NationStates Jolt Archive

http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=379018

Attrocious and does nothing more than to anger and offend people. Please delete and deal with accordingly.

Thank you.

Thank you.
And thank you (*in all seriousness*) for beating me to Moderation to post this the quicker

There is a warning on the first page.

I think people should relax.

Plus a mod checked it out already. See post 20,

I would have stopped had I been warned at that point.

Did you people event bother to read the first post before complaining about how very offended you are? If this kind of thing is all it takes to send you screaming rape to the mods, then I have only one piece of advice for you: chill out.

Yes, I have read the thread.

I am still disgusted by it. I did not scream "rape" to the mods as suggested. I posted here to mention my disgust at the thread and perhaps to encourage a mod to check in again at the progress of the thread especially when I noticed the thread's title advertised in "Latest Threads" while tending to my nation.

The thread, I feel, is offensive. I am not the only one.

If the thread was started as a joke, it was indeed in poor taste.

I have a good sense of humour, but I do not and cannot joke about war.

hmm you seem to have 11 posts as of right now
so i'm going to assume you havent been in general alot
these type of threads are common and for the most part ok as long as they stay within the ns tos
just my $.02

http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=379018
does nothing more than to anger and offend people.
Realy? Where? Outside of yourself.

The thread, I feel, is offensive. I am not the only one.

Nevertheless, it's a valid debate.

I'm a lesbian and could cry foul over every homosexuality thread on this site that bitches about our segment of population and how we're the bane of human existense, but I don't, because it's a valid debate regardless of how it makes me feel personally.

If you don't like the topic, don't open the thread. It's that simple.

then insulting mods should be possible too. If we believe they're stupid, that's our right, no?


Not to mention that insulting moderators doesn't lead to any violence. Negationism does. People died thanks to these kind of ideas.

I find it offensive that the thread would even be in consideration of being taken down. Some people have some valid arguments over this topic. Remember you're not the only person in the world, your opinion is not supreme. Other people have opinions too, so why not let them be heard?

I find it offensive that the thread would even be in consideration of being taken down. Some people have some valid arguments over this topic. Remember you're not the only person in the world, your opinion is not supreme. Other people have opinions too, so why not let them be heard?


Since there are mods, it means that some opinions are not valuable. For exemple, I can not mention what I think about you.
The nazi cross (Swastika) is banned, for the same reason insults are banned. This thread is an insult to many people of my family, and to hundred of millions of people around the world. One can have an argumented opinion that "the blacks are inferior". I had a debate with someone on that subject. I finally won, but it was long, due to arguments like "africa stinks".
New ones will make the same debate over and over. The result is stigmatisation of jews or of blacks etc. This is like a perpetual insult.

Nevertheless, it's a valid debate.

I have to agree with you on that one.

Even as a Jew, do I get offended at every anti-Jewish thing I find? Not really, but I blame that on desisitization, but the fact is that no matter how stupid, outlandish, or offensive a comment is (within the rules of course) if it is being brought up for the purpose of debate then that person has as much a right to say it as anyone.

I'm an American Jew. I see threads all the time that accuse me of everything from masterminding 9-11 to conspiring to infect the human race with my Jewishness and enslave them. I don't know where some people get some of their more insane ideas, but if I have the right to make my point, I won't be the one to try and silence another.

Do these threads offend me? No, they just make me sad.

I have to agree with you on that one.

Even as a Jew, do I get offended at every anti-Jewish thing I find? Not really, but I blame that on desisitization, but the fact is that no matter how stupid, outlandish, or offensive a comment is (within the rules of course) if it is being brought up for the purpose of debate then that person has as much a right to say it as anyone.

I'm an American Jew. I see threads all the time that accuse me of everything from masterminding 9-11 to conspiring to infect the human race with my Jewishness and enslave them. I don't know where some people get some of their more insane ideas, but if I have the right to make my point, I won't be the one to try and silence another.

Do these threads offend me? No, they just make me sad.


but it offends me. Those "debates" are more or less like a "do you think whites are superior?" debate. The poster knows he is going to lost, but by making his ideas be seen by as much people as possible, he is already winning because he managed to insult all-non whites and to make them feel that the place stinks.
That guy made almost the same thing with his negationnist thread, it is just a little more subtle.


the problem is also that the mods don't only allow these kind of debates, but also pseudonyms like "right thinking whites" or "SS viking section" that suggest that if the reader is not white, or aryan, his opinion does not matter, and in second case, even that he should be killed. If that is not insulting, I don't know what it is!!!

If you don't like the rules, then, play some other game.

If you don't like the rules, then, play some other game.

That was an interesting response. I am making suggestions. Anything bad in that? If you have a position and you cannot defend it, then change your position, this is called being honest with yourself. Don't tell me "shut the fuck up, I don't care if it's wrong or right, it's like it is, period". Cause that is what you are saying.

This is not the first thread we have had with a title like that. If people want to argue that kind of case, they are free to attempt it. The moment they troll, flamebait, flame, etc, they get warnings and on re-offence, deletions. However, merely uttering a tasteless opinion is not in itself an actionable offence.

That is the general policy on controversial debates.

Having said that, in this case the thread appears to be a parody of holocaust denial threads. Thus, it is even less fit for a Moderation request. I would suggest that specific instances of the offences listed in the first paragraph be brought to our attention. There will be no automatic lock on the topic, however.

Tactical Grace
Game Moderator

then insulting mods should be possible too. If we believe they're stupid, that's our right, no?

Just in case anyone else gets any ideas... Moderators are players of this game, therefore insulting us is insulting a player which is flaming and against site rules.

If you don't like the rules, then, play some other game.

*Applaudes wildly*

The threads a load of nonsense but unless it becomes obviously racist of insulting then he can still say it, you Americans and your free speach after all, applies to everything, not just the things you want to hear... or dont want to hear in this case.

This is not the first thread we have had with a title like that. If people want to argue that kind of case, they are free to attempt it. The moment they troll, flamebait, flame, etc, they get warnings and on re-offence, deletions. However, merely uttering a tasteless opinion is not in itself an actionable offence.

That is the general policy on controversial debates.

