NationStates Jolt Archive

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8263949&postcount=122
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8264176&postcount=131
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8264255&postcount=136
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8264347&postcount=143 (could be taken as a threat)

None if these are serious flames, its more of "warning signs" since a number of these people don't have many posts.

I find the fact that you even created this thread completely ridiculous, seeing as the topic you started could be considered flamebaiting. The only one that could remotely be considered bad is the 2nd thread.

How about the instances where you baited them?
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8261271&postcount=1
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8261469&postcount=12 (Proof?)
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8261518&postcount=21 (Horrible Judgement Call, seeing as I'm bi myself. Horrible thing to even say.)
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8262861&postcount=90 (Again, this personally offends me, you telling me that I'm going to hell)
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8263252&postcount=101 (calling me stupid, and telling me that my IQ is lower than everyone else?)

Given that you opened the topic for discussion, I'm of the opinion that you have little cause to complain about the reactions you're receiving. From what I see, the first, third and fourth aren't flames, they're legitimate opinions and observations. Whether or not you find them flattering is irrelevant. You appear to be objecting because they're responding to you in the same spirit that you challenged them.

The second is clearly an insult, and should probably receive some sort of response.

Standard Disclaimer: I am not a Moderator, so and and so forth.

I find the fact that you even created this thread completely ridiculous, seeing as the topic you started could be considered flamebaiting. The only one that could remotely be considered bad is the 2nd thread.

How about the instances where you baited them?
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8261271&postcount=1
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8261469&postcount=12 (Proof?)
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8261518&postcount=21 (Horrible Judgement Call, seeing as I'm bi myself. Horrible thing to even say.)
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8262861&postcount=90 (Again, this personally offends me, you telling me that I'm going to hell)
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8263252&postcount=101 (calling me stupid, and telling me that my IQ is lower than everyone else?)


1. Started a discussion, nothing wrong with that.
2. later posted by VE: http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8262855&postcount=89
3. Its only simple logic.
4. Its what the bible says, and if you have sex, its fornification, but anyways, the freedom of speech means freedom to be offended.
5. That was directed towards africans, in response to what was said.

Given that you opened the topic for discussion, I'm of the opinion that you have little cause to complain about the reactions you're receiving. From what I see, the first, third and fourth aren't flames, they're legitimate opinions and observations. Whether or not you find them flattering is irrelevant. You appear to be objecting because they're responding to you in the same spirit that you challenged them.

The second is clearly an insult, and should probably receive some sort of response.

Standard Disclaimer: I am not a Moderator, so and and so forth.

#3 was the use of Fucktard. that would be the same as me calling democrats demofags.

#4 [quote]This is absolutely terrifying and I think we're taking this way too lightly." [/quoute] Thats what I thought was the threat. (boldface mine)

#3 was the use of Fucktard. that would be the same as me calling democrats demofags.

#4 This is absolutely terrifying and I think we're taking this way too lightly." [/quoute] Thats what I thought was the threat. (boldface mine)

#4 Is the expression of concern.

http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8264585&postcount=153

http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8264585&postcount=153


Whats your point?

#4 Is the expression of concern.


I took it as "lets not take this lightly, lets find him, and kill him so he can't speak this filth"

http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8264623&postcount=155

I took it as "lets not take this lightly, lets find him, and kill him so he can't speak this filth"At risk of repeating myself, you really need to get over yourself. It takes a pretty wide stretch of imagination to reach that conclusion, and you really shouldn't waste our time with it.

I took it as "lets not take this lightly, lets find him, and kill him so he can't speak this filth"

That's a fairly large logical leap. You're not entitled to be protected from anything that you might take offence to, particularly if you're determined to misread posts that badly.

I actually agree with Euroslavia here. The first post is sort of trolling. I'm sorry if you take this the wrong way, Kahta, but your assertion in the first post of that thread makes about as much sense as Hitler blaming everything on the jews. Both have equal demonstratable proof and reality. In other words, not much of it. Sorry.

http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8264623&postcount=155I'm perplexed Neo, is this a gripe about my reply to Kahta? About my use of mild profanity? I talk like this in RL too, I don't edit myself for these boards. If Kahta can arrogantly describe himself as superior to others, he should be thick skinned enough to suffer a little caustic wit in return.

It's not the first time I've checked in to moderation to find you linking my posts. I've never been contacted by a mod for any of the instances, so apparently they don't think I'm over the line. If you have an issue with what I post why not contact me directly instead of wasting their time. I'm not unreasonable and I don't hold grudges. I'm way to old for such pettiness.

i read the moderation forum just for the kahta threads(unless i think i might have gotten myself reported trouble), no judgement one way or the other, just saying they make the forum for me.

I'm perplexed Neo, is this a gripe about my reply to Kahta?
It is not a gripe, it is simply a statement that it is there. Everyone seemed to be jumping down Kahta's throat here, and while they may have had reason to do so, I believe that calling someone an asshole is a mild flame. I posted it to show that there is some flaming against him going on, albeit nothing major like he seems to be implying.
It's not the first time I've checked in to moderation to find you linking my posts.
I've reported you before?
Huh, I didn't remember. This isn't a grudge I hold against you or something, I don't do those. I can't remember anything for long enough to hold a grudge.
:D

i read the moderation forum just for the kahta threads(unless i think i might have gotten myself reported trouble), no judgement one way or the other, just saying they make the forum for me.Whenever I come hear I get the impression of a bunch of little kids running to the teacher tattling on their classmates. It always gives me a great respect for the patience of the mods and reinforces my resolve never to become one. :p Whenever a heated thread I'm monitoring suddenly goes silent I check here, usually I find the reason for the silence here.

