objectivist? Didn’t know the term. Thank you for this present. All I learned is that genuine objectivity doesn’t exist in Philosphy. If you want to give me the name of any philosopher stating that it is possible I’ll be most gratefull because I haven’t read any of his work yet. On the field of Psychology it’s the same, no real objectivity.
And you can’t stop me from thinking that you are “biased”. (I think everybody is biased by the way but…..) You can at least stop me from thinking that your personal opinions affects your rulings through arguments and make your rulings somewhat more transparent.

Essentially, you're going to come to one of two conclusions: one, you'll acknowledge the possibility that, perhaps, the blame isn't with us, but it's with those with whom you choose to associate [I'm assuming, based on the content of your arguments]. Political/philosophical/racial views aside, it's a simple fact of life that certain people are more prone to rulebreaking than others. You can accept this or not; really it doesn't make much of a difference to me. You can accept that maybe, just maaaybe the Moderation staff is capable of just that: Moderation. Maybe that's why we were picked in the first place. Want this looked into? Take it up with the site admin. We're not the be-all end-all of site policy here, so if you have a problem with us that can't be resolved here [as appears to be the case], the admin needs to be contacted.
No, I do not want to contact the admin. You said in one of your first posts that you where open for debate. Well here I am.
And your argument about that the moderation staff is capable because you where picked for that task is flawed. If I am chosen for my good looks (doubtful but :) )by a person whom is blind is this decision of any value? And don’t forget the HALO-effect in psychology where it has been proven that a person (in casu: admin) picks people by his own subjective standards. That leads to the situation that if the admin thinks that blood has the colour green he picks people that also see blood as green coloured.
Don’t get me wrong, I don’t say you are not capable, just arguing that you treat SOME others different than the rest. We all do, but you as a moderator should be more aware of it than others.

And if you don't like what the site administrator has to say, you can either live with it or leave. Moderator rulings can be appealed, site admin rulings cannot.
Again the leave if live with it. Shame, because it is obvious that it works that way and it gives me the feeling that you are arrogant. And why should I leave when I have a disagreement? I do not take it personal.

Basically, I sense this will turn into a large scale pissing match, which will promptly deteriorate into a competition to see who has more time to waste. Ultimately the arguments will boil down to: "You guys are biased" "No we're really not" "Are too!" "Are not!" and I'm not really interested in continuing down that path.[quote]
If you read my arguments you know it is not a pissing contest or yes/no game. By saying so you are trying to disqualify me without entering real debate on arguments. I don’t care it happens with people a lot when the feel they are on shaky ground but next time just say so and do not state “You're on” when somebody asks you to debate a certain issue.


[quote]Bottom line: When enforcing site rules and site policy, no known political/ethnic/ideological bias --or any other manifestation thereof-- enters into my mind when judging a situation.

My Bottom Line: Sure, but I haven’t seen any arguments or counter-arguments to support your bottom line where others have made arguments. Also many questions (not only by me) remain unanswered.


Man or Astroman wrote:
If you're so "enlightened", why do you have to resort to nothing more than pointless ad hominem (a little more Latin for ya) attacks?
Use you’re 127 million neurones in your eye better and read it again. I am not arguing that I‘m “enlightened”. Don’t have to be because I am just a mortal in this game and not one of the higher species. And if you read some more it is not an “attack” it is a debate on invitation to the man/woman in his/her capacity as Moderator. Noblesse oblige in my opinion so they have to be of a higher standard than common players. You should have called it “ad magister” to be correct.

As I write this, NDA is being invaded by people unlikely to keep the region as it was if they take it over.

I'll forward this to the Mod Squad's Pre-Crime division.

As I write this, NDA is being invaded by people unlikely to keep the region as it was if they take it over.

As much as the mods may despise NDA, for the sake of impartiality it would be good if action were taken against these people, until control is returned either to the founder (if he's still in the game) or to someone else who shares the politics of the region.

There's a difference between an invasion and an illegal invasion. If you make a region whose sole purpose is to promote an unpopular political view, you can expect to be invaded by people who don't like it. It's part of the game.

Intervention in a legal invasion would be bias on your behalf, not impartiality. If the rules are broken, that's when the mods intervene. Not beforehand.

The founder of NDA was deleted. That meant that the region was open to attack as he was also the UN delegate. It was invaded almost immediately and take over by people opposed to the politics of the region. An attempt by some of the longer-standing members of the region to elect a new delegate - the Sadistic Skinhead - and so to return it to the control of someone who shared something of the ethos of NDA, is as I write this being subverted by an invasion.

I somehow doubt that this is a legitimate thing to do.
but it is with in the rules

The founder of NDA was deleted. That meant that the region was open to attack as he was also the UN delegate. It was invaded almost immediately and take over by people opposed to the politics of the region. An attempt by some of the longer-standing members of the region to elect a new delegate - the Sadistic Skinhead - and so to return it to the control of someone who shared something of the ethos of NDA, is as I write this being subverted by an invasion.

