NationStates Jolt Archive

Exhibit A (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9124162&postcount=27)

Leperous monkeyballs: Official Warning - Flaming and flamebait.

Given your previous warning for trolling, iForumban, 1 week.

Additionally, it has come to my attention that you have been using foul language excessively on NationStates. While profanity per se is not strictly verboten, your excessive use of it is not acceptable. Given that you have just been forumbanned, any further cases will result in your deletion.


Exhibit B (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9127795&postcount=10)
Second, while I haven't warned "Leperous monkeyballs" for swearing, by itself, I have come to the conclusion that he is either unwilling or unable to control his own use of language on NationStates. Thus, as a result of his conduct, he is prohibited from swearing at all; I haven't warned him for swearing alone, yet, but I will do so in the future.

After a suspension served without complaint (although I still don't see where I flamed the person according to your TOS to such an extent as to warrant a week off given that I did NOT personally attack the player), it is rather interesting to discover that I am to be made subject to a singular version of the TOS to which NO other player is subject. This is, of course, being done to force me to re-invent my character as it "pushes the bounds". What is most odd is that it is being done without my ever being asked in an official capacity to tone it down as Cog seems to insinuate in his comment that implies that my "controlling myself" has been requested but that I failed to do so. And also despite my statements in advance that this character would be crude, (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9065506&postcount=14) a statement that was - incidentally - totally ignored by you at the time Cog (as was, I might add, the final disposition of that Trolling offense).

So where is the hypocrisy you may ask?

Well, while I received nothing I would have deemed to be an official request to tone it down, when I tried accessing the board and got the "you've been suspended" message, I logged into my nation to find this Telegram in my inbox from a few short hours prior:

From: The Modulated Oligarchical State of Frisbeeteria

Message:
Yes, everyone knows that it amuses you to say "fucking". Yes, everyone knows that you enjoy pushing the limits right to the fucking edge. So now that you've proved your point that you can write like that without being deleted, why don't you just fucking back off. The joke has lost its flavor.

Frisbeeteria
NS Forum Moderator


Now is THAT how you give official requests these days? An uncouth and out of character message that, interestingly enough, uses the same tone as you objected to from me? And, by indicating that it is not a deletable offense also acknowledges that my posts have been entirely within the TOS? What am I supposed to make of that? Was this what I should have taken to be some sort of suggestion that I seemed unwilling to follow? Or can someone please point me to any other such request?

Rest assured Fris that this message as well as a link to this thread have been forwarded to Max for his adjudication as I found your message uncalled for, totally unprofessional, and a far more egregious transgression than any that I may have made.

Why?

Because I remained IN CHARACTER! This is NOT in your character nor that of the Mods in general. At least I should hope that it isn't and have seen no evidence to support that idea.


So the question is, if what I was doing WAS within the TOS as has been clearly articulated, why am I being singled out for harsher treatment than others are subjected to?

I'm within the TOS, but you just don't like it? Then change the TOS! Or clarify it!


You know, it seems that some people have trouble getting past the words to get to the message. That some haven't been able to figure out the point of this character. They are so used to seeing the intellectual discussion and the trolls, that the very existence of another type of player is foreign to their psyches. But much as there is Rush Limbaugh to counterpoint mainstream punditry, or Howard Stern to counterpoint other radio talk shows, there is, I think, also a place for the shock-jock of NS.

Why?

Because it serves a purpose. It represents what brought us all here in the first place. We all got involved in politics because something grabbed us in our guts and either made us proud or offended us. The issues mattered to us in ways that they just don't seem to for so many others. And Leperous Monkeyballs provides the same mental subtext that we all have felt on our journey to political awareness.

We read about someone doing or saying something that makes our blood boil, and we think to ourselves "What the <expletive> is that <expletive> <expletive> progeny of a <expletive> doing that for? Don't they <expletive> know how the <expletive> <expletive> is going to affect the <expletive> <expletive>? Did that <expletive> pull that idea out of <expletive><expletive>"

And then we come here (or wherever), settle down, pull that veneer of social conformity down over our minds and instead of saying what we really feel in our guts we type "I find myself somewhat disappointed at the seeming poorly thought out decision by the honorable so-and-so as evidenced by their clear and willful blindness to exhibit A...."