It is not a gripe, it is simply a statement that it is there. Everyone seemed to be jumping down Kahta's throat here, and while they may have had reason to do so, I believe that calling someone an asshole is a mild flame. Well technically I didn't call him that, I implied it, with style.I posted it to show that there is some flaming against him going on, albeit nothing major like he seems to be implying.

I've reported you before?
Huh, I didn't remember. This isn't a grudge I hold against you or something, I don't do those. I can't remember anything for long enough to hold a grudge.
:DI don't like to spread it around but I do have a few puppets. But you have reported this, my main nation before. Not to be judgemental but you do seem to post quite often here in moderation, ever thought that maybe a little too often? I know that you have been the target of some vicious flames in the past but some of the stuff you (and others) post here seems rather petty.

Not to be judgemental but you do seem to post quite often here in moderation, ever thought that maybe a little too often? I know that you have been the target of some vicious flames in the past but some of the stuff you (and others) post here seems rather petty.
Okay, here's the situation, I guess:
I am an annoying whiner who reports who seems to keep on reporting very petty offences for some reason, and is trying to get over it.

Hopefully this conversation was the proper kick in the behind that will spur me into actually thinking a bit before I post.

I'm perplexed Neo, is this a gripe about my reply to Kahta? About my use of mild profanity? I talk like this in RL too, I don't edit myself for these boards. If Kahta can arrogantly describe himself as superior to others, he should be thick skinned enough to suffer a little caustic wit in return.

It's not the first time I've checked in to moderation to find you linking my posts. I've never been contacted by a mod for any of the instances, so apparently they don't think I'm over the line. If you have an issue with what I post why not contact me directly instead of wasting their time. I'm not unreasonable and I don't hold grudges. I'm way to old for such pettiness.


Since I've had an account deleted for supposedly not editing myself for these boards in regards to content and topics raised by the RP, why should you not be held to standards in General?

Profanity is typically only allowed in RPs, yeah?

Okay, here's the situation, I guess:
I am an annoying whiner who reports who seems to keep on reporting very petty offences for some reason, and is trying to get over it.

Hopefully this conversation was the proper kick in the behind that will spur me into actually thinking a bit before I post.Don't beat yourself up over it, it's not the worst habit one can have on these boards. Although I've noted you linking my posts, I never got worked up over it. In retrospect, although no mod ever took action, I did a little self check because I noticed your links. Some people like Johnny Wadd or Kahta sometimes can bring out the more ascerbic side of me. I usually try to temper things with a little humor and most have been deserving of my remarks, but I sometimes forget that not only do children frequent these boards, some of those on the recieving end of my barbs are children.

Since I've had an account deleted for supposedly not editing myself for these boards in regards to content and topics raised by the RP, why should you not be held to standards in General?

Profanity is typically only allowed in RPs, yeah?I've heard 10 year olds on the street use harsher language than I use. I don't use excess profanity but I don't shy from inserting it where appropriate. You can certainly hear as bad in any PG-13 movie, hell probably in a PG rated movie.

As for the standards of the General Forum, I've been posting here for over a year, almost exclusively in General, I think I can safely say I am within those standards.


Right up against the line, but within them.

1. Started a discussion, nothing wrong with that.
2. later posted by VE: http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8262855&postcount=89
3. Its only simple logic.
4. Its what the bible says, and if you have sex, its fornification, but anyways, the freedom of speech means freedom to be offended.


Emphasis mine. Practice what you preach, Kahta. If it's 'minor' as your title says, get over it. If you're going to 'start discussions' that you know are going to raise people's ire, deal with it. Don't expect to dish out and not take any back. If you can't take the heat on those fire you're starting in return, stop playing with matches, little boy. And yes, VoteEarly, since you've posted here, THAT 'boy' was meant in a derrogatory manner, and given the obvious childishness that Kahta insists on carrying on in, no, I will not retract it.

You're wasting bandwidth, time, and people's patience on most of this in what seems to be an obvious bid for attention, even if it is negative. Get help. Despite what some people may think, this ain't the place for therapy, and you're not likely to get the validation you're looking for out of this.

VoteEarly: Profanity isn't banned from use, even out of RP scenarios. It is, however (unless I'm totally off-base here), suggested that you use a bit of wisdom in how, with what frquency, and where you use it. Don't try and muddle the issues. You weren't deleted for just swearing, and we all know it. Please take your 'pity me, I've been unjustly served' agenda elsewhere.

Profanity is typically only allowed in RPs, yeah?

Fuck no.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8263949&postcount=122

Someone explain to me how quoting someone that is known to be on a person's ignore list is flaming or baiting.