Having said that, in this case the thread appears to be a parody of holocaust denial threads. Thus, it is even less fit for a Moderation request. I would suggest that specific instances of the offences listed in the first paragraph be brought to our attention. There will be no automatic lock on the topic, however.

Tactical Grace
Game Moderator

I missed something? ;)
I still don't know for what reason I've been banned (my other account), or for how long it will last. I asked it to the mods, maybe I did not get how it works; am I supposed to get the answer by telegram? If no, maybe I missed the answer.

Anyway, I see a real contradiction in banning nazi crosses but allowing names like "SS section" or "white power". For that reason, I thought there should be a debate - for people stop lying to themselves: this forum has one hand punishing nazis/racists, the other protecting them.



About the "insulting moderators" thing, I'm sorry for those who cannot understand. I was making an analogy: if people are allowed to insults other with such things as "aryans are superiors, you are inferior and should be killed", then everyone should be allowed to insult the moderators. I am, of course, not saying that moderators should be insulted, but that nazi discourse should be banned.

Well, I think you perfectly understood it, but take a quote out of contest to make an irrevelent point against me. grmbl.



*Applaudes wildly*
2 things are infinite ;)

You do realize evading a forum ban can get you perma-banned?

Anyway, I see a real contradiction in banning nazi crosses but allowing names like "SS section" or "white power". For that reason, I thought there should be a debate - for people stop lying to themselves: this forum has one hand punishing nazis/racists, the other protecting them.

I am ... saying ... that nazi discourse should be banned.
Here is a link to the Ruling on swastikas in flags (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=275081). It also includes extensive discussion on why Max Barry and NationStates believe the speech should be allowed but the symbol should be removed. It's a long topic, but it's a good read. I recommend you spend some time on it, I really do.

We have this discussion at least once a week, and folks have gotten into the habit of just posting the link and saying "STFU about Swastikas already". While that sentiment is widely shared, you should read the link to know why.

Here is a link to the Ruling on swastikas in flags (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=275081). It also includes extensive discussion on why Max Barry and NationStates believe the speech should be allowed but the symbol should be removed. It's a long topic, but it's a good read. I recommend you spend some time on it, I really do.

We have this discussion at least once a week, and folks have gotten into the habit of just posting the link and saying "STFU about Swastikas already". While that sentiment is widely shared, you should read the link to know why.

I did not read the full thread. Only the original post (by violet) seems to be about our issue. I checked the first 4 pages and then one page out of 2 until the end, and found nothing more - it is all about symbols(flags), not texts (forums). If I missed something please send me a link, I don't have the time to completely read 30 pages...

Well, first of all, violet says that nazi or racist related names should not be tolerated, for the same reason swastikas aren't. Right now, they are tolerated.
Second, I disagree with violet about the fact that revisionnism has less power in a post because it can be discussed, first because a post can always provide more information than a flag.
One who posts a "the holocaust did not happen" thread knows he will 'lose' the discussion (ie, be proven wrong). But he can make it last a long time, and this way can shock numerous people and make them dislike the forums. (this is the reason why swastikas are banned, I remind you).When we see a swastika on a flag, we know most disagree with it. When we see a racist or revisionist thread, we know it as well, and have the proof.
In both cases, it doesn't prevent the propaganda to be made. The nazis can still shock people with threads, just like with flags. There is no big difference in my opinion.


I'm still angry that my other account is banned for an undetermined period, for an undetermined reason, and with no warning >(



EDIT: at the time I write that, a guy posted a thread in this very forum, right next this one. The poster's name is "join-nazi-europe". This is a name, therefore not something discutable (not more than a flag) and, according to violet's rule, he should be banned. Why doesn't it happen? I think the moderators need to re-think the rules, and the way they applie them (ie, some rules, sometimes).
I hope I'm not going to be banned (without warning) for saying that :p

If I missed something please send me a link, I don't have the time to completely read 30 pages...
I'm not the one who has a problem with this ruling. It's in there, and probably mirrored in one of the hundreds of other "why can't we have swastikas" topics that end up in virtually every forum.

Short anwser: It's Max Barry's site, and that's Max Barry's rule. The symbol isn't allowed, but discussion is. End of argument, per the Terms of Service of this site.

I'm not the one who has a problem with this ruling. It's in there, and probably mirrored in one of the hundreds of other "why can't we have swastikas" topics that end up in virtually every forum.

Short anwser: It's Max Barry's site, and that's Max Barry's rule. The symbol isn't allowed, but discussion is. End of argument, per the Terms of Service of this site.

This is not a "why can't we have a swastikas" thread.

basically, you are telling me you cannot defend the rule cause you do not understand it or support it or just don't have the time to think about it.

I find this really annoying, that people can apply rules they cannot defend. If you don't want to argue about this, you can just not do it. The rules do not forbid me to debate about it - for what I know - so I'll continue with someone who have something to say. Thanks!



oh, short answer: The rules allows me to debate the rules. The argument continues.

*Sigh*
And yet, the claim that WW2 was a fake can never be disproven. You can never disprove a conspiracy theory. (If you do, you become a part of the conspiracy)

Whilst I fully appreciate (and support Free Speech) I can't say that I feel too thrilled about the topic in question tbh. I know that everyone is entitled to their opinion, and that I am merely voicing the views of one small person - but I think that my opinion counts equally as much as the next person.

We fought (British, Americans, Canadians, French, etc) against the tyranny of German oppression (Hitler) and to keep our own individual countries seperate from the Third Reich.

Millions of people died defending their ideals of truth and freedom, and millions were exterminated for no reason except that they weren't of the so-called 'master race'.

To me, the fact that anyone could be desirous of wiping out an entire civilisation is sickening enough, but then to parody the Holocaust and pretend that it didn't happen...well, I don't think there are words to describe the emptiness in my stomach, or the tightening in my throat, when I think about what those wretched people had to endure.

The entire thread is an affront to what our brave soldiers stood and died for.

I've said enough.

Whilst I fully appreciate (and support Free Speech) I can't say that I feel too thrilled about the topic in question tbh. I know that everyone is entitled to their opinion, and that I am merely voicing the views of one small person - but I think that my opinion counts equally as much as the next person.