Well, that is all well and good, but sometimes that veneer needs to be pulled away. Sometimes things can be expressed crudely in ways impossible to equal through purely intellectual output in a manner that really grabs your guts. It puts the gut emotion into some concepts that sorely need it. I mean, I could write a beautiful treatise on how some people's partisan loyalties blind them to the foibles of their chosen party. And people could critique it.

Or I could say, as I did: (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9107558&postcount=348)


Hey look, if you are of the mindset that those who choose public life should be coddled, deified, and treated with respect no matter what they do, then you are - of course - welcome to that viewpoint.

Some of us, however, demand more of our public figures that to be grudging allowed to suck their collective asses while telling them how fucking brilliant they are, and then turning around so they can have their way with us - all the while screaming out our thanks as they bugger up us and our countries.

Lunatic? No, the lunatic is the person who just smiles, nods their head, and offers up sloppy seconds without pausing to see if they got given the clap the first time around....


That leaves no doubt whatsoever as to the way I feel about self-induced, partisan blindness. It presents the way I feel about it in terms for which no equivocation can be made.

Similarly, the uncouth can be used to put the spotlight on those who hide their inner voice in order to paste a dishonest air of legitimacy to their position. A case in point would be true bigots or racists who hide behind false prose that attempts to justify reasons other than pure hatred as a motivating factor for their point of view. Which is not to attempt to label everyone on a certain side of a point of view as a bigot or racists, but let us be honest and admit that these TRULY foul creatures do exist. In that case, exposing their inner monologue in a manner that puts it out there whilst simultaneously ridiculing it also serves a valid purpose. It is generally called satire, and that is what I did in a rebuttal on the issue of homosexual marriage (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9065994&postcount=9).


wtf?

a couple of fudge-packers were given a piece of paper that forces us to aknowledge the existance of their relationship instead of allowing us to ignore and/or condemn them? How could this happen?

Shit - suddenly EVERYONE can get an equal crack at these pieces of paper. That makes no fucking sense at all! I mean, suddenly this means that my piece of paper is no better than theirs, which - in effect - means that I'm not any more special than them?

This cannot possibly be true can it?

This is an abomination. An indication in the decline in our moral fabric that we recognize these fruitcakes rather than simply spitting on them like the good old days.

And god will surely punish us for it.

There will be plagues of miniature locusts wiping out our pubic hairs - just you wait an see. Indeed, He will probably show us the depth of His anger with our actions by inflicting upon us the worst fucking punishment that He can concieve for us!


For fuck's sake, He'll probably go so far as to make the Leafs win the cup!


Frankly, that's more punishment that I could possibly bear!


For which all I got was nailed by someone who took my comment on the leafs winning the cup as a personal jab when - if they had actually caught the satire - they would have noticed that I was SUPPORTING their position.



So the question that I'm sure now crops up is, "Sure Lep, but did you have to be so ruddy crude ALL THE TIME?????"

Yes.

Yes I did.

You gave me no choice.

The simple fact is that the TOS leaves no other option. The definition of flaming etc makes the clear statement that it is usually determined by out-of-character degeneration into uncouth behavior. Or, as your rules state:

Flame: Expressing anger at someone in uncouth ways with OOC (out-of-character) comments (i.e. swearing, being obnoxious, threatening etc). It does to watch what you post IC (in-character) as well unless the other posters know you're not serious. You do not need to curse to be a flamer. Erudite slams while maintaining a veneer of politeness can also be considered flaming.

So, in order to present this crude inner monologue it either has to be done all the time, or not at all else it becomes subject to interpretation as to it being in or out of character and hence as to it's applicability under flaming rules.

And, incidentally Fris, that is what Xanaz clearly caught onto that you didn't. (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9148476&postcount=21) This character may be uncouth, rude, crude, and perhaps obnoxious. But he IS consistent and as a rule he is not directing the crudity in a personal manner at other players. When you tried to equate me to Eutrusca you were WAY off base as he has a clear history of vacillating between his persona of the knowledgeable, friendly, old centrist, and his Tourettes-like sudden forays into personal blistering attacks as once documented by Sdaeriji (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=7611942&postcount=7), or as simply shown with this example (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=7980591&postcount=29)

What are you? An exercise in artificial stupidity? There's a world of difference between "facts" and "truth." Even extreme leftists can use "facts." "Truth," however, seems to constantly escape them.