Someone explain to me how quoting someone that is known to be on a person's ignore list is flaming or baiting.Not speaking officially, it says to me that you're circumventing a person's desire to not read anything by someone else. You knew it would annoy him, so you made sure he would see it.

Not speaking officially, it says to me that you're circumventing a person's desire to not read anything by someone else. You knew it would annoy him, so you made sure he would see it.

This would possibly hold water if I was a puppet of Anarchic Conceptions, or vice-versa, but this is not the case.

However, if that was deemed to be unsuitable then it opens the floodgates to moderation complaints of the nature of: "Nation X is on my ignore list and is circumventing it by posting on the forum with their puppet Y", which is nowhere indicated to be against the rules.

Not speaking officially, it says to me that you're circumventing a person's desire to not read anything by someone else. You knew it would annoy him, so you made sure he would see it.

Umm

1. I'm not BWO (a quick glance at our posts would be proof of that).
2. I quoted BWO on my own volition.

This would possibly hold water if I was a puppet of Anarchic Conceptions, or vice-versa, but this is not the case.

Of course of your were me it would be a lot easier to use the non blocked name as opposed to using the blocked one then logging out then back in as another just to quote yourself.

Of course of your were me it would be a lot easier to use the non blocked name as opposed to using the blocked one then logging out then back in as another just to quote yourself.

Indeed, but while arguing with myself previously using puppets I've found it more effective to have two different browsers open simultaneously so as to avoid all the tedious logging in and out malarky.

Anyhow: the question raised is I guess, whether knowing that I was on the ignore list it would be a legal action* to paraphrase me, or even just present my own words as your own.


* assuming, for the moment, that your quoting me as you did is seen as a bad thing.

... Arguing with yourself. Good lord, now I have seen it all. And I think I'll withold further commentary on the subject in the interest of keeping the peace. ;)

Indeed, but while arguing with myself previously using puppets I've found it more effective to have two different browsers open simultaneously so as to avoid all the tedious logging in and out malarky.

I remember doing that under the old forum and all was good. But tries again recently (the night I created the nation I am currently using) and it was bit more annoying, constantly logging me back in as Conceptualists.

... Arguing with yourself. Good lord, now I have seen it all. And I think I'll withold further commentary on the subject in the interest of keeping the peace. ;)

All the better for flanking you my dear.:)

Only if I choose to get into a debate with you, sweetness. Though you've now proved it doesn't always take two to argue, the concept of flanking does seem to require some sort of actual opponent. *grins*

Only if I choose to get into a debate with you, sweetness. Though you've now proved it doesn't always take two to argue, the concept of flanking does seem to require some sort of actual opponent. *grins*

If an opponent doesn't exist it can always be created ;)

Though you've now proved it doesn't always take two to argue, the concept of flanking does seem to require some sort of actual opponent. *grins*
Not if you use a third puppet to be on the other side!

Not speaking officially, it says to me that you're circumventing a person's desire to not read anything by someone else. You knew it would annoy him, so you made sure he would see it.
However, if that was deemed to be unsuitable then it opens the floodgates to moderation complaints of the nature of: "Nation X is on my ignore list and is circumventing it by posting on the forum with their puppet Y", which is nowhere indicated to be against the rules.
We Moderators hold it to be self-evident that if someone chooses to ignore your telegrams or your forum posts, then you are not allowed to circumvent that block. I, myself, have warned players for using puppets to circumvent "Ignore telegram" bans.

That said, if the Ignored poster posts a valid debate question, then a non-Ignored poster may repost and/or paraphrase the question as though it were their own question, leaving the Ignored poster's name out of it. For example, "Anarchic Conceptions" could have literally asked "What is your opinion of allowing lesbians into the military? I have seen you address the question of gays, but not lesbians." Placing someone on your Ignore list does not protect you from someone else asking valid, polite questions.

The remainder of this matter will be reviewed at a later time.

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

That said, if the Ignored poster posts a valid debate question, then a non-Ignored poster may repost and/or paraphrase the question as though it were their own question, leaving the Ignored poster's name out of it.

I'll bear that in mind in future

yay!

Its turned into a bash-Kahtafest.

I'll say this: You're all reprobate.

EVERYONE falls short of the glory of God. No one on Earth has any right to judge anyone else.

yay!

Its turned into a bash-Kahtafest.

No it hasn't.

I'll say this: You're all reprobate.

Somehow irony just doesn't cut it.

I'll say this: You're all reprobate.

I, for one, cannot wait until you cross the point of no return here at NationStates; I have a feeling your time with us will come to an end very, very soon if you continue to preach your biased, hateful and racist viewpoints.

You tell homosexuals they are going to hell, yet, only God can judge if that's true, no? ;)

We Moderators hold it to be self-evident that if someone chooses to ignore your telegrams or your forum posts, then you are not allowed to circumvent that block. I, myself, have warned players for using puppets to circumvent "Ignore telegram" bans.

So, because Kahta has told me that I am on his ignore list* (or at least was on it as of last week), I am allowed to post in threads which he has started or taken part in only with my main nation. If I was to use a puppet, then I would be in breach of the rules?

I only know that I am ignored by Kahta because he told me - what if he had not done so - it would surely be bizarre to take sanctions against me if I either just happened to use a puppet** to post in a thread where he has taken part, or if I merely suspected that I was being ignored, but did not know for sure, to use a puppet then to determine whether I was being ignored on the basis of an ignore list or simply because the poster had determined not to respond to particular kinds of post.