We fought (British, Americans, Canadians, French, etc) against the tyranny of German oppression (Hitler) and to keep our own individual countries seperate from the Third Reich.

Millions of people died defending their ideals of truth and freedom, and millions were exterminated for no reason except that they weren't of the so-called 'master race'.

To me, the fact that anyone could be desirous of wiping out an entire civilisation is sickening enough, but then to parody the Holocaust and pretend that it didn't happen...well, I don't think there are words to describe the emptiness in my stomach, or the tightening in my throat, when I think about what those wretched people had to endure.

The entire thread is an affront to what our brave soldiers stood and died for.

I've said enough.

Word.....Exept the French diddnt do shiiit :D

but it offends me. Those "debates" are more or less like a "do you think whites are superior?" debate. The poster knows he is going to lost, but by making his ideas be seen by as much people as possible, he is already winning because he managed to insult all-non whites and to make them feel that the place stinks.
That guy made almost the same thing with his negationnist thread, it is just a little more subtle.


the problem is also that the mods don't only allow these kind of debates, but also pseudonyms like "right thinking whites" or "SS viking section" that suggest that if the reader is not white, or aryan, his opinion does not matter, and in second case, even that he should be killed. If that is not insulting, I don't know what it is!!!

Whites are Aryan. If read into prehistoric history further, you will find that a tribe called the "Aryans" originated in the Caucasus. Whites are called Caucasians because their prehistoric ancestors came from there. The idealogies that "one race is superior" or that "we´re all equals, booboohoo..." are complete bull. One should recognise that we are not all the "same" and there is no proof that one race is "superior" to another.

Word.....Exept the French diddnt do shiiit :D

depends if you count both my resistants grandfathers :D :D :sniper:

and the thousands that resisted from the interior
and the thousands that fled from france to continue war in colonies and under british or american commendment.

Well, still, I must admit that france did terrible in that war - but you should remember how USSR did. Noone was prepared to fight against this type of army, and the reason the allies finally won is their ENORMOUS superiority in numbers.

Whites are Aryan. If read into prehistoric history further, you will find that a tribe called the "Aryans" originated in the Caucasus. Whites are called Caucasians because their prehistoric ancestors came from there. The idealogies that "one race is superior" or that "we´re all equals, booboohoo..." are complete bull. One should recognise that we are not all the "same" and there is no proof that one race is "superior" to another.

:rolleyes:

Scientific proof shows that there can be more genetic difference between 2 white blonds with blue eyes than between one of those aryans - cause according to another definition, aryans are like I described - and a black man.

This doesn't prove all races are equal, but that it is meaningless to search the superior one, the difference being so minimal individuals completely outcome it.

Enough of this please, it isn't the subject of that thread.

depends if you count both my resistants grandfathers :D :D :sniper:

and the thousands that resisted from the interior
and the thousands that fled from france to continue war in colonies and under british or american commendment.

Well, still, I must admit that france did terrible in that war - but you should remember how USSR did. Noone was prepared to fight against this type of army, and the reason the allies finally won is their ENORMOUS superiority in numbers.

Sorry i mean French ARMY
nazi person > :eek: :mp5: <French Resistance thingamaperson
no offence to ur grandparents

the reason that the russians won was because they had Stalins crazy ass saying that if you retreated you would be shot on sight. it was pretty much either win, be killed by a nazi or be killed by a russia commissar psyco. Especialy at the battle of Stalingrad this was put into place where most of the battles were a flat out struggle for survival that tipped the balance in the Red Army's favor because their higher ranking officers policies. The battles became more tactical at the battle of Kursk (exept for the sniping missions and prisioner snatches etc)

Back on topic.

The thread stays open.

Swastikas are banned as this is the site owner's prerogative. Perhaps because they are gratuitously offensive. Perhaps because they are not a helpful element in debate. Perhaps because he simply does not like them. Maybe, a combination of the three, or indeed other excellent reasons. Hundreds of pages have been dedicated to this subject in this forum. If you wish to become a scholar in this tiny kernel of our policy, go find them.

No political debate in the Moderation Forum.

Tactical Grace
Game Moderator

Back on topic.

The thread stays open.

Swastikas are banned as this is the site owner's prerogative. Perhaps because they are gratuitously offensive. Perhaps because they are not a helpful element in debate. Perhaps because he simply does not like them. Maybe, a combination of the three, or indeed other excellent reasons. Hundreds of pages have been dedicated to this subject in this forum. If you wish to become a scholar in this tiny kernel of our policy, go find them.

No political debate in the Moderation Forum.

Tactical Grace
Game Moderator


Is i OK to have a debate about what should be allowed? This is about moderation, not politics ;)

But if is considered as a better thread for "general", I'll make a thread there, no problem (would be named "Should we allow posters here to have racist speech?" or something like that. With the difference that there are so much people (nazis and others) there that the thread might sink into the abyss of human stupidity :p)

Is i OK to have a debate about what should be allowed? This is about moderation, not politics ;)

It's been argued a gazillion times. The ruling that's been in effect since before I started playing this game is almost certainly not going to change.

I still don't know for what reason I've been banned (my other account), or for how long it will last. I asked it to the mods, maybe I did not get how it works; am I supposed to get the answer by telegram? If no, maybe I missed the answer.
What's the name of the nation?

Also, nations deleted for rulebreaking are not resurrected. It's a permanent punishment unless the deletion was committed in error.

Anyway, I see a real contradiction in banning nazi crosses but allowing names like "SS section" or "white power".
The Iron Cross is not banned. Only the swastika is banned. The swastika is the only symbol banned from NationStates flags (though it is allowed in the forums).

Nazi names are allowed unless they fall into one of the following 6 categories: obscene, malicious, defamatory, illegal, threatening, or spam.

About the "insulting moderators" thing, I'm sorry for those who cannot understand. I was making an analogy: if people are allowed to insults other with such things as "aryans are superiors, you are inferior and should be killed", then everyone should be allowed to insult the moderators. I am, of course, not saying that moderators should be insulted, but that nazi discourse should be banned.
"Aryans are superior" is a controversial opinion. You may state controversial opinions if you are prepared to debate them. If you make a controversial opinion and you don't debate it, then we are inclined to think that you posted it merely to make people mad and not because you actually hold that opinion. Posting things merely to make people mad is "trolling" and it's a violation of NationStates rules (usually falling under the "malicious" clause of the Terms and Conditions (http://www.nationstates.net/pages/legal.html).

