NationStates Jolt Archive

Earlier today VoteEarly was deleted I believe, or so I've been told. Could a mod please verify whether he has indeed been deleted, and if so, what happens with his puppets, namely Baalbek, TheCM and Alexandrian Cabal?

The player in question has been permanently banned from NationStates.

There was some question about computer-sharing with another DOS player called "Fascist White States" a few months ago. This deletion is not a result of any further confusion or computer sharing, rather, this player is now DOS as a result of his own actions. Thus, any confusion between the two is moot.

I did not impose the DOS order, but have followed through on it by deleting the puppets mentioned. Any other known puppets should be reported via "Getting Help" page.

--The Modified Democratic States of Cogitation
NationStates Game Moderator

TAG.

This thread is a piece of NS history. Possibly an archivation is in order?

TAG.

This thread is a piece of NS history. Possibly an archivation is in order?

I second this :D

Tag.

And thus a chapter closes...

This thread is a piece of NS history. Possibly an archivation is in order?
Thirded!

Quit tagging... and use the "Subscribe to thread" function.

--The Modified Democratic States of Cogitation

Not to rain on anyone's parade nor to anger the mods but they said this last time and he came back so how are we to know for sure that this permanent ban is not going to be lifted this time?

Cogitation: LOL I wonder that myself. I think it's old habits you know. But man what a lovely thing that subscribe is!

I also agree that this is a piece of NS history, and should be archived- as a warning to future troublemakers.

I also agree that this is a piece of NS history, and should be archived- as a warning to future troublemakers.
You're assuming that troublemakers bother to read the archive. I'm not even sure they bother to read the stickies.

"Think about it for a moment." :p

--The Democratic States of Cogitation

All this proves is that the mods have been out to delete him for quite a while. I'm Calvinist too, does that mean I should be deleted?

And so it begins...

All this proves is that the mods have been out to delete him for quite a while. I'm Calvinist too, does that mean I should be deleted?

Hope springs eternal.

All this proves is that the mods have been out to delete him for quite a while. I'm Calvinist too, does that mean I should be deleted?

Kahta, you at least try to respect those who have different views. That's the difference.

Is there any chance of the mods deleting DA/VEs threads? At least the ones in II, where they won't be needed because he isn't coming back. Purge II of his influence.

Yes, I was going to suggest that Praetonia - this thread definetly needs an archive.

Is there any chance of the mods deleting DA/VEs threads? At least the ones in II, where they won't be needed because he isn't coming back. Purge II of his influence.SECONDED

@Sanctaphrax THIRDED!

Is there any chance of the mods deleting DA/VEs threads? At least the ones in II, where they won't be needed because he isn't coming back. Purge II of his influence.


Perhaps no, since he runs an earth there, and several alliances.

One question, why was he deleted this time? (if you can tell us, I am mildly interested)

But hooray, he's gone... I don't mind most players but DA did get annoying at times...

Can one sayed Fourthed? :P

Perhaps no, since he runs an earth there, and several alliances.

He doesn't anymore :p

Fifthed @ Sanctaphrax.

Perhaps no, since he runs an earth there, and several alliances.
Earth DA can't be continued without DA.
As for his alliances, someone else takes over them and renames them.

One question, why was he deleted this time? (if you can tell us, I am mildly interested)

But hooray, he's gone... I don't mind most players but DA did get annoying at times...

Can one sayed Fourthed? :PHe linked to some horrible site in his signature when he was told not to link to that place again.

Earth DA can't be continued without DA.
As for his alliances, someone else takes over them and renames them.


I will speak with him later about this, I'll ask his permission to take them over, but don't delete the threads, since I'll need to copy them.

Uh..sixthed?

Yay. No more VE/CM/DA bullying. Archive this!SEVENTHED!

This thread is a piece of NS history. Possibly an archivation is in order?
Is there any chance of the mods deleting DA/VEs threads? At least the ones in II, where they won't be needed because he isn't coming back. Purge II of his influence.
There will be neither a shrine nor a purge. If you want to remember CM/DA/VE, then feel free to subscribe to relevant threads as Cogitation suggested.

As for removing his threads ... how would you feel if we DoSed one of your RP buddies and took your favorite RP down with IllegalBoy's? VoteEarly won't be starting or updating any more topics, so they'll drift downwards, and that's how it's gonna be.