That said, if the Ignored poster posts a valid debate question, then a non-Ignored poster may repost and/or paraphrase the question as though it were their own question, leaving the Ignored poster's name out of it. For example, "Anarchic Conceptions" could have literally asked "What is your opinion of allowing lesbians into the military? I have seen you address the question of gays, but not lesbians." Placing someone on your Ignore list does not protect you from someone else asking valid, polite questions.

So, because it is known that I am on Kahta's ignore list, is it then against the rules for other people to quote me when responding to me, as Kahta would be able to see my quoted text?


I have to say that all of this strikes me as very strange, in so far as posting on the forum goes. I would certainly agree that if you are known to be on a TG ignore list and attempt to circumvent that by puppetry, then that is a different matter.


* glossing over the fact that doing so is normally treated as flamebait.

** I am unlikely to just happen to post using a puppet, as I seldom have or use them, but in the case of other NS users this is a much more real possibility.

Hmmm.... Some good points. I merely made my earlier statement as it seemed (to me) to be a natural extension of the rule regarding circumventing telegram blocks. Let me think this over more carefully.

So, because Kahta has told me that I am on his ignore list* (or at least was on it as of last week), I am allowed to post in threads which he has started or taken part in only with my main nation. If I was to use a puppet, then I would be in breach of the rules?

I only know that I am ignored by Kahta because he told me - what if he had not done so - it would surely be bizarre to take sanctions against me if I either just happened to use a puppet** to post in a thread where he has taken part, or if I merely suspected that I was being ignored, but did not know for sure, to use a puppet then to determine whether I was being ignored on the basis of an ignore list or simply because the poster had determined not to respond to particular kinds of post.

* glossing over the fact that doing so is normally treated as flamebait.

** I am unlikely to just happen to post using a puppet, as I seldom have or use them, but in the case of other NS users this is a much more real possibility.
A lot of Moderator judgments are based upon the intent of the player being judged. Obviously, we can't read minds, as Telepathy Protocols have not been developed for the Internet, yet. So, we usually have to look at the evidence and guess at what a players intent was before issuing a judgment.

Since noone is supposed to gloat about who is on their ignore list, it's reasonable for most people who are being ignored to not be aware of it. If you just happen to post with a puppet in a thread started by someone ignoring you, and you're not being harassing about it or other wise breaking rules, then we Mods aren't going to scold you for it. If it's a big enough issue to the player ignoring you, then we can tell that player "Well, add the puppet to the ignore list and move on; we're not going to pay any more attention to this unless he does something."

I'll note here that I may be making a new ruling, so all of the following is pending a review by the entire NationStates staff.

We Mods will take action if:
You're on someone's ignore list, (A1)
you know it, (A2)
and you post with a puppet to deliberately circumvent the block... (A3)
...to get the attention of the player ignoring you... (A4)
...with the intent to harass/flame/flamebait/troll the player ignoring you. (A5)
None of these conditions apply in Kahtas complaint.

We Mods will also take action if:
You're quoting someone who's on someone else's ignore list, (B1)
you know it, (B2)
and you quote that person to deliberately circumvent the block... (B3)
...to get the attention of the player ignoring {the player being quoted}... (B4)
...with the intent to harass/flame/flamebait/troll the player {who is ignoring the player being quoted}. (B5)
In this case, the first four conditions apply. As the quote is a valid debate question, I don't believe that the fifth condition applies.

My earlier advice about reposting/paraphrasing a valid debate question would then constitute advice to avoid the first two conditions. Basically, it's the idea "Don't irritate someone any more than necessary for sincere debate."

I do note that conditions A5 and B5 are already against NationStates forum rules, so all this stuff about circumventing ignore blocks may wind up just being a compounding factor in an existing type of offense rather than a new type of offense in and of itself.

So, because it is known that I am on Kahta's ignore list, is it then against the rules for other people to quote me when responding to me, as Kahta would be able to see my quoted text?
Only if they're specifically addressing Katha with your quote and only if they're doing so to harass him. If they're quoting you to reply to you, and not to talk to Kahta, then conditions B4 and B5 do not apply.

I have to say that all of this strikes me as very strange, in so far as posting on the forum goes.
That's because I didn't give this enough careful thought. I need to follow more of my own advice.

"Think about it for a moment."

--The Modified Democratic States of Cogitation
NationStates Game Moderator

Obviously, we can't read minds, as Telepathy Protocols have not been developed for the Internet, yet. So, we usually have to look at the evidence and guess at what a players intent was before issuing a judgment.

Since noone is supposed to gloat about who is on their ignore list, it's reasonable for most people who are being ignored to not be aware of it.

Most of the rest of your post seems to make sense to me, but is it in itself flamebait to announce that someone is on your ignore list? This seems to be a somewhat central issue as in most cases people will at best only have grounds for suspecting that they are on the list.

EDIT: to further clarify: performing A1, A2, B1 and B2 are legal, whereas A3, A4, A5, B3, B4 and B5 aren't, yes?