"You are inferior" qualifies as a defamatory (and probably malicious) statement and violates NationStates rules. It's commonly called flamebait.

"You should be killed" is a threatening statement. Anyone making such a statement is susceptible to immediate deleted without warning for this sort of thing.

I did not read the full thread. Only the original post (by violet) seems to be about our issue. I checked the first 4 pages and then one page out of 2 until the end, and found nothing more - it is all about symbols(flags), not texts (forums).
The ruling was only about flags. Political discussion is not censored.

Well, first of all, violet says that nazi or racist related names should not be tolerated, for the same reason swastikas aren't. Right now, they are tolerated.
Incorrect. Reread that post.

']I was asked (a while back now) to make a judgement on whether swastikas are acceptable to use in nation flags.

After consideration, I've decided: No.

Players who use swastikas in their nation flags should change them.

While this site generally allows for political debate and discussion, nations are held to a higher standard than forum posts, because there is no right of reply. An offensive post can be debated -- hopefully to the point where the poster learns something -- but an offensive flag, motto, or nation name just sits there.

The swastika is intricately associated with the Holocaust in public consciousness, and, as one of the greatest tragedies of the last century, it can reasonably be considered offensive for players to appear to endorse or celebrate it.

I understand that at least a few players who use swastikas in their flags do not intend this outcome, and can probably give me a long history lesson on the symbol; nevertheless, that is not the message the image sends.
The section in blue bold is a general statement explaining that national names, flags, and such are held to higher standards then forum posts, but DOES NOT make a decision against Nazi-related names.

The section in green bold explains a decision against swastika flags, but does not extend the prohibition to anything else.

Second, I disagree with violet about the fact that revisionnism has less power in a post because it can be discussed, first because a post can always provide more information than a flag.
One who posts a "the holocaust did not happen" thread knows he will 'lose' the discussion (ie, be proven wrong). But he can make it last a long time, and this way can shock numerous people and make them dislike the forums. (this is the reason why swastikas are banned, I remind you).
Incorrect. Flags are not the same as the forums. A ruling on flags does not (immedaitely) have anything to do with the forums.

When we see a swastika on a flag, we know most disagree with it. When we see a racist or revisionist thread, we know it as well, and have the proof.
In both cases, it doesn't prevent the propaganda to be made. The nazis can still shock people with threads, just like with flags. There is no big difference in my opinion.
[violet] disagrees. This game is inherently political in nature. As such, political discussions are allowed. Pro-Nazi/Anti-Nazi discussions are political discussions. Max Barry prefers that various political points-of-view be debated, not censored. [violet], SalusaSecondus, and the NationStates Moderators make decisions on this basis.

EDIT: at the time I write that, a guy posted a thread in this very forum, right next this one. The poster's name is "join-nazi-europe". This is a name, therefore not something discutable (not more than a flag) and, according to violet's rule, he should be banned. Why doesn't it happen? I think the moderators need to re-think the rules, and the way they applie them (ie, some rules, sometimes).
I reiterate: Nazi-related names are allowed (as long as they are not obscene, malicious, defamatory, illegal, threatening, or spam). Only the swastika is banned, and only from NationStates flags. All other symbols are allowed.

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

What's the name of the nation?

Also, nations deleted for rulebreaking are not resurrected. It's a permanent punishment unless the deletion was committed in error.

the nation wasn't deleted, but banned from the forum. Maybe this is what you call a warning? First time I see such an extreme policy. Especially without any message to explain why I'm banned. (the nation is "rasputin the thief").

The Iron Cross is not banned. Only the swastika is banned. The swastika is the only symbol banned from NationStates flags (though it is allowed in the forums).

ROFL
I said nazi crosses talking about the gammed cross, and knowing there would be many of them in that forum, without interdictions. And, how is the swastika allowed in the forum? You mean, we can have as a signature?

"Aryans are superior" is a controversial opinion. You may state controversial opinions if you are prepared to debate them. If you make a controversial opinion and you don't debate it, then we are inclined to think that you posted it merely to make people mad and not because you actually hold that opinion. Posting things merely to make people mad is "trolling" and it's a violation of NationStates rules (usually falling under the "malicious" clause of the Terms and Conditions (http://www.nationstates.net/pages/legal.html).

Like someone who posts something as aggressive " the holocaust never happened" don't know he is going to make people mad? :rolleyes:

"You are inferior" qualifies as a defamatory (and probably malicious) statement and violates NationStates rules. It's commonly called flamebait.

"You should be killed" is a threatening statement. Anyone making such a statement is susceptible to immediate deleted without warning for this sort of thing.

therefore a name like "SS Viking", that directly suggests both for anyone non-aryan, should not be allowed. You should just face your contradictions.



Incorrect. Reread that post.

In the very quote you give, in the sentance you putted in blue, it is said that "nation flags, mottos and nation names" can't be argued against
The section in blue bold is a general statement explaining that national names, flags, and such are held to higher standards then forum posts, but DOES NOT make a decision against Nazi-related names.

So, they are held to higher standarts. I admitted that a consequence of that would be that something would be done to maintain a high standart, I was wrong, excuse me for your incapacity to ensure the principles you give are applied.

Incorrect. Flags are not the same as the forums. A ruling on flags does not (immedaitely) have anything to do with the forums.


[violet] disagrees. This game is inherently political in nature. As such, political discussions are allowed. Pro-Nazi/Anti-Nazi discussions are political discussions. Max Barry prefers that various political points-of-view be debated, not censored. [violet], SalusaSecondus, and the NationStates Moderators make decisions on this basis.

I reiterate: Nazi-related names are allowed (as long as they are not obscene, malicious, defamatory, illegal, threatening, or spam). Only the swastika is banned, and only from NationStates flags. All other symbols are allowed.