Now enough with the votes about something that's not gonna happen. It's starting to look like "in before the lock" time again.

~ Frisbeeteria ~
NationStates Moderator Team

is it allowed to have this thread in your signature?

I'd like to know why the mods didn't take any action about the gloating.

is it allowed to have this thread in your signature?

I would consider it to be a Bad Idea(tm).

I would consider it to be a Bad Idea(tm).I consider this a piece of advise I better follow http://assets.jolt.co.uk/forums/images/icons/icon11.gif

Ok, folks, unless there is something worthwhile to add here -- such as questions re: what happened, clarifications, and other polite requests for information -- I'm going to ask that the spamming of this thread stop. There are other venues -- such as IM -- to express your personal feelings about V/E.

Out of curiousity, what kind of thread was he linking to? You obviously don't have to mention specifics or the site itself or you'd have to delete yourself, but was it porn, gruesome violence...?

I don't know why I have to link this, but here:

http://s7.invisionfree.com/LOEL/index.php?showtopic=51&view=getnewpost

DAVE told me to =/

(Don't kill the messenger!)

All this proves is that the mods have been out to delete him for quite a while. I'm Calvinist too, does that mean I should be deleted?I believe that there's a conspiracy, one where the Mods are out to delete anyone with a history of causing trouble and an unwillingness to stop. It's almost as if their job is to get rid of folks who just won't follow the rules. Pretty scary.

Hundreds, even thousands of people use the forums without getting so much as a glance from the Moderators. They follow the rules, police themselves and play nice, so the Moderators never have to take action. There's simply no justification for the sort of behaviour that forces Moderators to call a Delete On Sight (DOS). If you think VoteEarly did nothing wrong, you really need to review the Terms of Service for this site and reconsider whether or not you want to stick around.

Standard Disclaimer: I am not a Moderator. I have too much fun to consider it.

You mean to tell me the mods deated him permanently because of his political views? Why does that not sound very surprising?

I believe that there's a conspiracy, one where the Mods are out to delete anyone with a history of causing trouble and an unwillingness to stop. It's almost as if their job is to get rid of folks who just won't follow the rules. Pretty scary.

Hundreds, even thousands of people use the forums without getting so much as a glance from the Moderators. They follow the rules, police themselves and play nice, so the Moderators never have to take action. There's simply no justification for the sort of behaviour that forces Moderators to call a Delete On Sight (DOS). If you think VoteEarly did nothing wrong, you really need to review the Terms of Service for this site and reconsider whether or not you want to stick around.

Standard Disclaimer: I am not a Moderator. I have too much fun to consider it.

A voice of reason. I like what you have said here Trez because it's true. If there was a vast liberal conspiracy by the mods to delete and remove all right-wingers then I would have been deleted a long time ago. It definitely has to do with following the rules, remaining polite, and not violating TOS.

I personally stayed away from DA threads because 9/10 times they turn into flamebait and frankly I don't want to be associated with that. I said to myself it was only a matter of time before his warnings ran out and they have. CM was deleted. DA was deleted. VE was third strike. The first two deletions should have served as a message that "Yes you are violating the rules and should cease." He didn't. Plain & simple, open & shut case.

Naturally in standard DA tactics he will claim it is a vast conspiracy and the mods have had it out for him and his followers will agree without question but the plain simple fact is that such is an obvious lie. But in doing so it's ingenious because by claiming it's a conspiracy, he throws the burden of proof onto the mods and it is UP TO THEM to try to prove it isn't. It's quite ingenious I will admit, even if it's completely false and absurd.

And the moral is:
Don't put a link to a site in your signature after a mod tells you it is flamebait.

And the moral is:
Don't put a link to a site in your signature after a mod tells you it is flamebait.

I always find it difficult to listen to the mods when they ask reasonable requests you know. LOL. IN this case mods, in the vast debate that will ensue (is it insue or ensue, hmm) you will find yourselves repeating this over and over that you indeed did give warning. Maintain the same story because if you go off and change your story many of us WILL lose faith in you so tell the truth and all will be well. I imagine you have done so thus far and in doing so, I hope this story maintains as is and does not change because then even I will become very suspicious.

