NationStates Jolt Archive

Is it right that after building up a nation for 18 months and having a population of 2.8 billion that some sad dork can complain about the name of my nation, which results in its termination?

Why can "Bungles Bollocks" be acceptable to everyone for 18 months and then upset one individual who has the power to destroy it?

This matter is currently under review by the NationStates moderators. If we decide that your nation was deleted unjustly, we shall resurrect it.

~ Tsar the Mod.

I also believe that the name is acceptable for NS.

Just as much as this smilie is: :fluffle: lol

i think that it is acceptable hey it isn't that bad is it

Yeah, I think that is "Analbumcovers" is OK then this must be OK.

Yeah, I think that is "Analbumcovers" is OK then this must be OK.
"Analbumcovers" was modbombed, according to official records.

--The Modified Democratic States of Cogitation

Does NationStates really need another re-run of the Sex Pistols/Virgin Records trial wherein it was determined that the word 'bollocks' was an acceptable archaicism that originally refered to priests, and thus was in no way obscene? A precedent has been set in the land wherein the Jolt servers are located, after all...



http://www.acc.umu.se/~samhain/summerofhate/courtcase.html

Does NationStates really need another re-run of the Sex Pistols/Virgin Records trial wherein it was determined that the word 'bollocks' was an acceptable archaicism that originally refered to priests, and thus was in no way obscene? A precedent has been set in the land wherein the Jolt servers are located, after all...

http://www.acc.umu.se/~samhain/summerofhate/courtcase.html
No offense intended, but this is irrelevant.

That court case talks about what limitations the British government may place on publicly-viewable displays put up by private individuals or businesses on their own private property. It does not stop an owner of private property from deciding not to allow certain kinds of material from being displayed on their property.

To say it differently: If the owner of private property wants to put up a publically-viewable display that uses the word "bollocks", then the British government can't stop them. But, if the owner of private property decides that he/she hates the word "bollocks", then that owner cannot be forced to accomodate any publically-viewable display that uses that word.

NationStates.net and the Jolt network are both private property. If we decide that the use of the word "bollocks" is unacceptable, then the use of the word "bollocks" is unacceptable. If we decide that any mention of poultry is unacceptable, then we will put that in the Terms and Conditions and forumban you for talking about chicken soup*.

* This would be a very strange thing, indeed, but Jolt officials and Max Barry have the right to make this decision, if they want.

...

The case of "Bungles Bollocks" is still under discussion by NationStates Moderators.

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

No offense intended, but this is irrelevant.

...

NationStates.net and the Jolt network are both private property. If we decide that the use of the word "bollocks" is unacceptable, then the use of the word "bollocks" is unacceptable. If we decide that any mention of poultry is unacceptable, then we will put that in the Terms and Conditions and forumban you for talking about chicken soup*.

* This would be a very strange thing, indeed, but Jolt officials and Max Barry have the right to make this decision, if they want.


I was not claiming that the the law actually had anything to do with whether NS policy allowed certain words to be used in Nation names - after all it has been decided that words such as 'anal' are unsuitable for use there despite the fact that no law would restrict their use in the UK, and I am aware that NS continues to be a 'benevolent' dictatorship, but I just thought it worthy of comment.

Maybe the not entirely serious nature of my post didn't come through well enough - I thought that posting a fairly ludicrous statement* as a question and the ellipsis would be sufficient to mark it out as such, but apparently I was wrong.



* but factually true, although as you say, in the end irrelevant.

Ahhh! So you were being sarcastic? I didn't pick up on that.

--The Democratic States of Cogitation

Ahhh! So you were being sarcastic? I didn't pick up on that.

Well, I just thought it was an interesting historical sidenote, and didn't expect it to be taken seriously.

there should be a random topic every day that is not allowed.... make the game a bit more interesting

tomorrow: cheez wiz!

The problem is that no one posts about cheeze wiz. :headbang:
Was "Analbumcovers" deleted? I forgot. I though that it turned out to be "an album covers." But I guess it got deleted anyway. Oh well.