First, I don't remember saying anything about other symbols.
Second, there is a complete lack of any logic behind those deicisions; third, nazi names are illegal in my state and in many other, it is a crime called "apology of war crimes".
Finally, pro-nazi is like the swastika. Apology of war crimes, and just as offensive...And almost all the time, meant to be offensive. Having a name containing the word nazi is not politics, but provocation.
You make some points - such as the fact nazi names are allowed. But by the way, you underline the contradictions in the rules made by [violet]. Instead of finding what is exactly the rule, you should better think about what the rule should be.

Like someone who posts something as aggressive " the holocaust never happened" don't know he is going to make people mad?
Personally, I don't see how this qualifies as "agressive".

therefore a name like "SS Viking", that directly suggests both for anyone non-aryan, should not be allowed.
And how does this suggest that anyone non-aryan should not be allowed?

But by the way, you underline the contradictions in the rules made by [violet]. Instead of finding what is exactly the rule, you should better think about what the rule should be.
Yes, you are correct, the rules are slightly self-contradictory. That is when we excercise our judgement. You see, in the end much of moderation is a judgement call because there is no way to draft hard rules that cover everything and are fair.

Finally, this is a political site and thus discussion of political philosophies (and movements) as much as you may disagree with them belongs here and will not be banned.

P.S. If NAZI names are illegal in your state, then I would recommend not creating a nation with one.

Personally, I don't see how this qualifies as "agressive".

Well, it denies the status of victim of millions of persons, who suffered one of the most terrible horrors humanity has created.It says they (the victims) are all lyers who did suffer nothing, but want others to believe it. That's quite aggressive, in my opinion.

And how does this suggest that anyone non-aryan should not be allowed?

sorry I wasn't clear (english isn't my first language :'( )
I meant that a name like "SS vikings" directly suggests that non-aryans are inferiors and should be killed. So that name "SS vikings" should not be allowed, considering the principles edicted before.


Yes, you are correct, the rules are slightly self-contradictory. That is when we excercise our judgement. You see, in the end much of moderation is a judgement call because there is no way to draft hard rules that cover everything and are fair.

Finally, this is a political site and thus discussion of political philosophies (and movements) as much as you may disagree with them belongs here and will not be banned.
Having principles but not applying them is not a slight contradiction in my opinion. This is always a matter of opinion, but to me racist/nazis posts are debatable, it depends on each post. Racist/nazi names are another problem, and to me absolutely not debatable case-per-case, if you believe in what [violet] said.
Finally, I'm OK with every political phylosophy (including theocracy, empire, anarchy, communism, democracy, free for all, etc) as long as they're not a call to genocide. This is what the nazi movement is, and we've seen that every racist movement led to murders of non-"superiors". This is why, in the name of saving lives, I think those discourses should not be accepted.


P.S. If NAZI names are illegal in your state, then I would recommend not creating a nation with one.
thx for your condescendance. I do not appreciate it. I wasn't the one who used the term "illegal", I just answered to the post before mine. :headbang:

What it all boils down to is:

1) Political discussion is allowed and will not be censored on the basis that some people find it offensive...

2)...so long as the poster defends his position logically and does not post it simply to entice people into flaming him or her...

3) Swastikas remain legal on the forums...

4) Nation names, mottos, animals and currency, unless they are obscene, defamatory or malicious are not censored...

5) ...you may disagree with the ruling, but it is Max's ruling and Max's site, and as such he can afford as much freedom or restrict it in the types of thinks posted and linked here as much as he likes.

I have a good sense of humour, but I do not and cannot joke about war.

Hehe, I do.

What it all boils down to is:

1) Political discussion is allowed and will not be censored on the basis that some people find it offensive...

2)...so long as the poster defends his position logically and does not post it simply to entice people into flaming him or her...

3) Swastikas remain legal on the forums...

4) Nation names, mottos, animals and currency, unless they are obscene, defamatory or malicious are not censored...

5) ...you may disagree with the ruling, but it is Max's ruling and Max's site, and as such he can afford as much freedom or restrict it in the types of thinks posted and linked here as much as he likes.


I really don't like having to reply many times to the same statement ><
I already explained 2 or 3 times in this thread how useless it is to make a post like the one you made here. Here is another justification (I'm getting better and better at justifying this thread :p) :
I am discussing the rules because I think the rules are poorly made and therefore should be changed. If Max reads this thread, he might change his mind or explain me why I'm wrong (or just say nothing, and the thread will finally die of a lack of posters).


And, I'm not saying that offensive political discussion should always be banned, since almost every discussion is offensive to some people. I am saying that apology of war crimes and threads suggesting millions of people should be killed , stuff like this, should not be tolerated. I use extreme exemples; to a lesser degree, the thread "the holocaust never happened" is also crossing the limit in my opinion.

With a title that is not really related to the substance of the post (the idea is to say that WWII was a conspiracy that world leaders agreed to make), this title was chosen because it is flashy and offensive. By having a different discourse in the post than in the title, the poster avoids discussion on that point, which is accusing all the survivors of the worst tragedy ever to be lyers. This is more about being offensive than about political discussion.

Ad, your point 4... I think a name like "SS viking section" is defamatory since it suggests that there are ethnies that are largely superior to others while there are proof it is wrong; it is also malicious since it is a promotion of killing you, if you are a member of one of those ethnies.

read the thread you post in before you post something... please.
Is the phrase NationStates Moderator Team under a poster's name meaningless to you? Insulting both mods and players who attempt to answer your question is pretty damn rude, actually. You asked for official rulings, and official rulings you got.

I am discussing the rules because I think the rules are poorly made and therefore should be changed. If Max reads this thread, he might change his mind or explain me why I'm wrong (or just say nothing, and the thread will finally die of a lack of posters).
The NationStates staff have a private forum in which various issues are discussed. Suffice to say, the rules regarding swastikas, Nazis and other controversial politics, are on the list of things that will never be changed. Not one thread on this subject, many dozens over two years, have ever forced a change in policy. I doubt any argument can be made that we have not heard already.

In addition, you should not assume that Max's opinions may be different. We are chosen to enforce his rules, to speak for him.

I am saying that apology of war crimes and threads suggesting millions of people should be killed , stuff like this, should not be tolerated. I use extreme exemples; to a lesser degree, the thread "the holocaust never happened" is also crossing the limit in my opinion.
You have made it abundantly clear that you do not like this. Nevertheless, there will be no change in the rules to the effect you suggest.