I always ignored CM/DA/VE or whoever he is. But this reminds me of the time that Stephistan deated the original Whittier for saying that America was better than Europe.
I am just glad that the europeans in general are not representative of the European people as a whole.

That's why you should always listen to the Mods, no matter what.

If they tell you to put on a tutu and dance to "It's raining men" while wearing a Fedora, you say:

Where's the nearest tutu?

I always find it difficult to listen to the mods when they ask reasonable requests you know. LOL. IN this case mods, in the vast debate that will ensue (is it insue or ensue, hmm) you will find yourselves repeating this over and over that you indeed did give warning. Maintain the same story because if you go off and change your story many of us WILL lose faith in you so tell the truth and all will be well. I imagine you have done so thus far and in doing so, I hope this story maintains as is and does not change because then even I will become very suspicious.

Simply read the material VoteEarly has thoughtfully provided in his own forum regarding the log from #themodcave. It's there.

Simply read the material VoteEarly has thoughtfully provided in his own forum regarding the log from #themodcave. It's there.

Indeed I saw. Has it been altered might I ask?

Simply read the material VoteEarly has thoughtfully provided in his own forum regarding the log from #themodcave. It's there.
he has a forum?

I don't know why I have to link this, but here:

http://s7.invisionfree.com/LOEL/index.php?showtopic=51&view=getnewpost

DAVE told me to =/

(Don't kill the messenger!)

Here you go Whitter.

Indeed I saw. Has it been altered might I ask?

I was not present in that conversation, so I could not tell for certain. Might it be? Possibly. It depends on how truthful you believe VoteEarly to be. I don't have any reason at the moment to think that the log as presented was altered. I would think the mods involved in the conversation could verify whether it went that way or not.

I was not present in that conversation, so I could not tell for certain. Might it be? Possibly. It depends on how truthful you believe VoteEarly to be. I don't have any reason at the moment to think that the log as presented was altered. I would think the mods involved in the conversation could verify whether it went that way or not.
I thought you people kept logs of those things.

I was not present in that conversation, so I could not tell for certain. Might it be? Possibly. It depends on how truthful you believe VoteEarly to be. I don't have any reason at the moment to think that the log as presented was altered. I would think the mods involved in the conversation could verify whether it went that way or not.

Yes nor do I think he'd have a reason to alter it myself but never trust a wolf in sheep's clothing. I was wondering if the mods present could attest to it's truthfulness or not because if it were to be altered that would present a very clear and concise picture of what is going on (nor will I be surprised). If it is truthful then ladies & gentlemen I say lock the topic, have a good day, and go on with your lives. Use it as a learning experience of what NOT to do.

VoteEarly argues that a thread was deemed inappropriate for the forums, so he posts it in his signature arguing that it's not the same. He doesn't deny what he did, he merely claims he wasn't told he couldn't. Whatever changes he may have made, I believe he left enough intact that we've got a pretty fair estimate of what happened. All I can say after that is I wasn't there so I don't know if anything else was added or left out.

Standard Disclaimer: I am not a Moderator. There are some rocks you just shouldn't turn over.

I thought you people kept logs of those things.

We do. But as I was not logged into #themodcave at the time of the conversation, I do not have the log. There are moderators who NEVER log out, and so have every log.

I would think that the people conversing DO have the logs, so they can confirm or deny the veracity of it.

I'll have to agree with Treznor here: it appears that once he got a ruling on the suitability of the link on the forums, VoteEarly attempted to get around it by posting it in his signature -- which placed the link back on the forums.

Why did you have to delete a player who had an Earth which I had claims in?

Why??? Why was he banned?

:rolleyes: Read this thread?

I edited my post about one second after you posted.

Anyone know an Earth which still has Bouvet Island available?

I don't know why I have to link this, but here:

http://s7.invisionfree.com/LOEL/index.php?showtopic=51&view=getnewpost

DAVE told me to =/

(Don't kill the messenger!)

I don't know why I have to link this, but here:

http://s7.invisionfree.com/LOEL/index.php?showtopic=51&view=getnewpost

DAVE told me to =/

(Don't kill the messenger!)

Thanks, TIOR.

"God hates you all! You are all scum, beneath me, I am the Elect, your superior in every way! I will post links proving how you are all scum and how much God hates you! Now that those links have been deleted, I will post them again, in my signature! You seriously could not be any more inferior to me than you already are! Scum, says I! Scu... hey, why the hell was I deleted?! FLAMEBAITING?! WHERE?! OMG MOD CONSPIRACY AGAIN!"