You would be hard pressed to find similar instance of such spurious directed insults at other NS players by myself. Indeed, I dare say that you won't find ANY instances. And THAT, my dear Fris, is the difference between us that Xanaz could determine that you could not. But given that you then complained about her being "too polite" I am frankly at a complete loss as to what you DO expect of players!


So, I guess the questions remaining are the following:


Is there a place for a NS shock-jock? And if not then why not? Frankly, under the circumstances I would kind of like Max's opinion on this one hence my letter to him on this matter, and also as I felt that Fris crossed a line with his(her?) TG to me.

If the answer is No, then as long as it seems that I am to have my own personal TOS to be administered by Cog, can I please get the complete list of what the words are that I am not allowed to say, but that everyone else here is permitted to use?


I mean, as long as you are going to be so inconsistent in your application of the general rules that you admit in your correspondence that I haven't broken them at the same time as you treat me as if I had - under those circumstance it would be rather nice to know what my own personal set of rules is to be... you know, so I can have a much less vague idea of where the line is that I am not crossing...


Oh yes, and I would appreciate it if you didn't just lock this thread as "awaiting the word from above". It seems that this is an issue that goes to the very heart of permissible NS game play, and my assumption is that other players may have an opinion on whether they feel that this should or should not be deemed within the legitimate bounds of the spectrum of discussion styles. I know this is not a democracy, however they may have some worthwhile input on the matter.

Cheers,
LM

Very nice rant there. I bet you the mods put you back into place and lock it rather quickly. :D

Very nice rant there. I bet you the mods put you back into place and lock it rather quickly. :D


I'm more inclined to hope that it sparks better than that, but we'll see won't we.

I'm more inclined to hope that it sparks better than that, but we'll see won't we.

It does seem like the moderators have it in for you. I'm looking at all the links right now but you have some very valid points.

In character... right. That's your excuse for breaking the rules? Can't have your sainted name tainted, of course... so you leave once your popularity begins to fade and then come back with a whole new nation, a new "character," that allows you to toe the line with impugnity (in your own mind)?

Riiiiiight. Nice try, won't fly. Don't let the door catch ya.

Well, that is an interesting rebuttal Scolo. Touches none of the issues I raised at all, but interesting nonetheless.

Yes, I used to be a different player here. Yes I left several months ago. and yes, I returned with a new persona. And you know darn well that I knew that the Mods would be able to figure that out.


However you are doing nothing to dispell the notion that this is not personal. Nor - if you are honest about it - would most players here deem MY previous character to be someone who acted in a manner deserving such negative attention by the team.

You screwed up, we slapped your wrist... get on with your life already. Wanna play it soft, we can play it soft. Wanna play it hard... well, we all know how the adage goes.

The best way to solve a problem is by avoiding it.
Stop swearing and there wont be no problems, Cuz there's no difference between OOC and IC for a moderator. I think Frisbeeteria just got fed up with your 'Fucks', give him a break, he's a very active (and as far i know good)mod.

Just a friendly word of advice from a neutral observer you know.

You screwed up, we slapped your wrist... get on with your life already. Wanna play it soft, we can play it soft. Wanna play it hard... well, we all know how the adage goes.


PLaying it hard?

How is is "playing hard" to request clarification on a statement by your team that I am subject to a COMPLETE ban on profanity that is not extended to other players?


Simply put, is this the official ruling? And if so, can you please provide a list of which words this encompasses as different people would probably give different lists as to what they consider to be profane.

ok this seems a little fucked up...

can a mod explain wuts going on? i thought cussing was allowed....

did his previous character do shit that was worthy of you guys watching his new char very closely?

if not it seems like there is a weird vendetta against him...

In future, "Leperous monkeyballs", I would suggest using a less agressive and confrontational tone in your dealings with the Moderators. We will of course endeavour to treat you as you deserve, but we are only human, and it helps nobody to adress us so.

I will admit confusion, however, as to how you define "in character" in relation to General, which is an out of character forum. Perhaps you would care to explain this to me?

Unfortunately, it will take further review and contemplation on my part to arrive at a firm and considered judgement of your case; I shall endeavour to do so. Sometime when it's not 2AM.

