NationStates Jolt Archive

Why was my thread locked? It wasn't a flame, it wasn't even concervative...All it said was for people to shut up.

If you want to keep people from "adding to the flame," then lock the Bush-bashing threads as well. If they're allowed to call Bush a liar and an idiot, then I am well within my rights to call them liars and idiots. Which I didn't, I just told them to shut up.

Stop being so damn hypocritical.

All it said was for people to shut up.

Case closed.

If they're allowed to call Bush a liar and an idiot, then I am well within my rights to call them liars and idiots.
Incorrect.

President Bush is a celebrity who does not (to our knowledge) play NationStates; he has his own real-life country to play with. Insulting a non-NS-playing celebrity is different from insulting other NationStates players. An excess of the first constitutes trolling, the second constitutes flaming or flamebaiting, and neither justifies the other.

--The Modified Democratic States of Cogitation

Stop being so damn hypocritical.

I think the only person being hypocritical here is you. You do not have special privileges to break NS rules, especially when Rep posted a thread in General - Stickied - post-election to tell everyone to cool down.

Just because people are Bush bashing doesn't mean you can bash them back, eye for an eye does not apply to the NS forums, and as such, you're subject to the rules, too, not above them.

I think the only person being hypocritical here is you. You do not have special privileges to break NS rules, especially when Rep posted a thread in General - Stickied - post-election to tell everyone to cool down.

Just because people are Bush bashing doesn't mean you can bash them back, eye for an eye does not apply to the NS forums, and as such, you're subject to the rules, too, not above them.

Never said I was.
But I see no difference between insulting someone who doesn't play NS and insulting someone who does. You're insulting someone, and that's not right. Bush never insulted them, I never insulted them, so they shouldn't be allowed to insult anyone either.

We've been through this before. There are a lot more flame-threads than the mods care to admit.

And do you really want me to count how many times I've been flamed at on NS or how many times I've been told to shut up for posting something Pro-Bush or Pro-life or whatever? Cuz I can garuntee you it's more than my postcount...
I haven't done anything half the threads on NS do. And by half the threads I mean half the not-locked threads.

Have to disagree with you on that one rhyno. I told a Bush supported to shut up and got deated for it.

Incorrect.

President Bush is a celebrity who does not (to our knowledge) play NationStates; he has his own real-life country to play with. Insulting a non-NS-playing celebrity is different from insulting other NationStates players. An excess of the first constitutes trolling, the second constitutes flaming or flamebaiting, and neither justifies the other.

--The Modified Democratic States of Cogitation

So would it be perfectly legal for me to flame Ben Affleck?

Have to disagree with you on that one rhyno. I told a Bush supported to shut up and got deated for it.
Really? Wow... :eek:

Really? Wow... :eek:

well, I may have said "Shut the f*** up" :D

Why do people try to appeal these decisions? They're never reconsidered, it's just pointless.

Anyway...

I don't see much of a difference between the two, either, Rhyno, but Bush is a celebrity, and a President, nonetheless, so is therefore subject to a LOT of bashing about in forums such as these. As long as nobody is posting anything that may incite immediate illegal action, the current basic guideline for free speech in the US, and here, I believe, it is pretty much legal. (Meaning that they can say "I hate Bush" until their keyboards fall apart, but can't say "Let's go the the White House and kill him.") Like Tues said, this forum is not operating on an "eye-for-an-eye" policy.

Also, if you are getting flamed at, report it here in a civil manner, and don't react to it. Chances are, once reported, it will be dealt with. The mods can't be everywhere, they don't see every post that's made when it's made. They are only human.

And like I said up top there - the mods never remove lockings. Because, if it was a flame-bait thread, as yours apparently was, it shouldn't be out there in the first place, and if it was legit, but turned into a flame-war, you can just start a new one. Yelling at the mods won't get you anything but more warnings.

You sure have a lot to say on moderation issues for one with only 500 posts. :D

Rhyno: Just because he's our president doesnt mean he must be respected. What you said was a flame even though it was pretty light. Those kind of light flames are what gets me in trouble. And i dont think you want my reputation with the mods :D

Why do people try to appeal these decisions? They're never reconsidered, it's just pointless.