EDIT 2: furthermore, would I be right in thinking that if I was to contact another player and organised it so that they either presented my text verbatim as their own or paraphrased it, then that would be illegal, whereas if they spontaneously decided with no contact between us to present my text verbatim as their own or paraphrased it, then that wouldn't be illegal? - in other words it would be illegal for me to to attempt to conspire to circumvent an ignore, but not illegal for someone else to attempt to circumvent it for me without my encouragement?


I'll just note that this last edit is a matter of hypotheticals, rather than a sign of me actually hatching a global conspiracy in order to evade an ignore.

Most of the rest of your post seems to make sense to me, but is it in itself flamebait to announce that someone is on your ignore list? This seems to be a somewhat central issue as in most cases people will at best only have grounds for suspecting that they are on the list.
[Emphasis mine.]

I'm not sure, but I think I may have been the first Moderator to say "Yes, it's flamebait." My reasoning is that I consider announcing who's on your ignore list to be akin to saying "Nyah! Nyah! I can't heeeaaar yooouuu!"

I suppose that there might be some legitimate reason to announce who's on your ignore list, but none spring to mind.

EDIT: to further clarify: performing A1, A2, B1 and B2 are legal, whereas A3, A4, A5, B3, B4 and B5 aren't, yes?
Conditions 1 and 2 of both sets refer to circumstances controlled by another player, so you can't "perform" them. Someone else placing you on their ignore list does not place you in violation of NationStates rules.

For the appropriate set, all five conditions have to hold true before I'll consider the harassment to be worse than if block-circumventing wasn't involved.


EDIT 2: furthermore, would I be right in thinking that if I was to contact another player and organised it so that they either presented my text verbatim as their own or paraphrased it, then that would be illegal, whereas if they spontaneously decided with no contact between us to present my text verbatim as their own or paraphrased it, then that wouldn't be illegal? - in other words it would be illegal for me to to attempt to conspire to circumvent an ignore, but not illegal for someone else to attempt to circumvent it for me without my encouragement?
It's only illegal if the intent is to harass someone. If it's a polite and valid debate question, then you can paraphrase it, quote it verbatim, soak it in peanut oil and set it on fire*, I'm not going to care.

Just a reminder: I'm making this up on-the-spot. I haven't cleared this with other Mods, so it's not quite official policy. Just an application of common sense (in my opinion).

* This is a reference to something once reportedly said by Ambrosia Moderator "forge".


--The Modified Democratic States of Cogitation
NationStates Game Moderator

...


Actually, if you soak it in peanut oil and set it on fire, would that be flaming? Hmmm....

--The Jovial States of Cogitation
NationStates Self-Proclaimed Court Jester

[Emphasis mine.]

I'm not sure, but I think I may have been the first Moderator to say "Yes, it's flamebait." My reasoning is that I consider announcing who's on your ignore list to be akin to saying "Nyah! Nyah! I can't heeeaaar yooouuu!"

I suppose that there might be some legitimate reason to announce who's on your ignore list, but none spring to mind.

So, should I post a link to where Kahta told me I was on the ignore list as an example of a possibly acceptable form of doing so?


Conditions 1 and 2 of both sets refer to circumstances controlled by another player, so you can't "perform" them. Someone else placing you on their ignore list does not place you in violation of NationStates rules.

For the appropriate set, all five conditions have to hold true before I'll consider the harassment to be worse than if block-circumventing wasn't involved.

So is it legal for me to carry out steps A1 through A4?
& Is it legal for another to carry out steps B1 through B4?

This still remains unclear, forgive me if I appear incredibly dense at the moment, and thanks for you time on this.

It's only illegal if the intent is to harass someone. If it's a polite and valid debate question, then you can paraphrase it, quote it verbatim, soak it in peanut oil and set it on fire*, I'm not going to care.

Just a reminder: I'm making this up on-the-spot. I haven't cleared this with other Mods, so it's not quite official policy. Just an application of common sense (in my opinion).

If it is legal to circumvent an ignore in such a way - by using someone else to quote verbatim a civilised post - then surely it would make sense to allow circumventing a forum ignore by puppet? - the end results are the same.

So, should I post a link to where Kahta told me I was on the ignore list as an example of a possibly acceptable form of doing so?
I'll take a look. I won't promise anything more than that.

So is it legal for me to carry out steps A1 through A4?
& Is it legal for another to carry out steps B1 through B4?

This still remains unclear, forgive me if I appear incredibly dense at the moment, and thanks for you time on this.
I'm suddenly reminded of the troublemakers around here who like to toe-the-line.

Officially, I'm holding off on any further discussion of this matter until I discuss this with the other Mods.

--The Modified Democratic States of Cogitation
NationStates Game Moderator

...

/me takes off his Mod badge.

The rest of this post is unofficial. No NationStates official will be held to anything that I am about to say here. These are my personal opinions.

For me the critical issue is intent. If I think that someone is trying to annoy someone else, then action should be taken. So, in spirit, yeah, conditions 1 through 4, by themselves, should be legal.