~ Tsar the Mod.

It does seem like the moderators have it in for you. I'm looking at all the links right now but you have some very valid points.

There are some points to consider here. Foul language is tolerated to a degree, as it is part of everyday life, however anything done to excess here tends to get clamped down on. Be it posting smilies with every comment or swearing in every other sentence.

Leprous Monkeyballs what did you hope to gain by swearing as often as you did? In my case it just made me disregard the content of everthing you posted. It created an image of an uneducated incompetent person who was unnecessarily aggresive. I am sure that was not your intention.

This is a private site, with a wide international usership, it has a socially agreed set of standards. If amongst the thousands of people who post here regularly, you are the only one that posted foul language on such a regular basis, do you not feel that you were disregarding these social standards? Or do you claim that you are so antisocial that the behaviour and opinions of others do not matter to you at all. You have created an image of someone looking for a fight. If the mods clamp down on you then this generaly has a reason. Do you not think that the two are connected?

Being a private site and free to all, there is no obligation to be fair, but they do try. Also the mods try to do things with a touch of humour or in a method that fits the circumstances. Hence your complaint about the tone of language that Frisbeteeria used is unjustified. He was replying to you in your own language. The next point is the General is not a role playing forum. There have been players deleted for role playing there, and there is a consistent policy of banning people for trolling/flaming/troll baiting when they create or act as obnoxious characters, be this directly or through puppets. (See for example Johny Wadd, Jesussaves, Herpower, Commando, TRA, Drunk Commies etc.) You are not being singled out and treated differently to the others.

What is not possible to do, is to specify in the TOS exactly what is not allowed. To do this would be to create too many loopholes and exceptions and then there would have to be ammendments to the TOS until it becomes a few hundred pages and no one reads it. You say change it or clarify it. What TOS did you receive when you were born for society. There are socially acceptable and socially unacceptable behaviours. These will vary from one social situation to another. How you talk with your mates at the football match is different to how you talk in a town hall meeting. You adapt to the circumstances. The same applies on-line. You are still dealing with people and their opinions and sensibilities. If you refuse to recognise this, then you have a problem.

We read about someone doing or saying something that makes our blood boil, and we think to ourselves "What the <expletive> is that <expletive> <expletive> progeny of a <expletive> doing that for? Don't they <expletive> know how the <expletive> <expletive> is going to affect the <expletive> <expletive>? Did that <expletive> pull that idea out of <expletive><expletive>"

You may think that to yourself, I do not. You are not in a position to say what other people think, only what you think. Now what you think is one thing, what you say is normally socially conditioned (to repeat myself).

Your argument that the use of expletives is a valid shock tactic is self defeating. A shock tactic is only shocking if it is unexpected, if it is rare. there is nothing shocking about a continuous stream of foul mouthed comment. It is just wearying and offensive to many. It invalidates your comments rather than emphasising them. If I were to suddenly swear, that would have a shock value as it is something out of the ordinary, but if you swear all the time it loses its effect.

You are missing the point that everything in General is assumed to be OOC. Everything. It is not a role playing forum. So adopting a character there is not going to allow you to side step the flaming definition. If you want to role play, go to one of the role playing forums. If you want to comment on real life, then you are OOC automatically.

I have no great love for themods here. At times they can be stubbornly obtuse. However I do credit them with being as even handed as it is humanly possible to be. You think you were trearted hypocritically, I think that you misunderstood some basic factors (the nature of the general forum, the social standards present) and refused to listen or change tack when warned.

The best way to solve a problem is by avoiding it.
Stop swearing and there wont be no problems, Cuz there's no difference between OOC and IC for a moderator. I think Frisbeeteria just got fed up with your 'Fucks', give him a break, he's a very active (and as far i know good)mod. Understatement, understatement...

Yeah, sometimes even moderators are allowed to use a strange thing, it's called sarcasm, I ought to know (points at siggy) ;)

In future, "Leperous monkeyballs", I would suggest using a less agressive and confrontational tone in your dealings with the Moderators. We will of course endeavour to treat you as you deserve, but we are only human, and it helps nobody to adress us so.

I will admit confusion, however, as to how you define "in character" in relation to General, which is an out of character forum. Perhaps you would care to explain this to me?