People appeal these decisions because they truly believe they are in the right. Regardless of the right or wrong aspect of any action on this site, one of the most unique things about NationStates is the right to repeal, most other forums don't even allow someone to question the authority of the administration and moderation staff.

People appeal these decisions because they truly believe they are in the right. Regardless of the right or wrong aspect of any action on this site, one of the most unique things about NationStates is the right to repeal, most other forums don't even allow someone to question the authority of the administration and moderation staff.

Yay for freedom.

Yay for freedom.

Oh, Japaica... (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/page=faq#etiquette)

Why do people try to appeal these decisions? They're never reconsidered, it's just pointless.

Anyway...

I don't see much of a difference between the two, either, Rhyno, but Bush is a celebrity, and a President, nonetheless, so is therefore subject to a LOT of bashing about in forums such as these. As long as nobody is posting anything that may incite immediate illegal action, the current basic guideline for free speech in the US, and here, I believe, it is pretty much legal. (Meaning that they can say "I hate Bush" until their keyboards fall apart, but can't say "Let's go the the White House and kill him.") Like Tues said, this forum is not operating on an "eye-for-an-eye" policy.

Also, if you are getting flamed at, report it here in a civil manner, and don't react to it. Chances are, once reported, it will be dealt with. The mods can't be everywhere, they don't see every post that's made when it's made. They are only human.

And like I said up top there - the mods never remove lockings. Because, if it was a flame-bait thread, as yours apparently was, it shouldn't be out there in the first place, and if it was legit, but turned into a flame-war, you can just start a new one. Yelling at the mods won't get you anything but more warnings.
I never do respond to flames, or at least try my best not to. I don't even bother reporting them, because the mods never do anything about them.

As for the president, as I said, if freedom of speech allows them to call him stupid, it allows me to call them stupid. Which, to my knowledge, I have never done (well, i've implied it...). Countless times, however, I have been, outright, called stupid and no action was taken. I fail to see how this is fair, or why I'm the hypocritical one.

And I'm pretty sure I already have a reputation, Jap :D . I know Myrth, at least, hates me...But then, he seems to hate everybody :confused: .


And actually, the mods are being hypocritical because they're telling me to shut up. :D

People appeal these decisions because they truly believe they are in the right. Regardless of the right or wrong aspect of any action on this site, one of the most unique things about NationStates is the right to repeal, most other forums don't even allow someone to question the authority of the administration and moderation staff.
pfft...the mods never repeal anything.... <_<

Why was my thread locked? It wasn't a flame, it wasn't even concervative...All it said was for people to shut up.
Aside from "telling people to shut up", Tactical Grace ruled in the sticky here (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?p=7396197#post7396197) that calling on people to leave America if they hate it so much is not appropriate, especially lately.

And how many times do I have to reiterate... the political viewpoints of the thread do not matter. Period. It does not matter if your thread was 'conservative' or not.

Unfree People
Forum Moderator

I never do respond to flames, or at least try my best not to. I don't even bother reporting them, because the mods never do anything about them.

If you report the flames, the mods will act; that's their job.

Not to add fuel so much as to simply state a fact, but the faq does specifically state that a defamatory remark is not allowed. It does not specify that the remark be only to NationStates players. Therefore, if a thread is directed at calling the President something defamatory, then technically it is an illegal thread as per the etiquette faq.

My point for Rhyno being, if you feel that someone is not following the rules, it is your obligation to report them. If you choose to take further action, then the consequences are yours to bear.

And how many times do I have to reiterate... the political viewpoints of the thread do not matter. Period. It does not matter if your thread was 'conservative' or not.

BS

If you report the flames, the mods will act; that's their job.

And BS

Rhyno's first bs: Are you trying to say that the mods should be biased towards conservative threads?

Rhyno's second bs: If there is a reported flame then the mods will take care of it, even if it does take a s***load of time :rolleyes:

That said, there are tons of flames out there uncaught.

So would it be perfectly legal for me to flame Ben Affleck?
No, it wouldn't be perfectly legal, it would be a gray zone. The gray zone for insulting NationStates players is much more strict than the gray zone for insulting non-playing celebrities. Whether or not we act (and how severely we act) depends upon:

whether or not the target of the comment is a NationStates player,
the severity of the comment ,
how often the comment is repeated (or what other comments accompany it),
the tone-of-voice and intent that we read into the comment,
the past history of the player making the comment, and
whether or not we think someone is deliberately trying to toe-the-line.