I somehow doubt that this is a legitimate thing to do.

And? Leave the region and found another one, and this time the founder shouldn't break the rules. Sometimes the consequences of breaking the rules go beyond simple deletion. Think about what you're doing, and who is going to suffer for it when you're caught.

But just as a side note, how the hell do you get off espousing that "everybody's political point of view should be treated equally?" You're endorsing a group of people that put people in fucking ovens for their beliefs. I'm not passing judgement here, merely pointing out that your missive in this regard is somewhat flawed in premise.
I'll elaborate on this: If one believes that "Everybody’s beliefs and political point of view should be treated equally" (the exact words of "Nazi Deutschland Axis2"", post #13 of this topic), and if one believes that 6 million Jews were mass-executed by the Nazis during the Second World War because of their beliefs and political point-of-view, then one cannot endorse the actions of the Nazis during the Second World War.

"Nazi Deutschland Axis" themes himself as a Nazi/Fascist. The assumption is that, by doing so, he endorses the mass-executions of the Jews by the Nazis during the Second World War. Thus, for him to assert that "Everybody’s beliefs and political point of view should be treated equally" is a contradiction of his own beliefs.

This contradiction is resolved if one adopts either of the following two premises:

The Jews were mass-executed during World War II for some reason other than their beliefs and political point-of-view.
"Nazi Deutschland Axis" themes himself as a Nazi/Fascist, but does not endorse the mass-executions of the Nazis during the Second World War.

I'll also point out that Melkor Unchained was pointing this out as a side note. Whether or not you contradict your own beliefs is irrelevant to NationStates policy. Whether or not you are a Nazi/Fascist is irrelevant to NationStates policy (with the sole exception being that you can't use a Swastika flag on your nation.) Melkor Unchained pointed out a contradiction in the assertions of "Nazi Deutschland Axis", but did not connect that contradiction to NationStates policy.

...

Of course you are passing judgment, and of course your dislike of the far right will influence you, and the other moderators who have the same dislike (almost all of you), in your actions towards the far right in here. This is fairly common knowledge. The idea that any other group of people are targeted, politically, in quite the same way as the far right is not really realistic, is it now?
It is realistic. The Nazis/Fascists on this site are not targeted to any proportion over the general population greater than the proportion in which Nazis/Fascists break the rules. (At least, that's the guiding policy: To only act in proportion to the rules that have been broken. Sadly, I do not have time to review every single Moderator action in the history of NationStates to back this up.)

...

It’s fair enough to say that the Nazis killed many people - that some of them were “put in fucking ovens for their beliefs”. And it’s also fair enough to point out that communists killed far more millions of people in the Soviet Union, China, Cambodia etc, “for their beliefs”. But for some reason communists are not censored in NS in the same way fascists are.

For the record, if it was up to me, the swastika would not be banned [to cite a small example] for that very reason. I find the communist/nazi disparity somewhat unfair as well. The commies just didnt get as bad a rep for it as they should have on account for they worked on our side and all.

That said, I don't make the rules, I just enforce them.

And no, I wans't passing judgement, I was pointing out a fact. There's a bit of a difference. If you're determined to belive that I was expressing an inherent prejudice*, then I don't suppose there's anything I can do about that.

*Important Note: When I say "inherent prejudice" here--or anywhere else I am referring to a lack of prejudice as it pertains to site policy and rules enforcement. I'll readily admit to despising every known tenant of fascism and Nazism in my private life being--as I mentioned earlier--a civil libertarian.
I'll elaborate on this, as well: Melkor Unchained wasn't passing judgment on this in terms of NationStates rules enforcement. That is, Melkor didn't say "Nazism is bad, so I'm more likely to delete you" or "You're contradicting your own beliefs, so I'm more likely to delete you". In his private life, he has passed judgment, but he hasn't entered that judgment into his enforcement of NationStates rules.

...

But just as a side note, how the hell do you get off espousing that "everybody's political point of view should be treated equally?" You're endorsing a group of people that put people in fucking ovens for their beliefs. I'm not passing judgement here, merely pointing out that your missive in this regard is somewhat flawed in premise.
So if I endorse a group of people that “put people in the ovens for their beliefs” I can’t expect to be treated the same as others whom don’t endorse a group of people. <snip>

So all receive a different kind of treatment through their actions in the past? Never noticed it happen here. Never even brought up if there was a dispute involving Moderators and for example Communist, Roman-Catholic, or US nations/regions.
Incorrect. You are misinterpreting Melkor Unchaineds post.

In that post, Melkor is pointing out a contradiction of premises. He does not subsequently connect that contradiction (or the actions of the Nazis) to NationStates policy.

...