This is what I see when looking over this whole escapade. Now I'm not a moderator here, and god-help-me I hope I never am. But VE seems to enjoy consistently pushing the limits of decency, and then complaining when he goes over them and gets burned. I'm sure he's intelligent enough to realise that most of what he believes is found to be offensive by a lot of people, and yet he posts it anyway.

Free speech is a wonderful thing. But even if Jolt.co.uk was in the United States, it wouldn't be covered by the wonderful US Constitution; it's a private organisation. They can do what they want.
A moderator's job, though, is to keep the peace and, in most forums anyway, to keep things civil. They have to make sure that as many people as possible can use the forum without being insulted or exposed to things like pornography and suchlike against their will. And as a moderator of another (admittedly tiny) forum myself, I can safely say that their job isn't a pleasant one.

What CommunistActionEarly has done here is offend the vast majority of the forum. I respect his right to hold the beliefs that he does. But his beliefs are offensive to most people, inherently so, and if he can't see that then it's probably for the best that he's been deleted. And when you offend the vast majority of the forum, you must be dealt with. When you repeatedly insult the vast majority of the forum, and refuse to see reason, you must be deleted. And when you ignore the instructions of a moderator and repeatedly do things they have told you not to do, you MUST be banned -- moderators have to put up with a lot of junk; scumbags, morons and so forth all day, every day. The fun of the forum is frequently sapped away from them because of their jobs. The last thing they need is some wiseguy flouting their authority.
VE, you're not an idiot, regardless of your actions here. You know as well as everyone else that when the moderators deleted your thread, it was because of that link. This isn't a court of law, and it will never reach one (and if you even try, you definitely have too much time on your hands), so analysing their exact wording and using 'well you never specified my SIGNATURE!!11' as an argument will never get your account reinstated. Simply put, you KNOW they didn't want you posting that link on the forum, as they deleted the thread and called it FLAMEBAIT. You KNEW it was flamebait before they even told you such -- as you're not an idiot, you must have seen how people respond to such things and would have KNOWN how they would respond to that link. You KNEW it was flamebait. And you then proceeded to put it into your signature, thus showing how little you respect their rulings and breaching the flamebait rule in the process -- AGAIN. It's like a child, repeatedly doing things to antagonise their parents and then crying about it when they finally shout at them.
Their decision to delete you was nothing to do with moderator bias, it was nothing to do with your paranoid delusions of them being 'out to get you', it has nothing to do with your right to believe whatever the hell you want to believe. It was, quite clearly, because you insulted the majority of the forum, and when told not to do it, you proceeded to do it again. And this isn't the first time it's happened either, is it? I've seen you be banned several times, and each time you cry 'OMG conspiracy!'. You would have been treated exactly the same on any (normal) forum, short of a forum specially designed for Calvinists to vent, or something. I know I would have deleted you, in fact I would have done so a long time ago if I were them; I think you should think yourself lucky that they let you stay here for as long as they did.

If you ever get let back on here again, and judging from what the mods are saying it seems like a big 'if', you really want to stop testing the moderators at every turn. Consider exactly what it is that you're saying, and what its consequences will be. If you proceed to post what you, as an intelligent person, KNOW is flamebait, and if you continue to test the moderators at every turn, to dismiss their authority and laugh in their faces, don't be shocked when the moderators deal with you.

I edited my post about one second after you posted.

Anyone know an Earth which still has Bouvet Island available?
Ask RP questions in an RP forum, please. We don't moderate RP activity unless it breaks site rules.

Main Entry: boy·cott
Pronunciation: 'boi-"kät
Function: transitive verb
Etymology: Charles C. Boycott died 1897 English land agent in Ireland who was ostracized for refusing to reduce rents
: to engage in a concerted refusal to have dealings with (as a person, store, or organization) usually to express disapproval or to force acceptance of certain conditions
- boycott noun
- boy·cott·er noun

If you choose not to post, that is, of course, your perogative.
If by boycott something else is meant, we would have to know what precisely one had in mind. Spamming and flaming would be, as always, right out.