The gray zone is meant to accomodate people who accidentally wander in, so for most people, deliberately going into gray zones is something that should be done with extreme caution. For you, going into gray zones is a very bad idea.

I don't even bother reporting them [flames], because the mods never do anything about them.
We're busy in both real life and in NationStates, so some complaints are going to slip through the cracks.

I will also note that if you don't report flames, then you do not have a valid basis for complaining. We cannot do anything about rule violations if they never come to our attention. If you report flames and (in cases where we don't look into it within a day or two) remind us about them and we still don't do anything, then you have a valid basis for complaint.

If you want to provide us with some links to these past incidents that haven't been investigated (which you're alluding to), then we are willing to look into them.

As for the president, as I said, if freedom of speech allows them to call him stupid, it allows me to call them stupid. Which, to my knowledge, I have never done (well, i've implied it...).
Incorrect. You have no freedom of speech except what Max Barry and his authorized respresentatives allow you. I will again reiterate that the gray zone for insulting NationStates players is much more strict than the gray zone for insulting non-playing celebrities.

Countless times, however, I have been, outright, called stupid and no action was taken.
Links?

Not to add fuel so much as to simply state a fact, but the faq does specifically state that a defamatory remark is not allowed. It does not specify that the remark be only to NationStates players. Therefore, if a thread is directed at calling the President something defamatory, then technically it is an illegal thread as per the etiquette faq.
Hmmm.... Interesting....

I will discuss this with the Admins and the other Moderators.

--The Modified Democratic States of Cogitation

Not to add fuel so much as to simply state a fact, but the faq does specifically state that a defamatory remark is not allowed. It does not specify that the remark be only to NationStates players. Therefore, if a thread is directed at calling the President something defamatory, then technically it is an illegal thread as per the etiquette faq.


Well, there goes half of NS's current threads bashing political figures.

Straight from the Etiquette FAQ

What can I post?
You can discuss and argue about almost anything, so long as it's vaguely relevant to politics or NationStates and doesn't fall into any of the categories below. You don't have to be politically correct, but you must maintain a minimum standard of behavior.

What can't I post?
Any content that is:

obscene
illegal
threatening
malicious
defamatory
spam
This applies to your nation's name, motto, and other customizable fields, any messages you write, images you post, or any other content you upload or link to NationStates. If you do, your nation will be deleted. See the site's Terms & Conditions for details.

Also prohibited is the practice of "griefing." Griefing is playing with the primary aim of annoying or upsetting other people. If you do this, the game moderators may take action against you.

Precedent on this matter can be found at http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=340201

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

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

Asked on 16 July 2004 and ruled upon on 18 July 2004.

How would we be able to prove that it was one of them though? I don't think the President exactly goes about telling people his IP. And if he told people who he was, most of us would probably laugh at him and act like one of those guys impersonating Max.

How would we be able to prove that it was one of them though? I don't think the President exactly goes about telling people his IP. And if he told people who he was, most of us would probably laugh at him and act like one of those guys impersonating Max.

Hostname *.whitehouse.gov

Hostname *.whitehouse.gov


That might as well be the cleaner. :p

Could we please use some common sense, rather than trying to find every loophole to exploit?

If you put something up that is likely to cause offense, and it does, as is reported, and a Moderator after reading it agrees that it is something likely to cause offense, it's warnable for trolling or flamebaiting.

Being rude and nasty, calling names, telling people to shut up -- not acceptable, telling people to leave if they don't like it, not acceptable.

Whining because you have been flamed in the past is such a poor excuse or attempts at a defence that I don't know were to begin....

The simple answer is to either tollerate it and let it roll of your back, or report it.

* but the mods don't do anything.. etc etc *

read the mod's posting above. They are busy, but if you report someon or a given posting enough they will see it and act on it. I know plenty of mods on other sites and they react as quickly as they can. If you think your voice isn't being heard then find others to speak with you.

IMHO, if you can't find others to speak with you because they don't agree with you then you may need to take a look at your position again.

Myrth does not have a hateful bone in his body...at least, not one that he's shown to us. What he DOES have is a low tolerance for posts and posters that keep him busy trying to maintain order (or some semblance of) around here.