With a title that is not really related to the substance of the post (the idea is to say that WWII was a conspiracy that world leaders agreed to make), this title was chosen because it is flashy and offensive. By having a different discourse in the post than in the title, the poster avoids discussion on that point, which is accusing all the survivors of the worst tragedy ever to be lyers. This is more about being offensive than about political discussion.
It's called satire.

Ad, your point 4... I think a name like "SS viking section" is defamatory since it suggests that there are ethnies that are largely superior to others while there are proof it is wrong; it is also malicious since it is a promotion of killing you, if you are a member of one of those ethnies.
Pretty big leap of imagination there. It is plainly not defamatory, under any definition you will find in any dictionary. Nor it is gratuitously offensive. It may offend some, but that is the nature of politics.

NationStates provides an arena for political gameplay and debate; the rules are designed to facilitate the smooth operation of that function. If any player takes issue with the expression of a political opinion, it is up to that player to argue an opposing case in a civil manner, not to lobby to have the expression of that opinion banned.

This is your answer. We will not change the rules simply because every couple of weeks a player decides that (s)he would rather have a point of contention banned rather than argue against it in the proper area.

Note that the Moderation staff, whom you have repeatedly insulted, are in agreement on this matter. There have been many players who failed to accept an explanation of the rules, pressed the matter further, and had their nations toasted. Assuming you have further questions, I advise you to not become one of them.

http://www.bigwig.net/~bbw10606/pwned.gif
Tactical Grace
Game Moderator

Is the phrase NationStates Moderator Team under a poster's name meaningless to you? Insulting both mods and players who attempt to answer your question is pretty damn rude, actually. You asked for official rulings, and official rulings you got.

I was not insulting. I have been told a few times the same thing, and always answered with argumentation, so, moderator or not, I tell him what I think...

should moderator be more respected than others for some reason? I respect everyone equally, this is why I'm being as evil with a moderator than with anyone else. I don't believe he was offended by that anyway, that was pretty harmless.

post edited anyway. I don't want to be deleted :mad:

the nation wasn't deleted, but banned from the forum. Maybe this is what you call a warning? First time I see such an extreme policy. Especially without any message to explain why I'm banned. (the nation is "rasputin the thief").
The official records indicate that "Rasputin the Thief" was forumbanned for repeated forum trolling against Moderators.

ROFL
I said nazi crosses talking about the gammed cross, and knowing there would be many of them in that forum, without interdictions.
I don't understand what this means.

And, how is the swastika allowed in the forum? You mean, we can have as a signature?
Yes, but...

...the NationStates forums are technically a part of the Jolt forums. So your automatic forum signature is global throughout the Jolt forum system. However, the Jolt Admins allow the NationStates Admins to have different rules than the rest of the Jolt forums. NationStates forum rules allow the posting of the swastika (as long as it's not a gigantic image and you're not spamming, trolling, flaming, or flambaiting). The forum rules everywhere else on the Jolt system may or may not allow it; I don't know.

In NationStates, it's fine. Everywhere else in Jolt, I don't know.

...

"You are inferior" qualifies as a defamatory (and probably malicious) statement and violates NationStates rules. It's commonly called flamebait.

"You should be killed" is a threatening statement. Anyone making such a statement is susceptible to immediate deleted without warning for this sort of thing.
therefore a name like "SS Viking", that directly suggests both for anyone non-aryan, should not be allowed. You should just face your contradictions.
And how does this suggest that anyone non-aryan should not be allowed?
sorry I wasn't clear (english isn't my first language :'( )
I meant that a name like "SS vikings" directly suggests that non-aryans are inferiors and should be killed. So that name "SS vikings" should not be allowed, considering the principles edicted before.
Let me make sure I understand your argument correctly:

NationStates does not allow threatening statements in national names, flags, etc.
The entire basis of the Nazi philosophy is the elimination of genetically inferior human beings ("inferior" as judged by the Aryan standard).
Advocating the elimination of a group of people qualifies as a threatening statement.
Any reference to a philosophy of elimination qualifies as a threatening statement.
Therefore, any mention of Nazis qualifies as a threatening statement.
Therefore, Nazi references should not be allowed in NationStates nations.

Is this what you mean? If this is not what you mean, then you’ll have to clarify.

If this is what you mean, then my response is as follows:
The name of a philosophy, alone, doesn’t tell you anything. A reference, alone, doesn’t tell you anything. We don’t consider the name of a philosophy to be a threatening statement. If someone makes a nation called “Jews should die” or “Non-Aryans should die”, then that would be a threatening statement and the nation would be deleted. “SS” is not a threatening statement. Similarly, “Dissenters will die” is a threatening statment, but “Stalins Russia” is not a threatening statement. Many people were killed under Stalins rule, but that doesn’t make a reference to Stalins Russia a threatening statment. “Kill the Indians” is a threatening statement, but “American Expansion” is not a threatening statement, even though the treatment of Native Americans during the westward expansion of the United States in the 19th Century was sometimes bloody.

third, nazi names are illegal in my state and in many other, it is a crime called "apology of war crimes".

Instead of finding what is exactly the rule, you should better think about what the rule should be.
We already did. Many of these arguments were presented a long time ago and Max and [violet] made a decision; you're not the first person to argue these things.

...

"Aryans are superior" is a controversial opinion. You may state controversial opinions if you are prepared to debate them. If you make a controversial opinion and you don't debate it, then we are inclined to think that you posted it merely to make people mad and not because you actually hold that opinion. Posting things merely to make people mad is "trolling" and it's a violation of NationStates rules (usually falling under the "malicious" clause of the Terms and Conditions (http://www.nationstates.net/pages/legal.html).
Like someone who posts something as aggressive " the holocaust never happened" don't know he is going to make people mad? :rolleyes:
Controversy is going to make some people mad; that's the nature of controversy. If you try to debate a serious political opinion, you may make some people mad; this is unaviodable. You are allowed to make people mad IF AND ONLY IF you are seriously trying to debate a political opinion.

If you're making people mad merely to make people mad, that that's trolling.

