NationStates Jolt Archive

Stop locking threads just as I have a sweet and hilarious answer! :D

Stop locking threads just as I have a sweet and hilarious answer! :D

:D

Stop locking threads just as I have a sweet and hilarious answer! :D

I know. I had just decided that the next pope should call himself Uri, and the thread was locked. :mad:

Ah, you mean the clearly illegal threads that I just happened to be too tired to issue formal warnings over? I'm starting to get a second wind now that I'm having dinner. Wanna try something?

This is a discussion of Moderator actions. iMove http://assets.jolt.co.uk/forums/images/icons/icon2.gif "Moderation".

--The Modified Democratic States of Cogitation

Ah, you mean the clearly illegal threads that I just happened to be too tired to issue formal warnings over? I'm starting to get a second wind now that I'm having dinner. Wanna try something?

I'm not very up-to-date with my forum rules, but how was that thread illegal?

This isn't an antagonizing question or anything. I really don't know.

Ah, you mean the clearly illegal threads that I just happened to be too tired to issue formal warnings over? I'm starting to get a second wind now that I'm having dinner. Wanna try something?

Yeah ... those are the ones. :D

(Now don't even try to tell me that when you become a Mod you lose your sense of humor. I've been a mod in plenty of places, long before NS even existed, and I've done just fine. *aherm*)

It's trolling about a dying guy. In addition to being in incredibly poor taste, a precedent was set after the death of former President Reagan that making fun of the dead and dying was to be locked and/or warned.

If you can't see that combining the highly divisive Schaivo case with the imminent death of a widely followed religious figure is trolling, then I don't know what to say to you. I really don't.

It's trolling about a dying guy. In addition to being in incredibly poor taste, a precedent was set after the death of former President Reagan that making fun of the dead and dying was to be locked and/or warned.

If you can't see that combining the highly divisive Schaivo case with the imminent death of a widely followed religious figure is trolling, then I don't know what to say to you. I really don't.

Ah, I see.

And that last remark was un-called for.

If you can't see that combining the highly divisive Schaivo case with the imminent death of a widely followed religious figure is trolling, then I don't know what to say to you. I really don't.

Look ... you're a Mod on one forum out of a billion, not Jesus Reborn.

Insulting a forum user for asking a legitimate question - a forum user who wasn't around when Reagan died - can't be forum policy. Let's keep it civil, ok?

Every pope thread I've seen has been locked, even LunaticGoofballs's.

And that last remark was un-called for.
I see now that you weren't the topic creator, but merely the second poster. My ire should have been reserved for Plutophobia. I apologize.


The Pope is not an especially meaningful person to me, but even I found the thread in question (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=409595) to be in exceedingly poor taste. I am surprised that anyone doesn't 'get' that just by glancing at it.

Two other mods glanced at the thread as I was locking it, and one suggested an official warning for it. On reflection, that was probably the correct call, but I'm too tired now to deal with it.
Look ... you're a Mod on one forum out of a billion, not Jesus Reborn.
The Lightning Star was quite capable of making his own comments, and had done so. Your remark was also un-called for.

The Lightning Star was quite capable of making his own comments, and had done so. Your remark was also un-called for.

Oh ... so you have lost your sense of humor. Maybe you should resign as Mod for a while. It's just a forum, babe. Nothing more, nothing less.

If you take it more seriously, then I hope you're getting a paycheck.

I know. I had just decided that the next pope should call himself Uri, and the thread was locked. :mad:

I kinda think that is a joke that to many people would be borderline bad-taste.

edit: Reagan and Arafat both had grace periods in which the jokes were off, I'm happy to see the ruling today as being consistent with those rulings.

Oh ... so you have lost your sense of humor. Maybe you should resign as Mod for a while. It's just a forum, babe. Nothing more, nothing less.

If you take it more seriously, then I hope you're getting a paycheck.


this is not the best place to start on then mmkay?

Oh ... so you have lost your sense of humor. Maybe you should resign as Mod for a while. It's just a forum, babe. Nothing more, nothing less.

If you take it more seriously, then I hope you're getting a paycheck.
It's a forum with rules. If you want to post on this forum, then you are required to follow the rules, and the rules were broken in this case.

You do not dictate who should or should not be a NationStates Moderator or the job requirements for being a Moderator.

Now, as the Moderator who recommended the official warning against Plutophobia, I'm going to go do that now.

--The Modified Democratic States of Cogitation

It's a forum with rules. If you want to post on this forum, then you are required to follow the rules, and the rules were broken in this case.

You do not dictate who should or should not be a NationStates Moderator or the job requirements for being a Moderator.

Now, as the Moderator who recommended the official warning against Plutophobia, I'm going to go do that now.

--The Modified Democratic States of Cogitation

I'm going to add to this, because as somebody who is not only not a moderator, but whom has disagreed with their decisions, I feel what I have to say can hopefully be viewed as a different opinion.