...then we run into the problem of people who will try to abuse these distinctions and violate the fifth condition as subtly as possible while claiming that they're not violating it. We then have cases of the rules being repeatedly skirted in a deliberate attempt to annoy a particular target, for example, asking debate questions in as annoying, grating, and baiting a manner as possible while still avoiding Mod attention. That then puts the Mods in the difficult position of having to change the rules or discard them altogether to put a stop to such behavior. We then have people screaming "But it's not against the rules!" "OMG the mOdz are corrupt!" and "Mods should be elected to avoid this!"

By the way, I'll remind people that the Moderators have the authority to invent or discard rules as they see fit so long as the rules are within the general guidelines set by Max Barry and the other Admins. This is nothing new. The Moderators have always had this authority. This has always been common knowledge to anyone who's been paying attention. With the exception of maybe Salusasecondus, the Admins do not have time in real life to decide on every single detailed rule or ruling in NationStates. We are dealing with a system full of people (namely, the players, Mods, Admins, and Max). Thus, the system, itself, is going to be imperfect.

If it is legal to circumvent an ignore in such a way - by using someone else to quote verbatim a civilised post - then surely it would make sense to allow circumventing a forum ignore by puppet? - the end results are the same.
I'm not going to answer this directly right now. I will admit to only one thing: I didn't carefully think through the implications.

I am very temped to take this entire side discussion, split it, lock it, and post "What I said was poorly-conceived (read 'poorly-conceived' as 'trash'). Ignore it."

--The Democratic States of Cogitation
Founder and Delegate of The Realm of Ambrosia

Obviously, we can't read minds, as Telepathy Protocols have not been developed for the Internet, yet.

I'm pushing for an early 2006 release for those, by the way. Sorry to hijack.

I'll take a look. I won't promise anything more than that.





I put it as politely as possible, because he was posting in my thread, and I wasn't responding, and I didn't want him to waste his time, typing responses if I wasn't going to respond to him.

I, for one, cannot wait until you cross the point of no return here at NationStates; I have a feeling your time with us will come to an end very, very soon if you continue to preach your biased, hateful and racist viewpoints.

You tell homosexuals they are going to hell, yet, only God can judge if that's true, no? ;)


Oh, thats never going to happen. I know the rules, and I'll abide by them, I don't let my emotions get in the way.

Homosexuals are going to hell, because they know what they're doing is against God's word, and they continue to do it. They are not Elect, so they are not going to heaven, most people are reprobate, and are going to hell.

I put it as politely as possible, because he was posting in my thread, and I wasn't responding, and I didn't want him to waste his time, typing responses if I wasn't going to respond to him.


Kahta's ignore announcement:

http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8207935&postcount=541

"Note: Bodieswithoutorgans: I have you on my ignore list, I have tried to not tell you, but I am telling you this politely, as to prevent my insulting of you, which I was very tempted to do several times."

I'm not saying that he did not do it in a moderately polite manner - certainly I didn't feel baited by it.

I am very temped to take this entire side discussion, split it, lock it, and post "What I said was poorly-conceived (read 'poorly-conceived' as 'trash'). Ignore it."

--The Democratic States of Cogitation
Founder and Delegate of The Realm of Ambrosia

I'm not trying to pick holes in it, just trying to find out what you mean: I understand that you are thinking on your feet. Trashing it would, I think be unfortunate, as this kind of thing could very well happen again. If anything it just shows the somewhat ludicrous nature of the 'ignore' function when it comes to the Forum (or perhaps particularly to the General forum).

Homosexuals are going to hell, because they know what they're doing is against God's word, and they continue to do it. They are not Elect, so they are not going to heaven, most people are reprobate, and are going to hell.

Not the place for this kind of debate, surely?

Homosexuals are going to hell, because they know what they're doing is against God's word, and they continue to do it. They are not Elect, so they are not going to heaven, most people are reprobate, and are going to hell.

I apologize for responding to this, mainly because this is a thread in moderation, and shouldn't consist of 'General' arguments, but Kahta, you aren't God. You don't know that all 'homosexuals' are going to hell. I find it very hypocritical that you continue the debate over this here, and I find this statement to be very offending, seeing as I am a devout Christian.

What you need to realize is that not everyone has the same point of view as you, and the same beliefs as you. Posting your opinions in such an arrogant manner as to offend others may be considered free speech to you, and it may be justified by you, but when other people state that they think you're wrong, it offends you, you're being extremely hypocritical. You say your beliefs are justified by the Bible, and that you're right, however, not everyone agrees with the Bible. You need to be more tolerant of others' beliefs.

I apologize for responding to this, mainly because this is a thread in moderation, and shouldn't consist of 'General' arguments, but Kahta, you aren't God. You don't know that all 'homosexuals' are going to hell. I find it very hypocritical that you continue the debate over this here, and I find this statement to be very offending, seeing as I am a devout Christian.

What you need to realize is that not everyone has the same point of view as you, and the same beliefs as you. Posting your opinions in such an arrogant manner as to offend others may be considered free speech to you, and it may be justified by you, but when other people state that they think you're wrong, it offends you, you're being extremely hypocritical. You say your beliefs are justified by the Bible, and that you're right, however, not everyone agrees with the Bible. You need to be more tolerant of others' beliefs.

I am trying to convince them to come to my point of view, and see the error of their ways, as I used to see rightists as.

