NationStates Jolt Archive

Damn, that's even worse. Does anyone really do that?
Actually I got a topic locked by a mod who only read the title.

Actually I got a topic locked by a mod who only read the title.
What was the title?

What was the title?
“Blonds really are dumber”

It was an article dealing with how using bleach on you hair and cause harmful effects on your brain. The title of the thread was also the title of the article. It was intended to be an obvious joke especially considering the source of the article was the Weekly World News. When I spoke to the mod in question his comments led me to believe that he didn’t even bother to read the article. Apparently he though I was talking about natural blonds even though the article was clear on the matter. Or so I though.

“Blonds really are dumber”

It was an article dealing with how using bleach on you hair and cause harmful effects on your brain. The title of the thread was also the title of the article. It was intended to be an obvious joke especially considering the source of the article was the Weekly World News. When I spoke to the mod in question his comments led me to believe that he didn’t even bother to read the article. Apparently he though I was talking about natural blonds even though the article was clear on the matter. Or so I though.

1) I did read the article.
2) You presented your link as a "news article."
3) It is still unacceptable. Substitute "Men", "Jews", "Muslims" "Blacks" into the title as a test.

1) I did read the article.
2) You presented your link as a "news article."
3) It is still unacceptable. Substitute "Men", "Jews", "Muslims" "Blacks" into the title as a test.
1) You didn't present yourself as though you have
2) You locked it before I could throw in the link
3) Are you giving me permission? :D
4) I though you were through debating this
5) I'm going to continue to razz you about this for many years to come, or until I get bored with it :p
6) Now here’s the real question. If not for the title, would it still have been locked?

1) You didn't present yourself as though you have
2) You locked it before I could throw in the link
3) Are you giving me permission? :D
4) I though you were through debating this
5) I'm going to continue to razz you about this for many years to come, or until I get bored with it :p
6) Now here’s the real question. If not for the title, would it still have been locked?

1) I told you then that I had. As a matter of fact, I told you straight out, The Weekly World News is not a credible news source.
2) Your response to my lock was to send the link to the "news article"
3) Yes. Mentally, not on this board.
4) It's not a debate -- it is correcting your attempt to once again say you're being oppressed over the title by one who never read it.
5) I'll continue to be utterly heartbroken about it.
6) Any article or thread which has the premise that "all (Fill In Population Segment) are (Something Negative) will be treated as trolling.

Just out of curiousity, if the article was still posted but a different title thread was used, would it still have been locked?

Well, Tuesday, let's use the test....

"Blacks really are dumber...."

Nope.

It's still insulting to part of the population.

I'm sure if the title had been "Bleaching Your Hair could be harmful to your Brain!" everything would have turned out just fine...

Well, Tuesday, let's use the test....

"Blacks really are dumber...."

Nope.

It's still insulting to part of the population.

Kat, you know me better than that...

I meant, if the title more reflected what was being posted... "News of the World Says Genetics of Blondes..." Something along that lines... like what Gawdly explains.

I'm sure if the title had been "Bleaching Your Hair could be harmful to your Brain!" everything would have turned out just fine...
If it were a serious article from a serious news sources about a serious scientific study about the neurological effects of bleaching, then yes, everything would have turned out just fine.

The article, however, is a lark and constitutes trolling in-and-of-itself. I cite as examples:
"I heard a commercial on the radio for the study. They said the number was one-eight-hundred-something. Well, I looked on the phone for an eight-hundred button for at least an hour."
After losing her job as a proofreader at the M&M factory just outside Burbank, Tammy Gray, 39, remarked, "When I got fired for throwing away all the W's....
The team concluded that natural blondes were much less likely to do things such as use Wite-Out on their computer monitors to correct typos or pee in the grocery store when confronted with a sign that says "wet floor."
None of these examples are credible except possibly for using Wite-Out on a computer monitor. This is not a serious article.

I will correct my associate, Katganistan, on one point: Comments against other NationStates players that are meant to incite flames are generally flamebait. This is an example of comments against population segments (in this case, blondes) that are meant to incite flames and therefore constitutes trolling. So, this is trolling, not flamebait. Both fall under the "malicious" and/or "defamatory" clauses of the NationStates Terms and Conditions.

That minor correction aside, the decision stands.

--The Modified Democratic States of Cogitation
NationStates Game Moderator

Thank-you for the clarifications, Cog.

Thank-you for the clarifications, Cog.
You're welcome.

I'm gonna give everyone here some official advice: When someone is complaining about a locked topic, it helps to read the locked topic for yourself (provided that it hasn't been hidden by NationStates Moderators; if it has, and you're not involved, then it's best not to speculate). If no link was provided, then you can do a forum search. In any event, know what the subject matter is about before you try come to someones defense.