Is there any chance of the mods deleting DA/VEs threads? At least the ones in II, where they won't be needed because he isn't coming back. Purge II of his influence.

No, please don't. At least leave 'Earth DA.'

To address Caribbean Buccaneers' post, I believe that the point is not to avoid controversial or even offensive viewpoints, it's about your ability to present and argue those viewpoints without going over the line. For example, some people are highly offended by homosexuality, but that doesn't make homosexuality a verboten topic. You're just not allowed to post graphic homosexual material or accuse your verbal opponent of being a homosexual themselves. The difference is in your delivery.

VoteEarly's problem is not that he has extreme religious, racial or moral viewpoints, but that he has demonstrated his unwillingness to act with restraint in a public forum. He's repeatedly chosen to post things that violate TOS to shock, horrify or disgust folks. We can speculate endlessly on his reasons for doing so, but ultimately it boils down to the fact that he objects to the rules and attempted to find ways to violate them without getting in trouble. Obviously, he failed.

It's not what you say, folks. It's how you say it. Words to live by.

Standard Disclaimer: I am not an animal! I am a...oh wait, wrong quote.

I never knew what 'Boycott' meant before...

I personally think, having looked back, that VE should have been deleted a while back. I was just annoyed about Earth DA, which Roach-Busters has taken over and renamed, solving that problem. ;-)

Sorry.

Sanctaphrax: Official Warning - Post #14 - FlamebaitThat seems a bit extreme to me, considering how much spam there has been in this thread already with no warnings. Was Sanctaphrax's post so much worse than anything in general right now? If the answer is yes, then he/she does deserve a warning. If the answer is no, then he/she does not deserve a warning. (Obviously.) Personally, I believe that the answer is no, although I respect Cogitation's decision.




Just because another player has been banned from NationStates does not give you license to mock themAnd, although this may seem obvious, I do not believe that it has been explicitly stated until now, after the warning was given.

I apologise for flame-baiting. I went a bit out of control, I admit.

Out of curiosity, which thread did he offend in? Was it a General topic or an RP one. I'm kinda sad to see him go, his extremism was instructional in some ways.

"It is illegal to make racist remarks in public"

One is entitled to one's opinion but is there a need to make others hear it? Maybe but in this case what VoteEarly blabbed on and on about was sheer ignorance. What difference does the ammount of melanin in one's skin make? Or the size of ones nose? The curls on ones hair?

Saying that blacks are inferior is exactly like saying that blue-eyed people are inferior. Or that people over 170 cm are inferior (genetically speaking).
They are just genes people. If some people do stupid things it's because their education and/or their environment was bad. Just like VoteEarly: product of a lousy education.

Why must we stop people from making racist remarks? Because there are some people that can be influenced by the deceptive arguments of these ignorants racists, becoming themselves ignorant. Even though we should let everyone judge what is right and wrong for themselves, I don't believe it's too bad to shield people from EXTREME ignorance.

But there is a thin line between shielding people from stupidity and censorship. That's where true values come in.

Because I didn't think about it until now.

...

Borderline flamebait

...

Just because another player has been banned from NationStates does not give you license to mock them. I trust that I make myself clear.


Exactly whom is being baited by the posts other than the one in response to Kahta?

Out of curiosity, which thread did he offend in? Was it a General topic or an RP one. I'm kinda sad to see him go, his extremism was instructional in some ways.He had several links in his signature linking to some radical christian extremist site, when he was told not to show them on the forum ever again.

And, although this may seem obvious, I do not believe that it has been explicitly stated until now, after the warning was given.

Actually, pretty sure it has been in just about every 'Look who got banned' thread that's ever existed. I seem to remember 'Lets celebrate on account' threads getting locked before as well, warnings delivered. No, I don't bloody have time to go diving through all the threads to find them, but I know I remember it happening in those I'd bothered reading.

And yes, it should seem obvious. That seems to be a good part of the problem with a good many folks who get into trouble. They dismiss the obvious or choose to tweak with semantics or see just how far they can get away with pushing before someone with authority pushes back.

Another obvious bit that might get missed? This particular player, whether you agree with him or not, has been in trouble nearly constantly for rules violations. It isn't a matter of religion - I've seen his right to post his opinions validated by mods when others wanted them shut down. It's a matter, as others have more eloquently stated, of his unwillingness to abide by rules, his attemts to get around any rules he finally had to acknowledge, and his inability to express his opinions and views in a manner better suited to keeping within the bounds of these forums.