Part of the charm of the NationStates forums is that there are rules, and that we as individuals can feel that the decisions made regarding these rules are being made fairly. In this particular case, the argument as I see it now is that we should be allowed to make fun of a dying man whom many people look up to ... freedom of speech or whatever else. I'm certainly not about to argue that everything a person says needs to be politically correct ... *points to book shelves of industrial music ... most of the lyrics and album art are not safe for work*, but at the same time, anytime people get together, the last thing that needs to be done when people get really emotional is to be teased. I've never appreciated it when life has dumped on me when somebody else would say something that *they* thought was funny, without thinking about me.

And that is why the rule of laying off the political figures when they die is here. Many people look up to these people, and if I were to mock them, what does this say about me? Simple: it says I don't respect their opinions nor do I really respect them as people (i.e. their feelings when they are near the bottom). I can joke about Reagan and Arafat right now, and people fewer people will be hurt by this. The reason to do this is not out of any respect of the two dead men, but out of a basic respect for the people whom we talk to everyday / week / month. That is how "exchanges" and "conversations" work. You don't always talk, you don't always listen, and you should think about the other person, if even just for a little bit.

People can argue that the mods are wrong in this rule, but I think it important that others of us that agree with the decision also speak out and support their action. I happen to back and respect what they are doing here, 100%!

It's a forum with rules. If you want to post on this forum, then you are required to follow the rules, and the rules were broken in this case.

You do not dictate who should or should not be a NationStates Moderator or the job requirements for being a Moderator.


Rules ... hrmmm. Rules.

Why?

Yes, it's a genuine question. The rules of the forum talk of spam and whatnot, but make no sense in the long run. A person says "Hi!" in a thread and the mods call it "spam".

"Spam" is someone saying "Buy my book! $19.95! <insert url>". "Spam" is making post after post about how to increase penis size. Banter is not Spam. It's just not - especially on a social forum under the title "Anything and Everything". Just because you have a title and a little extra button that says "Edit/Delete this message" doesn't mean you can go around changing the definition of words.

Making a humorous statement about a tragic situation is not spam, it's human nature. Discussing a tragic situation - even ad nauseum - is not spam, it's human nature. We are all humans. Every one of us.

If we can't discuss "anything and everything" in General, then I suggest a sticky in the General forum that explains just exactly what it is we can talk about and I also suggest making it so that only Mods may start threads. Otherwise, guess what, we humans will continue to discuss "anything and everything".

It's just a forum. A forum attached to a game. Nothing more, nothing less. Trying to be King and God and Law of it is just ... well ... sad. Pathetic and sad.

Rules ... hrmmm. Rules.

Why?

Yes, it's a genuine question. The rules of the forum talk of spam and whatnot, but make no sense in the long run. A person says "Hi!" in a thread and the mods call it "spam".

"Spam" is someone saying "Buy my book! $19.95! <insert url>". "Spam" is making post after post about how to increase penis size. Banter is not Spam. It's just not - especially on a social forum under the title "Anything and Everything". Just because you have a title and a little extra button that says "Edit/Delete this message" doesn't mean you can go around changing the definition of words.

Making a humorous statement about a tragic situation is not spam, it's human nature. Discussing a tragic situation - even ad nauseum - is not spam, it's human nature. We are all humans. Every one of us.

If we can't discuss "anything and everything" in General, then I suggest a sticky in the General forum that explains just exactly what it is we can talk about and I also suggest making it so that only Mods may start threads. Otherwise, guess what, we humans will continue to discuss "anything and everything".

It's just a forum. A forum attached to a game. Nothing more, nothing less.

I found myself understanding your points and partially agreeing with you and wanted to say, "good points" until the below statement.

Trying to be King and God and Law of it is just ... well ... sad. Pathetic and sad.

And that sort of thing is why we get flamewars in General. One person makes it personal, the other person responds in kind, the insults escalate, stir and blend. Voila! A flamewar occurs.

And that sort of thing is why we get flamewars in General. One person makes it personal, the other person responds in kind, the insults escalate, stir and blend. Voila! A flamewar occurs.

Aye, that may be, but I stand by it.

From the current sticky on rules in General, under the title "Allowed Threads":

"There are so many things that you can post about...politics, your favorite music, what you had for breakfast and why, Pepsi or Coke, etc..."

With that there, to call posts about breakfast, Pepsi, and the dieing Pope "Spam" is, in fact, violation of itself. It's a personal call and based on a whim of "I just feel there are too many of these". There are no rules in the Rules thread against having more than one thread on a subject.

Hence, it's just pathetically playing King. So, I stand by it.

Aye, that may be, but I stand by it.

From the current sticky on rules in General, under the title "Allowed Threads":

"There are so many things that you can post about...politics, your favorite music, what you had for breakfast and why, Pepsi or Coke, etc..."

With that there, to call posts about breakfast, Pepsi, and the dieing Pope "Spam" is, in fact, violation of itself. It's a personal call and based on a whim of "I just feel there are too many of these". There are no rules in the Rules thread against having more than one thread on a subject.

Hence, it's just pathetically playing King. So, I stand by it.