Kahta, announcing that you are going to troll the lines of the rules as close as you can isn't the smartest thing you can do in Moderation.

Oh, thats never going to happen. I know the rules, and I'll abide by them, I don't let my emotions get in the way.

Homosexuals are going to hell, because they know what they're doing is against God's word, and they continue to do it. They are not Elect, so they are not going to heaven, most people are reprobate, and are going to hell.

Yes, of course. Thank you for your insight. Please take your wonderful Calvinist viewpoints OUT of Moderation, and plunk them back in General where further discussion can be pursued. Frankly, I think there's gonna be an awful lot o' surprised folks once they hit the other side. And that goes for just about every group out there. Can't help but observe that anyone who is supposedly 'saved', 'Elect', or so far above it all it doesn't matter probably wouldn't feel the need to act in such a petty manner all the time, and wouldn't care what the rest did - since they are obviously already damned. It isn't as though you have the ability to grant personal absolution or redemption yourself - nor pass down divine judgement according to your views. Unless you're going to start saying you speak for God Himself. Go ahead and quote as many scriptures as you like - I'm sure others can quote right back to counter. Funny how all that works.

Back on point: Obviously you do let your emotions get in the way or you wouldn't keep going on about piddling little things that most players are able to handle and brush off, and you wouldn't feel the need to resort to name-calling and baiting to get whatever it is you're trying to get out of these forums. Your continued martyr complex and obsessive searching for anyone saying anything even remotely related to yourself and crying wolf on account seems to show a rather deep emotional investment (or disturbance - take your pick).

Perhaps it's time to take a little break from NationStates. Take a few days to a week off, think about things, re-evaluate why you come here, what you're looking to get out of it, and why you go out of your way like you do to find complaint with so many folks. And who knows - perhaps learn to develop a bit of tolerance as others have suggested.

Just a suggestion.

Kahta, announcing that you are going to troll the lines of the rules as close as you can isn't the smartest thing you can do in Moderation.


No, I'm just saying, I know the limits, and I don't intend to try to push them. I don't "troll" the rules. I have my freedom of expression too.

btw cog,

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8270613&postcount=90

Neo-anarchist knows...

btw cog,

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8270613&postcount=90

Neo-anarchist knows...

As it stands the matter is still under consideration, but it would seem to me that said post is a B4 but not a B5.

As it stands the matter is still under consideration, but it would seem to me that said post is a B4 but not a B5.
I wasn't trying to address Kahta with that post, either way. I was trying to address DontPissUsOff.
Perhaps I should make it more clear who it is I am addressing in the future.

EDIT:
Let me explain.
I quoted DontPissUsOff when I replied to him/her, as I usually do so that nobody gets confused. I put in the quote of Bodies Without Organs' post that I wished to call to DontPissUsOff's attention. I had nothing else to say.

Perhaps I should have said something along the lines of "DontPissUsOff, look at this from earlier in the thread"?

I don't "troll" the rules.

Yes, you do, and that's the point of part of this thread. You do troll the line trying to see who's buttons you can push to get a wry out of them. However, I have no hope you will see that, but the rest of us do. :cool:

Oh, thats never going to happen. I know the rules, and I'll abide by them, I don't let my emotions get in the way.

Homosexuals are going to hell, because they know what they're doing is against God's word, and they continue to do it. They are not Elect, so they are not going to heaven, most people are reprobate, and are going to hell.

HOmosexuals are not going to hell because hell doesn't exist. Hell is a load of propaganda made up by the oppressive Christians (I don't mind the ones that don't shove their belifes down my throat, unlike you). The Bible, in all it's splendour is not the word of god, it's the word of the pen holders, who were greedy straight men. The truth is said god doesn't exist. So that's why I think you're wrong. And, if I am wrong to say that, I'm just making a longer response to what you are. I'm stating my belifes that you and your backing are wrong.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.p...13&postcount=90

Hey, I was in that thread. It was entirely clear that the point of that post was to note the electricity coincidence and reconcile conflicting accounts of who invented what. I don't see why that would be called to attention.

Kahta has no case. anybody who states outright that they are better than blacks and mexicans has no business complaining about others' flaming.

HOmosexuals are not going to hell because hell doesn't exist. Hell is a load of propaganda made up by the oppressive Christians (I don't mind the ones that don't shove their belifes down my throat, unlike you). The Bible, in all it's splendour is not the word of god, it's the word of the pen holders, who were greedy straight men. The truth is said god doesn't exist. So that's why I think you're wrong. And, if I am wrong to say that, I'm just making a longer response to what you are. I'm stating my belifes that you and your backing are wrong.


I don't care to shove beliefs down your throat, and I don't think Kahta does either. We're just telling you, if you're a homosexual, you're headed to hell. Believe what you want, you'll have eternity to cry and moan as you write in the lake of fire. I don't want you to convert to Calvinism, because as we say, "If God does not want you, we do not want you."

I don't care to shove beliefs down your throat, and I don't think Kahta does either. We're just telling you, if you're a homosexual, you're headed to hell. Believe what you want, you'll have eternity to cry and moan as you write in the lake of fire. I don't want you to convert to Calvinism, because as we say, "If God does not want you, we do not want you."