Personally, I think it's a damn shame whenever someone who has had ample opportunities decides to toss it all away on account of their pride or stubborness. Doesn't matter who they are, what they believe, race, gender, preference, what have you - it's a pity.

To those who want to keep arguing the 'but it was in a sig' bit? Signatures are on the forums, in case you missed that. It's worse than just posting in one place, because it's in every post you've ever made. Other people have been warned, and deleted for signature violations. This case is no different.

But this reminds me of the time that Stephistan deated the original Whittier for saying that America was better than Europe.

If that comment wasn't such a bold face lie, it might even be funny.. :rolleyes:

Apparently "Mississippian Egypt" is a puppet of DA. I dont know because I havent looked it up, but I was asked to post for someone else who had to log off for some reason.

That seems a bit extreme to me, considering how much spam there has been in this thread already with no warnings. Was Sanctaphrax's post so much worse than anything in general right now? If the answer is yes, then he/she does deserve a warning. If the answer is no, then he/she does not deserve a warning. (Obviously.) Personally, I believe that the answer is no, although I respect Cogitation's decision.



And, although this may seem obvious, I do not believe that it has been explicitly stated until now, after the warning was given.
I suppose it's possible I'm being too harsh. I'll ask another Mod to review my decision.

Exactly whom is being baited by the posts other than the one in response to Kahta?
VoteEarly. Gloating is considered flamebait and falls under the 'malicious' clause of the Terms and Conditions. The fact that the one being baited is completely banned is besides the point.

--The Modified Democratic States of Cogitation

I apologise for that post, I haven't been overly happy lately, but that was no excuse to take it out on Kahta and I apologise. This is not normal behaviour for me, as my former six or so months without any form of warning will show.

I will however point out that in a recent conflict between two people, the mods verdict was "You're both long time players of the game, and we wouldn't like to take any action against you, so calm down" or something of that nature. Since when is seniority mean you get special treatment, and surely if that is the case then 7000 posts counts? I'm merely confused as to how someone with a perfectly clean record up until now suddenly gets an official warning for what looks to me, quite tame compared to some of the stuff I've seen. Could a moderator please review this decision and get back to me. Thanks.
-Sancta-

Thirded!


This got me borderline flamebaiting? This definitely confuses me, as there are ten or so posts of the same kind exactly, why did mine get singled out, and whats baiting about it?

This got me borderline flamebaiting? This definitely confuses me, as there are ten or so posts of the same kind exactly, why did mine get singled out, and whats baiting about it?
Hmmm.... You're right. "Borderline flamebait" comments retracted.

The warning is still under review.

--The Modified Democratic States of Cogitation

...

I'm beginning to think that my judgment is a little out-of-whack, today. --The Democratic States of Cogitation

"It is illegal to make racist remarks in public"

One is entitled to one's opinion but is there a need to make others hear it? Maybe but in this case what VoteEarly blabbed on and on about was sheer ignorance. What difference does the ammount of melanin in one's skin make? Or the size of ones nose? The curls on ones hair?

Saying that blacks are inferior is exactly like saying that blue-eyed people are inferior. Or that people over 170 cm are inferior (genetically speaking).
They are just genes people. If some people do stupid things it's because their education and/or their environment was bad. Just like VoteEarly: product of a lousy education.

Why must we stop people from making racist remarks? Because there are some people that can be influenced by the deceptive arguments of these ignorants racists, becoming themselves ignorant. Even though we should let everyone judge what is right and wrong for themselves, I don't believe it's too bad to shield people from EXTREME ignorance.

But there is a thin line between shielding people from stupidity and censorship. That's where true values come in.

Point of order: it is not illegal to be a rascist on this site. There are a number of people here who clearly believe that the amount of melanin in one's skin defines the level of intelligence and moral calibre of a person. Those who express it in such a way as not to flame, flamebait or troll are still here, and may still express their opinions.

Just as conservatives who express themselves without flaming, flamebaiting and trolling are still here.

Just as liberals who express themselves similarly are still here.

Just as communists.... and socialists.... and every other darn -ist that can conduct themselves with a modicum of civility are still here.....