Unfortunately, it will take further review and contemplation on my part to arrive at a firm and considered judgement of your case; I shall endeavour to do so. Sometime when it's not 2AM.

~ Tsar the Mod.


Ummmm - I'm not trying to define "in character" versus "out of character" actions. I am simply expressing my understanding of the rules used here to determine flaming on General, and do so by quoting the relevant section provided to the players.


It is, after all, the official definition of the rule that players are constantly directed to if they have questions and includes the noted text. If there is a different definition of that rule for the General Forum that does not include that IC vs OOC differentiation, then perhaps it should be posted.

There are some points to consider here. Foul language is tolerated to a degree, as it is part of everyday life, however anything done to excess here tends to get clamped down on. Be it posting smilies with every comment or swearing in every other sentence.

Leprous Monkeyballs what did you hope to gain by swearing as often as you did? In my case it just made me disregard the content of everthing you posted. It created an image of an uneducated incompetent person who was unnecessarily aggresive. I am sure that was not your intention.

This is a private site, with a wide international usership, it has a socially agreed set of standards. If amongst the thousands of people who post here regularly, you are the only one that posted foul language on such a regular basis, do you not feel that you were disregarding these social standards? Or do you claim that you are so antisocial that the behaviour and opinions of others do not matter to you at all. You have created an image of someone looking for a fight. If the mods clamp down on you then this generaly has a reason. Do you not think that the two are connected?

Being a private site and free to all, there is no obligation to be fair, but they do try. Also the mods try to do things with a touch of humour or in a method that fits the circumstances. Hence your complaint about the tone of language that Frisbeteeria used is unjustified. He was replying to you in your own language. The next point is the General is not a role playing forum. There have been players deleted for role playing there, and there is a consistent policy of banning people for trolling/flaming/troll baiting when they create or act as obnoxious characters, be this directly or through puppets. (See for example Johny Wadd, Jesussaves, Herpower, Commando, TRA, Drunk Commies etc.) You are not being singled out and treated differently to the others.

What is not possible to do, is to specify in the TOS exactly what is not allowed. To do this would be to create too many loopholes and exceptions and then there would have to be ammendments to the TOS until it becomes a few hundred pages and no one reads it. You say change it or clarify it. What TOS did you receive when you were born for society. There are socially acceptable and socially unacceptable behaviours. These will vary from one social situation to another. How you talk with your mates at the football match is different to how you talk in a town hall meeting. You adapt to the circumstances. The same applies on-line. You are still dealing with people and their opinions and sensibilities. If you refuse to recognise this, then you have a problem.



You may think that to yourself, I do not. You are not in a position to say what other people think, only what you think. Now what you think is one thing, what you say is normally socially conditioned (to repeat myself).

Your argument that the use of expletives is a valid shock tactic is self defeating. A shock tactic is only shocking if it is unexpected, if it is rare. there is nothing shocking about a continuous stream of foul mouthed comment. It is just wearying and offensive to many. It invalidates your comments rather than emphasising them. If I were to suddenly swear, that would have a shock value as it is something out of the ordinary, but if you swear all the time it loses its effect.

You are missing the point that everything in General is assumed to be OOC. Everything. It is not a role playing forum. So adopting a character there is not going to allow you to side step the flaming definition. If you want to role play, go to one of the role playing forums. If you want to comment on real life, then you are OOC automatically.

I have no great love for themods here. At times they can be stubbornly obtuse. However I do credit them with being as even handed as it is humanly possible to be. You think you were trearted hypocritically, I think that you misunderstood some basic factors (the nature of the general forum, the social standards present) and refused to listen or change tack when warned.


True but then again the Moderators really shouldn't single out people. Either allow it or don't allow it. On my website I have a forum just for those that have to swear. It's called the Bad Lands Flamezone. Anything goes there. My members can even tell me to go to hell if they wish to as long as it stays in the zone.

I have never had a problem with the moderators here nor do I intend to. I know how hard their job is. I also know that sometimes moderators let certain members get away with more than another member. I do it myself. If I have known a person for a long time I give them more slack.

I guess basically that the best advice is to just lay low under the radar and hope for the best.

I always find it amazing that people using a free service (NS and it's Forums) staffed by volunteer moderators , seem to continually complain.