Prejudice is opinion without judgement. So not prejudice but just an opinion? Right? But Nobody outside of a baby carriage or a judge's chamber believes in an unprejudiced point of view. Even the fact that you brought in a line as " You're endorsing a group of people that put people in fucking ovens for their beliefs” flaws the discussion. One should be judged on ones actions. Not who his friends are, his political views or whatever. Just his actions.
Merriam-Webster OnLine (http://www.m-w.com):
Main Entry: 1 prej·u·dice
Function: noun
2 a (1) : preconceived judgment or opinion (2) : an adverse opinion or leaning formed without just grounds or before sufficient knowledge
"Nazi Deutschland Axis" was deleted for his actions. He had a previous standing warning for breaking the rules. When he used the puppet "Nazi Zionist Jews" to break the rules again, he was deleted.

...

Actually, the real reason why that last post was so brief is mainly because the majority of your rhetoric above it was already addressed in my previous post. I don't see much point in going over the same thing over and over.

For example; I brought up your “oven” hypotheses and compared it with some other religions/political views and made an argument that I haven’t seen a Moderator bringing up their somewhat murderous past in any dispute. On this argument I haven’t received any counter-argument.

Melkor Unchained brought up the murderous past of the Nazis merely to point out that "Nazi Deutschland Axis" was, apparently, contradicting his own beliefs. Melkor also brought this up as a side note, meaning that Melkor wished to point it out, but that it had no relevance to NationStates rules enforcement. Thus, it was not brought up as part of this dispute.

The only place where the murderous past of the Nazis enters into NationStates policy or rules enforcement is the specific ban on swastika flags. It enters nowhere else. Melkor Unchained has already expressed his disagreement with the swastika ban on the grounds that there were other groups that were more murderous. However, the swastika ban was imposed by [violet], so we Moderators are required to enforce that ban.

...

The founder of NDA was deleted. That meant that the region was open to attack as he was also the UN delegate. It was invaded almost immediately and take over by people opposed to the politics of the region. An attempt by some of the longer-standing members of the region to elect a new delegate - the Sadistic Skinhead - and so to return it to the control of someone who shared something of the ethos of NDA, is as I write this being subverted by an invasion.

I somehow doubt that this is a legitimate thing to do.

Invasions are legitimate under NationStates rules*. Invasions need only observe the following:

Natives may not be mass-ejected.
Any ejected natives must be immediately unbanned.
All natives must be given any regional password used by the invaders.


* Though there are many players, besides Nazis, who would probably wish otherwise.

...

As I write this, NDA is being invaded by people unlikely to keep the region as it was if they take it over.

As much as the mods may despise NDA, for the sake of impartiality it would be good if action were taken against these people, until control is returned either to the founder (if he's still in the game) or to someone else who shares the politics of the region.
Control will not be given to the Founder as the Founder has been deleted.

--The Modified Democratic States of Cogitation
NationStates Game Moderator

I know he's been deleted, but is he now delete on sight? He's banned from the game forever? Or just his original NDA nation?
The Founder isn't the player, it's the nation. I don't know if NDA is DoS, but his other nations/puppets can't 'inherit' the foundership. Since the mods won't replace a Founder who is deleted for cause, the region can't get a Founder unless it's refounded.

Which probably doesn't answer your question, but what the hell ...

An Objectivist? Didn’t know the term. Thank you for this present. All I learned is that genuine objectivity doesn’t exist in Philosphy. If you want to give me the name of any philosopher stating that it is possible I’ll be most gratefull because I haven’t read any of his work yet. On the field of Psychology it’s the same, no real objectivity.
And you can’t stop me from thinking that you are “biased”. (I think everybody is biased by the way but…..) You can at least stop me from thinking that your personal opinions affects your rulings through arguments and make your rulings somewhat more transparent.

An Objectivist is someone who values the strength of an individual over the strength of a collective. It's a philosophical concept pioneered largely by writer Ayn Rand [who, oddly enough, I have never read]. Basically it espouses greed as a virtue and hypothesizes that every man should have the right be be as greedy and assholish as they want so long as it doesn't interfere with anyone else's right to be the same way. This is just a quick-and-dirty version, but this isnt exactly the place to debate it, so no harm no foul I suppose.

And of course everyone is biased. Given the circumstances of our respective upbringings, we grow accustomed to certain points of view and abhor others intrinsically. I am no different. But in attacking my ability to set aside this bias when Moderating a game I love, essentially what you're doing is attacking my capacity to reason.

Bias can be a powerful thing, but not in every mind. I never said I wasn't biased. I only said I wasn't biased while enforcing site policy, as noted above.

There's a bit of confusion here because "Nazi Deutschland Axis" was the name of both the founder of the region and the region he created. I understand that he can't have his nation back, I was curious to know if he is still in the game so that he can take back control of his region through his assuming of the UN delegate status.

He can retake the delegacy if he gets enough endorsements, but will never be made Founder again.