Standard Disclaimer: I AM a Moderator, and I am NOT Treznor in disguise. ;)

So, what has the ENTIRE DA saga taught us all?

1. Listen to the moderators, even if you don't agree, do what they say in an effort to 2. Appeal the decision legally and quite possibly get that appeal to avoid further punishment.

Hmmm... well the links in his sig were pretty mean spirited, considering the domain that hosted them... This is a tough call, and I'm happy I don't have to make it.

I will however point out that in a recent conflict between two people, the mods verdict was "You're both long time players of the game, and we wouldn't like to take any action against you, so calm down" or something of that nature. Since when is seniority mean you get special treatment, and surely if that is the case then 7000 posts counts? I'm merely confused as to how someone with a perfectly clean record up until now suddenly gets an official warning for what looks to me, quite tame compared to some of the stuff I've seen. Could a moderator please review this decision and get back to me. Thanks.
I've been told by other Mods that my judgment was too heavy-handed. I have therefore retracted it. I apologize for the inconvenience.

--The Modified Democratic States of Cogitation

Rip Cm

"It is illegal to make racist remarks in public"


No its not. Maybe in Europe it is. But not in America. You have to remember that the vast majority of NSer's are Americans living in the USA.
As an internet site, Nationstates does not fall under the national free speech restriction laws of Europe or the free speech protections of the USA. Meaning that it is up to the owner of the site to make such rules.
It is the owner of Nationstates, not the governments of the US or the goverments of Europe that decide the laws for NS. And as far as I've seen, according to the terms of the TOS for NS, racist remarks are allowed in rps. I would have to check the TOS for such remarks in the general forum.
But I think it shows a lack of intellect on your part if you want to ban someone for it, instead of proving them wrong with factual arguments.

If that comment wasn't such a bold face lie, it might even be funny.. :rolleyes:
I'm not going to argue about it. You already know you aren't going to convince me. Lets just leave it at that.

Point of order: it is not illegal to be a rascist on this site. There are a number of people here who clearly believe that the amount of melanin in one's skin defines the level of intelligence and moral calibre of a person. Those who express it in such a way as not to flame, flamebait or troll are still here, and may still express their opinions.

Just as conservatives who express themselves without flaming, flamebaiting and trolling are still here.

Just as liberals who express themselves similarly are still here.

Just as communists.... and socialists.... and every other darn -ist that can conduct themselves with a modicum of civility are still here.....

Standard Disclaimer: I AM a Moderator, and I am NOT Treznor in disguise. ;)

The problem I've seen is that some people, particularly in general, cry troll or flame everytime they see an opinion posted that they don't agree with. I am not saying that everyone does this, but there are certain people who do.

You already know you aren't going to convince me. Lets just leave it at that.

That's because you have lets say an interesting way of looking at things.. and yes I agree, lets leave it at that.

I edited my post about one second after you posted.

Anyone know an Earth which still has Bouvet Island available?
Earth IV will have Bouvet Island when it reopens. I am still working on central europe prepping to do asia.

The problem I've seen is that some people, particularly in general, cry troll or flame everytime they see an opinion posted that they don't agree with. I am not saying that everyone does this, but there are certain people who do.

Yes, and they're part of the reason the moderators job is so difficult.

Fortunately, there's not a zillion of them around.

And people are allowed to dissent on their opinion - they just aren't allowed to shove it in the faces of everyone, all the time, and play the "I'm not quite over the line, lemme skirt it one more time" game. This isn't a court of law, its a game. And anyone should be able to realize when they're over the line, particularly when there repeatedly.

Outside of that, it's opinion. And one side has all the power.

I've been told by other Mods that my judgment was too heavy-handed. I have therefore retracted it. I apologize for the inconvenience.

--The Modified Democratic States of Cogitation
Thanks Cog, I'm glad to see this matter is resolved.
-Sancta-

I'm seeing some talk of deleting his threads. This is not going to happen, I hope? I have some important stuff in one of those threads.

I'm seeing some talk of deleting his threads. This is not going to happen, I hope? I have some important stuff in one of those threads.If you read through, you'll find that there will be no deleting of threads. That only happens if the threads themselves are in violation of rules. The Moderators have repeatedly told us that they don't moderate role-play, only rules violations.

Sorry, I see that now.