Personally, I don't see how this qualifies as "agressive".
Well, it denies the status of victim of millions of persons, who suffered one of the most terrible horrors humanity has created.It says they (the victims) are all lyers who did suffer nothing, but want others to believe it. That's quite aggressive, in my opinion.
If someone wants to debate that the Holocaust never happened, then they can go ahead and try to debate that; we won't stop them from trying to debate that. However, I strongly expect that many people will respond by debating with tons of evidence that the Holocaust did happen.

Anyone who tries to argue something like "the holocaust didn't happen" will be quickly proven wrong, but that doesn't mean that we're going to censor the debate.

Finally, I'm OK with every political phylosophy (including theocracy, empire, anarchy, communism, democracy, free for all, etc) as long as they're not a call to genocide. This is what the nazi movement is, and we've seen that every racist movement led to murders of non-"superiors". This is why, in the name of saving lives, I think those discourses should not be accepted.
We don’t punish players before they break the rules (unless a player has broken the rules so many times, before, that we decide to ban them from NationStates permanently).

Someone who says “Aryans are superior, a pure Aryan bloodline should be preserved, and everyone else should die” would be in violation of NationStates rules for making threatening statements. Someone who says “Aryans are superior, a pure Aryan bloodline should be preserved, and everyone else can live and do whatever they like as long as it doesn’t harm Aryans” and is prepared to debate that is allowed to debate that on the NationStates forums. Advocating the first is prohibited while advocating the second is allowed.

If someone is willing to seriously debate their point-of-view, then we won’t take action against them until they cross the line into advocating violence. We do punish players because they have advocated the murders of non-"superiors"; we don’t punish players because they are going to advocate the murders of non-"superiors". We may be concerned that someone might cross the line, but we won’t do anything until they actually cross the line.

P.S. If NAZI names are illegal in your state, then I would recommend not creating a nation with one.
thx for your condescendance. I do not appreciate it. I wasn't the one who used the term "illegal", I just answered to the post before mine. :headbang:
Yes, I did mention “illegal”, first. However, “illegal” is usually only applied in cases where something is very widely regarded as illegal. If you use a copyrighted image without the permission of whoever made the copyrighted image, then the copyright holder can ask us to have the image removed. If you’re involved in a court case and the Judge tells you not to talk about the case (usually called a “gag order”), and then you come here and talk about it on NationStates in violation of the gag order, then the court can ask us to remove your comments about the case from the forums.

Nazi/Racist references are illegal in some places and legal in others. It doesn’t have nearly the widespread status of “illegal” that copyright violations and gag orders have, so that’s not good enough to remove all Nazi names from NationStates on the basis of being “illegal”.

I really don't like having to reply many times to the same statement ><
I already explained 2 or 3 times in this thread how useless it is to make a post like the one you made here. Here is another justification (I'm getting better and better at justifying this thread :p) :
I am discussing the rules because I think the rules are poorly made and therefore should be changed. If Max reads this thread, he might change his mind or explain me why I'm wrong (or just say nothing, and the thread will finally die of a lack of posters).
We are the authorized representatives of Max Barry. In the absence of Max Barry, we speak for Max Barry in his name; he has given us permission to speak in his name. If we explain to you why the rules are not changing, then that is exactly the same thing as Max Barry explaining to you why the rules are not changing.

We’re keeping this topic open. To reiterate what Tactical Grace said: If you have questions about what the current policy is, then you may ask. However, because this has been discussed ad nauseam, we will not consider requests to change the current policy.

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

The official records indicate that "Rasputin the Thief" was forumbanned for repeated forum trolling against Moderators.


I don't understand what this means.


Oo... I don't understand it either. I've been critical, once maybe a bit harsh, but trolling... repeated... no way. I'd like to talk to the guy who did it or to have more explanations!


Let me make sure I understand your argument correctly:

NationStates does not allow threatening statements in national names, flags, etc.

The entire basis of the Nazi philosophy is the elimination of genetically inferior human beings ("inferior" as judged by the Aryan standard).

Advocating the elimination of a group of people qualifies as a threatening statement.

Any reference to a philosophy of elimination qualifies as a threatening statement.

Therefore, any mention of Nazis qualifies as a threatening statement.
Therefore, Nazi references should not be allowed in NationStates nations.

Is this what you mean? If this is not what you mean, then you’ll have to clarify.


Correction:
Diffamation, insults and threats are not allowed on the forum.

a racism affirmation is a diffamation, since racism has been proven wrong scientifically (d'oh, just compare with any other diffamation affair, it is quite the same thing, except it's not based on an individual).

a racism affirmation is an insult, since it is not based on a wrong or right scheme, but on a "you are stupid I'm intelligent' scheme. With 2 differences:
1) an insult is, most of the time, based on something the other did. Racism can be against anyone.
2) Racism is against a group. But when someone attacks the republicans, or the catholics, even the french or the americans, etc. as a group, he attacks them on their common values, ideas. On something they have a choice on (yeah, you chose to be french or american, or at least you have the choice!).

A racist affirmation is not a simple message of "I believe this", it is also a calculated offense, like I showed the "holocaust never existed" thread was.
A reference to nazism in a positive way should therefore be banned. Calling yourself "hitler" is considered as a promotion of nazism, for the simple reason no anti-racist would do it,for the same reason no democrat would take a pseudo like "Bush_Rules".

And, I have never said that "any" reference to nazism should be banned.


(uh.. didn't manage to make the little points like you did. :'( )

If this is what you mean, then my response is as follows:
The name of a philosophy, alone, doesn’t tell you anything. A reference, alone, doesn’t tell you anything. We don’t consider the name of a philosophy to be a threatening statement. If someone makes a nation called “Jews should die” or “Non-Aryans should die”, then that would be a threatening statement and the nation would be deleted. “SS” is not a threatening statement. Similarly, “Dissenters will die” is a threatening statment, but “Stalins Russia” is not a threatening statement. Many people were killed under Stalins rule, but that doesn’t make a reference to Stalins Russia a threatening statment. “Kill the Indians” is a threatening statement, but “American Expansion” is not a threatening statement, even though the treatment of Native Americans during the westward expansion of the United States in the 19th Century was sometimes bloody.