The Moderators set and enforce the rules not fair? Well then find another free forum to go play on. You don't have to stay on these boards if you don't like the rules or the way that Moderators, that have volunteered their free time, enforce it.

Their job is hard enough already, get over yourself Leperous monkeyballs, if the Mods say you are flaming, then guess what, you are flaming. If you disagree then why not try and resolve it without calling anyone a hypocrite or being insulting.

now i gots it :D

There are some points to consider here. Foul language is tolerated to a degree, as it is part of everyday life, however anything done to excess here tends to get clamped down on. Be it posting smilies with every comment or swearing in every other sentence.

<big snip>

I have no great love for themods here. At times they can be stubbornly obtuse. However I do credit them with being as even handed as it is humanly possible to be. You think you were trearted hypocritically, I think that you misunderstood some basic factors (the nature of the general forum, the social standards present) and refused to listen or change tack when warned.


Alien, I apreciate you point of view, and I assure that I fully understod that this would be a reaction by some. On the other hand, there were those who posted some support for my posts along the way too.

The fact is that there is a range of social standards allowed. And the fact is that I cannot control what others find offensive, or what they choose to dismiss or why.

Some dismiss others simply based on stated political affiliation. Some dismiss over choice of language. That is not within my purview to control.

Nor, incidentally, is what people choose to be offended by.

The owner of this site has been clear in the past as to his intent to allow unpopular speech as it represents a legitimate politcal point of view. He has been clear that there is no mandate to ensure that people are not offended.

So what is "offensive"? A fairly mainstream view stated crudely? Or an intellectual missive on the benefits of a eugenics program for homosexuals? Or those who's cahracters here seem to exist only to insult, but do so in a manner that allows them to get away with it for long periods (The Johny Wadds that keep popping up)

For me, it is the racists and bigots who tend to offend me - but I accept that this is permitted here. For some it may be simple profanity whatever the actual contents of the message, and the question is whether that should be given the same consideration.


Anyway, my primary complaint is with the attempt to implement a personal TOS on me in contradiction to what is allowed everyone else. And my secondary complaint is that is being done without ever even being ASKED to tone down my character. It went from allowed and ignored to a complete moratorium without any attempt at dialog at all.

In character... right. That's your excuse for breaking the rules? Can't have your sainted name tainted, of course... so you leave once your popularity begins to fade and then come back with a whole new nation, a new "character," that allows you to toe the line with impugnity (in your own mind)?

Riiiiiight. Nice try, won't fly. Don't let the door catch ya.


By the way, and since you have alluded to it. I'll be PERFECTLY up front with the people here.


My "sainted" name is not to be tainted?


My "popularity faded?"



My previous incarnation was Zeppistan.


The fact that my wife and the rest of the Mod team had their problems NEVER reflected on my standing on these board with the other players to my knowledge. But the way you have clearly translated that into a personal viewpoint against me is now out there for all to see. Guilt by assocciation I guess.



The door may or may not catch me. I truly do not care. I just dropped back to have a bit of fun during a down-time between contracts, and make a few politcal points along the way.

Alien, I apreciate you point of view, and I assure that I fully understod that this would be a reaction by some. On the other hand, there were those who posted some support for my posts along the way too.

The fact is that there is a range of social standards allowed. And the fact is that I cannot control what others find offensive, or what they choose to dismiss or why.

Some dismiss others simply based on stated political affiliation. Some dismiss over choice of language. That is not within my purview to control.

Nor, incidentally, is what people choose to be offended by.

The owner of this site has been clear in the past as to his intent to allow unpopular speech as it represents a legitimate politcal point of view. He has been clear that there is no mandate to ensure that people are not offended.

So what is "offensive"? A fairly mainstream view stated crudely? Or an intellectual missive on the benefits of a eugenics program for homosexuals? Or those who's cahracters here seem to exist only to insult, but do so in a manner that allows them to get away with it for long periods (The Johny Wadds that keep popping up)

For me, it is the racists and bigots who tend to offend me - but I accept that this is permitted here. For some it may be simple profanity whatever the actual contents of the message, and the question is whether that should be given the same consideration.


Anyway, my primary complaint is with the attempt to implement a personal TOS on me in contradiction to what is allowed everyone else. And my secondary complaint is that is being done without ever even being ASKED to tone down my character. It went from allowed and ignored to a complete moratorium without any attempt at dialog at all.