Regardless of whether it's true or you think it's true, twas a bad move to make it personal, IMO. :) Making it personal just causes trouble, in my experience. And I have plenty of experience. After a year and a half here I've seen it happen too many times to count. It makes me sad to see a perfectly valid point lost in a shuffle of hurtful remarks. :(

Rules ... hrmmm. Rules.

Why?

Yes, it's a genuine question. The rules of the forum talk of spam and whatnot, but make no sense in the long run. A person says "Hi!" in a thread and the mods call it "spam".

"Spam" is someone saying "Buy my book! $19.95! <insert url>". "Spam" is making post after post about how to increase penis size. Banter is not Spam. It's just not - especially on a social forum under the title "Anything and Everything". Just because you have a title and a little extra button that says "Edit/Delete this message" doesn't mean you can go around changing the definition of words.

Making a humorous statement about a tragic situation is not spam, it's human nature. Discussing a tragic situation - even ad nauseum - is not spam, it's human nature. We are all humans. Every one of us.

If we can't discuss "anything and everything" in General, then I suggest a sticky in the General forum that explains just exactly what it is we can talk about and I also suggest making it so that only Mods may start threads. Otherwise, guess what, we humans will continue to discuss "anything and everything".

It's just a forum. A forum attached to a game. Nothing more, nothing less. Trying to be King and God and Law of it is just ... well ... sad. Pathetic and sad.
I'm not familiar with every single case in "General", so I can't be sure, but I think some of the Mod actions on "spam" posts stemmed from dedicating entire posts to socializing when the thread wasn't made for that purpose (id est, cases of topic hijacking). Other Mod actions were to control the number of whimsical threads. There is some tolerance for whimsical threads (unless they're malicious, defamatory, or something), but we don't want them being predominant in "General".

I will also note that it is not the "spam" clause in play here, it is the "malicious" clause. Making a humorus statement about a tragic situtation is not spam, I agree; it's malice or borders on malice.

Finally, I suggest taking Texan Hotrodders' advice: stop making this personal. Implying that we are sad and pathetic is making it personal and is construable as flamebait under the "malicious" clause. If you really think it's a problem, then you can E-mail salusa@nationstates.net

--The Modified Democratic States of Cogitation

It would probably be wise for me to keep my 2 cents to myself, but I have never been accused of having wisdom.

I can certainly understand how many could find some of the threads about the Pope to be offensive. Perhaps that is sufficient recent to lock them.

I also understand that Mods are human and lack omniscience and infallibility.

Nonetheless, it is understandably irritating to some when the standards applied to what is and is not acceptable in General appears arbitrary or biased.

A rule about respecting the dead or dying makes sense. (Although it does appear to be one of the many rules that are either not posted anywhere or are nigh impossible to find.) But there was, for example, a whole thread gloating over the death of Johnny Cochran and discussing his allegedly dismal afterlife prospects. True, I did not complain to the Mods -- as I did not think the thread, although reprehensible, violated any rules. Again, allowing such a thread was likely mere oversight, particularly in absence of a complaint. Also, it may be that Mods were personally more senstive to the Pope. Although that may reflect some bias, it is also human and makes the Pope threads no more permissible.

There are many discussions and viewpoints allowed that are highly offensive to me. I accept that they are allowed in the spirit of (limited) free speech. So it is bothersome when some are allowed but others are not -- without some guiding principle to distinguish the cases. For example, some offensive material otherwise within the rules may be perfectly acceptable in a serious discussion in which the material may be discussed and challenged, but not in purely "funny" threads where there is no discussion.

Anyway, I know this post has rambled. I'll try to cut to the chase. I believe the Mods overall do an amazing job. Where there are blanket rules (such as no threads derogatory of the dying or recently deceased), I would ask that they be added to a sticky. I particularly think that, in the absence of a clear rule, it was best to simply lock threads rather than issue official warnings. One last thought would be that, when a thread is locked, a brief statement of why be posted. (This is probably something that has already been discussed and I can see reasons why it might not be a good idea, however.)

(Well, that was about 25 cents worth of verbiage, but I'm not sure it was worth 2 cents. I'll shut up now.)

Nonetheless, it is understandably irritating to some when the standards applied to what is and is not acceptable in General appears arbitrary or biased.One thing to keep in mind is that you have to follow the Terms and Conditions (http://www.nationstates.net/pages/legal.html), and they prohibit the following material: spam, malicious, defamatory, obscene, illegal, threatening, invasive of someone elses privacy, or violates someone elses intellectual property rights. Everything else is a giant hodgepodge of Mod case law scattered all over the place that's based upon these caluses. So, a good idea is to ask in "Moderation" if you have an idea for a thread that might violate one of those clauses above.

But there was, for example, a whole thread gloating over the death of Johnny Cochran and discussing his allegedly dismal afterlife prospects. True, I did not complain to the Mods -- as I did not think the thread, although reprehensible, violated any rules. Again, allowing such a thread was likely mere oversight, particularly in absence of a complaint.In the absence of a complaint, we wouldn't know about this unless we happened across it by chance. Where did this take place?

--The Modified Democratic States of Cogitation