"Think about it for a moment."

--The Modified Democratic States of Cogitation
NationStates Game Moderator

Well, Tuesday, let's use the test....

"Blacks really are dumber...."

Nope.

It's still insulting to part of the population.

However, if we were to make a thread entitled "Blacks really are dumber..." and back it up with citations from Richard J. Herrnstein's and Charles Murray's The Bell Curve: Intelligence and Class Structure in American Life (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0684824299/104-5644876-6135954?v=glance), that would be permitted, yes?

However, if we were to make a thread entitled "Blacks really are dumber..." and back it up with citations from Richard J. Herrnstein's and Charles Murray's The Bell Curve: Intelligence and Class Structure in American Life (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0684824299/104-5644876-6135954?v=glance), that would be permitted, yes?
First of all, I see no mention of race in that link. If the topic content doesn't match up with the topic title, then you will be warned.

Second: Generally, the debate of controversial subjects is allowed IF you're prepared to debate your point-of-view and back it up with links to sources. However, if at any point we Mods come to the conclusion that serious debate is not your intent and that you're merely trying to incite emotional responses, then your topic will be locked and you will be warned. Remember that this is all subject to Moderator discretion.

Third: We take a very dim view of people who try to push the limits merely for the sake of pushing the limits. Asking where the line is so that you can keep clear of it is fine; asking where the line is so that you can deliberately toe-the-line is not. This is why Japaica was permanently banned from NationStates.

--The Modified Democratic States of Cogitation
"Think about it for a moment."
NationStates Game Moderator

None of these examples are credible except possibly for using Wite-Out on a computer monitor.

Still denying the fate of your last monitor, eh, Cogswell? :P

First of all, I see no mention of race in that link. If the topic content doesn't match up with the topic title, then you will be warned.

Immediately below pricing information:

"Customers who bought this item also bought these items:

The Bell Curve Wars: Race, Intelligence, and the Future of America by Steve Fraser"

Halfway down the page:

"And finally, they deal with the issue that makes this book so controversial: The lower tested intelligence of African-Americans. At no point do they the claim the gap is only due to genetics. They suggest past environmental factors come into play. But their main point is that modern day racism cannot explain the gap, and programs designed to bridge that gap will fail, and putting underqualified individuals in important positions is not the answer. The authors really do not go into detail about why the gap exists, setting themselves up for criticism."

Further discussion of the book appears here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_bell_curve), wherein is stated:

"Although only a small fraction of the book concerns the topic of race, its statements regarding race and intelligence are those that have stirred the most controversy, causing many to denounce the book and its authors."

Second: Generally, the debate of controversial subjects is allowed IF you're prepared to debate your point-of-view and back it up with links to sources. However, if at any point we Mods come to the conclusion that serious debate is not your intent and that you're merely trying to incite emotional responses, then your topic will be locked and you will be warned. Remember that this is all subject to Moderator discretion.

Fair enough, but in the past there have been several threads dealing with the claims made in the book. My concern here is not to defend it - far from it, I have a very low opinion of the claims that it makes, and several questions regarding its methodology - in other words, I think the book is a piece of unscientific crap. Instead, I am worried that this facetious thread started by Crabcake Baba Ganoush could lead to the setting of a precedent which will stifle debate.

Third: We take a very dim view of people who try to push the limits merely for the sake of pushing the limits. Asking where the line is so that you can keep clear of it is fine; asking where the line is so that you can deliberately toe-the-line is not. This is why Japaica was permanently banned from NationStates.

As I stated above, my concern is not with treading the margins of what is or is not acceptable, just a concern that this decision could lead to a ruling which would move the line to a new position.

Immediately below pricing information:
<snip>
Ah, okay, I see it.

Fair enough, but in the past there have been several threads dealing with the claims made in the book. My concern here is not to defend it - far from it, I have a very low opinion of the claims that it makes, and several questions regarding its methodology - in other words, I think the book is a piece of unscientific crap. Instead, I am worried that this facetious thread started by Crabcake Baba Ganoush could lead to the setting of a precedent which will stifle debate.

As I stated above, my concern is not with treading the margins of what is or is not acceptable, just a concern that this decision could lead to a ruling which would move the line to a new position.
I see.

Moderation is only concerned with making sure that other NationStates players aren't directly attacked or deliberately provoked. Generally, if it looks like you're trying to seriously debate something, then we'll leave you alone.

--The Modified Democratic States of Cogitation
"Think about it for a moment."
NationStates Game Moderator

...

Still denying the fate of your last monitor, eh, Cogswell? :P
I was never stupid enough to do that to a monitor. :p

However, from the stories I've heard (http://rinkworks.com/stupid/), I wouldn't be too surprised.

--The Jovial States of Cogitation