I appreciate that you can not control what others find offensive. What I question though is the need to use a form of language which achieves nothing but offense. The racists and bidgots, I too find offensive, but at least I can attack their reasoning, their arguments etc. Where all that is being offensive is the language used, all that is available is to criticise the poster themself, ie flaming. Now that makes excessive use of foul language flamebaiting as the only reply possible to the offense is to attack the person.

The two real questions are:
Why do you feel that you have to adopt a 'character' in General?

What did you hope to gain from the excessive use of swearing ? (I have already addressed the failure of the shock jock theory.)

I still do not see why you think that you were treated any differently to any other that has been forum banned for a while for inappropriate posting. You were warned. You chose to ignore the warning, take the consequences without complaining.

I appreciate that you can not control what others find offensive. What I question though is the need to use a form of language which achieves nothing but offense. The racists and bidgots, I too find offensive, but at least I can attack their reasoning, their arguments etc. Where all that is being offensive is the language used, all that is available is to criticise the poster themself, ie flaming. Now that makes excessive use of foul language flamebaiting as the only reply possible to the offense is to attack the person.

The two real questions are:
Why do you feel that you have to adopt a 'character' in General?

What did you hope to gain from the excessive use of swearing ? (I have already addressed the failure of the shock jock theory.)

I still do not see why you think that you were treated any differently to any other that has been forum banned for a while for inappropriate posting. You were warned. You chose to ignore the warning, take the consequences without complaining.


Except Alien that I WASN'T warned!

Exhibit B (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9127795&postcount=10)
Second, while I haven't warned "Leperous monkeyballs" for swearing, by itself, I have come to the conclusion that he is either unwilling or unable to control his own use of language on NationStates. Thus, as a result of his conduct, he is prohibited from swearing at all; I haven't warned him for swearing alone, yet, but I will do so in the future.


As to why I chose to do things this way, while you may not have found my tactics effective - others clearly did given their reaction to it. And as to why role-play at all - well, it CAN be fun and is rather the point of the game isn't it? I mean, that IS the purpose of NS and many of the Mods indulge in RP as well.

Anyway, I apreciate your honest desciption of your reaction to my posts. I just hope that you also understand that your reaction is not the only one that people can have to it.

My previous incarnation was Zeppistan.Watch me totally not care in terms of enforcing the rules. You've got your marching orders.

In future, "Leperous monkeyballs", I would suggest using a less agressive and confrontational tone in your dealings with the Moderators. We will of course endeavour to treat you as you deserve, but we are only human, and it helps nobody to adress us so.


That is an excellent suggestion. :)

Though I'm of the opinion that a number of moderators have become much more hostile / confrontational / rude towards players, too!

The idea that moderators are here to "treat people as they deserve" sounds more like "eye for an eye" or "tooth for a tooth". I just don't see how this sort of style of moderation will really help in the long-term.

This isn't about asking moderators to be held to a higher standard, but rather that moderators should be held to the *same* standard.


Maybe in cases where moderators have a dislike or bias against an individual, before acting, one mod can ask another mod for a second opinion? Actually did that happen in this case? Even if so, it still seems to me that sometimes not treating people as they deserve, but rather how you'd like them to treat others can be much more productive.

Watch me totally not care in terms of enforcing the rules. You've got your marching orders.


Can you please clarify.

Is this a formal request that the door not hit me on the way out immediately?

Or just a formal declaration of your intent to find a reason to delete me?

Or a formal declaration that Cog's statement that I get my own personal TOS stands without clarification on the list of verboten words for me?


Or ... what??

Though I'm of the opinion that a number of moderators have become much more hostile / confrontational / rude towards players, too!We just hold up a mirror... Happy, friendly, fluffy attitudes in the face of vitriol is just another service you don't pay us for.

Maybe in cases where moderators have a dislike or bias against an individual, before acting, one mod can ask another mod for a second opinion? Actually did that happen in this case?Oh yes, that happened quite a bit in this case. We do that quite often.

Even if so, it still seems to me that sometimes not treating people as they deserve, but rather how you'd like them to treat others can be much more productive.True, up to a point... but some people can't take a hint subtly or gently and so the kid gloves come off. However they want to play it.