Right, but you are telling us, that according to your beliefs, that we are going to hell. I am saying that I'm not and you shouldn't generalize about something you don't know. If you know I'm going to hell based on your beliefs, I know hell doesn't exist by mine.

Somehow, I doubt that Moderation is the proper place for debate about beliefs.

Mods, am I right?

I don't care to shove beliefs down your throat, and I don't think Kahta does either. We're just telling you, if you're a homosexual, you're headed to hell. Believe what you want, you'll have eternity to cry and moan as you write in the lake of fire. I don't want you to convert to Calvinism, because as we say, "If God does not want you, we do not want you."

And the relevance of all of this to matters of moderation is what, exactly?

I'm sorry, I was just speaking out against the generalization against Bi/Homosexuals, a group that I am part of, that we are "going to hell."

Edit: I do not mean to sound sarcastic, I am saying this in all seriousness as being my intent.

Yes, you do, and that's the point of part of this thread. You do troll the line trying to see who's buttons you can push to get a wry out of them. However, I have no hope you will see that, but the rest of us do. :cool:

No, its not. Its people that are breaking the rules, because I state unpopular facts.

HOmosexuals are not going to hell because hell doesn't exist. Hell is a load of propaganda made up by the oppressive Christians (I don't mind the ones that don't shove their belifes down my throat, unlike you). The Bible, in all it's splendour is not the word of god, it's the word of the pen holders, who were greedy straight men. The truth is said god doesn't exist. So that's why I think you're wrong. And, if I am wrong to say that, I'm just making a longer response to what you are. I'm stating my belifes that you and your backing are wrong.

Maybe you should read the bible.

You state unpopular opinions.

No, its not. Its people that are breaking the rules, because I state unpopular facts.

You are stating the unpopular fiction. You are generalizing about groups, people from which are post here on these boards. You say things that are juts plain ignorant to other people, and say that you're right based on the Bible, which isn't known to be true. Therefore, I refuse to read the Bible, because I don't read fiction.

You state unpopular opinions.


Unpopular doesn't make it a lie. The truth is seldom popular when you tell doomed people, "You are doomed unless you repent!" and they know it but won't repent.

Luke 17:21-30
For as the lightning, that lighteneth out of the one part under heaven, shineth unto the other part under heaven; so shall also the Son of man be in his day.
But first must he suffer many things, and be rejected of this generation.
And as it was in the days of Noe, so shall it be also in the days of the Son of man.
They did eat, they drank, they married wives, they were given in marriage, until the day that Noah entered into the ark, and the flood came, and destroyed them all.
Likewise also as it was in the days of Lot; they did eat, they drank, they bought, they sold, they planted, they builded;
But the same day that Lot went out of Sodom it rained fire and brimstone from heaven, and destroyed them all.
Eventhus shall it be in the day when the Son of man is revealed.

Isaiah 44:18-20
They have not known nor understood: for he hath shut their eyes, that they cannot see; and their hearts, that they cannot understand.
And none considereth in his heart, neither is there knowledge nor understanding to say, I have burned part of it in the fire; yea, also I have baked bread upon the coals thereof; I have roasted flesh, and eaten it: and shall I make the residue thereof an abomination? shall I fall down to the stock of a tree?
He feedeth on ashes: a deceived heart hath turned him aside, that he cannot deliver his soul, nor say, Is there not a lie in my right hand?

Debate regarding belief will be moved elsewhere. I'm not going to ask "Is this clear" because I want it dropped and not mentioned again in this thread.

Kahta, not to intrude overly much on the moderation already proceeding here, you have a choice: You can either choose to grow a skin and not be offended by every single little thing that might possibly be against you (the Finnish thread comes to mind), OR you can stop posting inflamatory statements that are usually far more offensive, derogatory, and generally insensitive than what is said against you.

In other words: Don't dish it out if you can't take it.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8271497&postcount=204

Debate regarding belief will be moved elsewhere. I'm not going to ask "Is this clear" because I want it dropped and not mentioned again in this thread.

Kahta, not to intrude overly much on the moderation already proceeding here, you have a choice: You can either choose to grow a skin and not be offended by every single little thing that might possibly be against you (the Finnish thread comes to mind), OR you can stop posting inflamatory statements that are usually far more offensive, derogatory, and generally insensitive than what is said against you.

In other words: Don't dish it out if you can't take it.

Sure thing.

Kahta, why did you report every single post in the forum when a lot of yours could also be considered flame(baiting) or trolling? You start threads that you know will cause troubles (like about homosexuals and rleigion). Just stop, pleazzzze.

*wonders how someone could have so much spare time*

Minor last thing... As Nathi pointed out, Kahta... You don't know that for a fact. What we're trying to say is... We encourage you to have an opinion, but could you please not say "Just because you're not 'us', you're not worthy and some (insert whatever punishment) is going to get you all"? You can't start a... Legitimate (and I use the term loosely) discussion without people who probably have a completely opposite opinion to you.

Kahta's ignore announcement:

http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8207935&postcount=541
I see.

Okay, that's legal. If he's just politely informing you, then I'll let that slide.

iLock until another Moderator or I can clean this up. In the meantime, I'd just stick with Salusas advice.

--The Modified Democratic States of Cogitation