It is up to the moderators to decide which names are promoting nazism. "Hitler worshippers" is definetely in this case, while "anti-SS" or "StarShip" are not.
All your other exemples are not valid, since "Stalin's Russia" did kill people, but only people who did a something against the government, with the idea that overall, it will be better for all. That is dumb, but some can believe that, while the nazi argument has nothing to do with it. The expansion of america could have happened without so much massacres of indians. Having "SS commando" in your name is just like having a swastika as your flag. You won't make me believe that innocent people do that, or that it leaves any doubt on the message the author wanted to give to readers.


We already did. Many of these arguments were presented a long time ago and Max and [violet] made a decision; you're not the first person to argue these things.
but still, I couldn't get an answer satisfying me (hm, you can judge I'm hard to satisfy, if you don't like it, no need to bother yourself... eventually I'll run out of a companion to talk with and stop ;) ).




Controversy is going to make some people mad; that's the nature of controversy. If you try to debate a serious political opinion, you may make some people mad; this is unaviodable. You are allowed to make people mad IF AND ONLY IF you are seriously trying to debate a political opinion.
If you're making people mad mer[/SIZE]ely to make people mad, that that's trolling.


As I stated before, using "the holocaust never happened" as a title was merely to make people mad, since the point is more that WWII was faked by leaders than about the holocaust. If the man wasn't a troll, he would have titled " World war 2 was a conspiracy" or something like that. I would not be here whining ;)

Anyone who tries to argue something like "the holocaust didn't happen" will be quickly proven wrong, but that doesn't mean that we're going to censor the debate.
we both know that proving someone wrong doesn't mean he lost. He can just deny our proof ("No, I maintain") (with the difference there that most of the arguing wasn't about the holocaust, since the poster's main point is the holocaust... that's a strategy, imo). And the title of the post remains there.


Someone who says “Aryans are superior, a pure Aryan bloodline should be preserved, and everyone else can live and do whatever they like as long as it doesn’t harm Aryans” and is prepared to debate that is allowed to debate that on the NationStates forums. Advocating [it] is allowed [while advocating genocide isn't].


We disagree here.
I think that laws must not only be ideologic like you seem to see them. I mean, theory says there is no offense in saying that (hmm, apart that there is still the insult of calling everyone else inferior); pratic proves that those who say that are the same that hang black people. In the name of pratic, I think we should let them think what they want, but restrain their posts for the pleasure of all the people on this forum (and for having less racist crimes around the world btw). OK, it still needs to be proved that many agree with me on that issue... Maybe I'll make a poll :)



We are the authorized representatives of Max Barry. In the absence of Max Barry, we speak for Max Barry in his name; he has given us permission to speak in his name. If we explain to you why the rules are not changing, then that is exactly the same thing as Max Barry explaining to you why the rules are not changing.

I am not saying that I don't want to talk with moderators and prefer Mr Barry, but that saying "the rules are like this, if you're not happy, go away" is not adding anything but anger to the debate.


However, because this has been discussed ad nauseam, we will not consider requests to change the current policy.

even if this has been discussed before, it looks like not all arguments have been explored, so the subject should not be closed. Well, i'm still making my requests ;)

No, actually we have revisited pretty much everything covered in the last two years of these arguments. This is getting to the point where it does not serve any further purpose than re-stating the reasoning behind rules which will not be changed.

Your curiosity, as you say, has not yet been satisfied. However, please remember that our patience is finite.

Tactical Grace
Game Moderator

No, actually we have revisited pretty much everything covered in the last two years of these arguments. This is getting to the point where it does not serve any further purpose than re-stating the reasoning behind rules which will not be changed.

Your curiosity, as you say, has not yet been satisfied. However, please remember that our patience is finite.

Tactical Grace
Game Moderator


as I said, I'd like to discuss the point with you, but am not forcing you to argue with me. If your patience reach its limit, you can just stop posting in this thread .

as I said, I'd like to discuss the point with you, but am not forcing you to argue with me. If your patience reach its limit, you can just stop posting in this thread .

Or you could also stop posting, this thread could be locked, and this debate that's happened a million times before on this forum can cease once more.

You do realize evading a forum ban can get you perma-banned?

I missed that one. No, I did not realize (stupidly) :/. I was shocked of being banned like that, so I didn't really thought about this.
I guess I'll wait for an autorisation to post again... or just for knowing how long have I been banned? I still have no idea (3 days? one week? one month? one year?).

If you want to lock this thread, well that's your right as a moderator. I won't discuss it, I guess I'll just quit posting here (I know, I know, it doesn't make you sad ;). it wasn't meant to :))

Or you could also stop posting, this thread could be locked, and this debate that's happened a million times before on this forum can cease once more.

Firstly, it is us who decides when a thread is locked.

I missed that one. No, I did not realize (stupidly) :/. I was shocked of being banned like that, so I didn't really thought about this.
I guess I'll wait for an autorisation to post again... or just for knowing how long have I been banned? I still have no idea (3 days? one week? one month? one year?).

If you want to lock this thread, well that's your right as a moderator. I won't discuss it, I guess I'll just quit posting here (I know, I know, it doesn't make you sad ;). it wasn't meant to :))

Secondly, Tuesday Heights is not a moderator. Moderators have a rank indicating this under their username.

Firstly, it is us who decides when a thread is locked.

Did I say this thread should be locked? Please don't try to interpret my words, Myrth, because I neither said it should be locked nor do I order anyone to lock it. It was a suggestion that as a player, I am allowed to make.

The point I was making was that MC isn't getting the point of this thread whatsoever and it's a debate that every other time happens in Moderation is locked within the first five posts. That's the only point I was making.

Anyway, seeing as proceedings no longer appear constructive, I will once again point out that swastikas are banned, that race debates in the General Forum are permissible, subject to the following of standard forum rules by all parties, that nation names pertaining to controversial issues are permissible subject to the TOS and FAQ and the Moderators' judgement in applying the rules therein, and that none of this is going to change in the forseeable future.

The status quo can never satisfy everyone, but we aim to make the site an enjoyable experience for the majority of users.

And now, the inevitable lock.

Tactical Grace
Game Moderator