Can you please clarify.

Is this a formal request that the door not hit me on the way out immediately?

Or just a formal declaration of your intent to find a reason to delete me?


Or ... what??Let's try this again.

You swore too much. So much that Cog was forced to revoke your right to swear. Don't do it anymore.

Also, don't give me any such tripe concerning "what words count" and whatnot. You're a grown man, Zepp, and one nearly twice my age. Use some of that vaunted judgement you've obtained in those years.

If this seems too oppressive for your tastes, then yes, this is a formal request that the door not hit you on the way out. It'd be easier on all of us rather than having you cross the line again. Besides, I don't have to find a reason. At this rate, all I have to do is wait and let you spool your own rope.

Except Alien that I WASN'T warned!

Exhibit B (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9127795&postcount=10)



As to why I chose to do things this way, while you may not have found my tactics effective - others clearly did given their reaction to it. And as to why role-play at all - well, it CAN be fun and is rather the point of the game isn't it? I mean, that IS the purpose of NS and many of the Mods indulge in RP as well.

Anyway, I apreciate your honest desciption of your reaction to my posts. I just hope that you also understand that your reaction is not the only one that people can have to it.


RPing is certainly one of the points of the game. Yes. But with your experience of NS, it would seem that RPing in General was a strange decision.
If you were using the language purely to provoke response, then fine, but as I pointed out, it is not a very effective tactic.

On to the point about warning. The post by Cogitation that you quote I would have understood as a warning. You were not banned at that time, only when you continued after that. Now I know that technicaly it does not state "Leprous Monkeyballs, Warning for excessive swearing" but it clearly implies it. This is however a matter of interpretation. You may have a valid complaint that no clear warning was given, but that no warning was given is disputable.

As to my reaction being only one of many, yes I do realise this and I do appreciate that some others will have reacted as you planned.

Let's try this again.

You swore too much. So much that Cog was forced to revoke your right to swear. Don't do it anymore.

Also, don't give me any such tripe concerning "what words count" and whatnot. You're a grown man, Zepp, and one nearly twice my age. Use some of that vaunted judgement you've obtained in those years.

If this seems too oppressive for your tastes, then yes, this is a formal request that the door not hit you on the way out. It'd be easier on all of us rather than having you cross the line again. Besides, I don't have to find a reason. At this rate, all I have to do is wait and let you spool your own rope.


Actually, the list of "what words count" is certainly debateable in this context as there are several that some view as profanity wheras others would not, however I'll certainly play along and let you find your reason.



After all, your derisive attitude towards me as exhibited in your first response on this thread leaves no doubt that you WILL find your reason, and given that almost ANY viewpoint beyond "my favourite colour is blue" when expressed in an unqualified manner can be labelled flamebait as it, by definition, probably has people about who will respond to it because they vehemently disagree with it.




So who am I to take away your fun?

In character... right. That's your excuse for breaking the rules? Can't have your sainted name tainted, of course... so you leave once your popularity begins to fade and then come back with a whole new nation, a new "character," that allows you to toe the line with impugnity (in your own mind)?

Riiiiiight. Nice try, won't fly. Don't let the door catch ya.

Well as long as we are all breaking cover here, I am the one who's popularity faded, not Zeppistan's! And the only reason I fell out of favour with the players was because of my complaining over a popularity contest. Yes I am the incarnation of the former Game Moderator "Stephistan" and my reasons for coming back as a different name was not the same as Zeppitan's (aka) LM. My real reasons for coming back with a new nation name was because I thought the mods would prefer it that way. Then when I asked something in moderation I would not be told I wasn't a mod anymore and to stay out of it, I could post and no one except the mods would be any wiser. As you will note by any of my posts, my players style never changed at all from that of Stephistan. It's also how I knew what Max thought and why I knew that some one was railroading LM. Maybe they thought it was me? I don't know.

But yes, I left when NS was not fun for me anymore and came back because I sort of missed it. But I felt to come back as a different nation would be the mods preference for me. And yes, I am and have always been polite. So this was not in any way some sort of conspiracy on the part of Zeppistan nor myself to come back to NS to cause trouble. In fact I didn't even know Zep had become LM until he told me as he did it from work.

But the mods knew. How could they not of? Leperous monkeyballs never broke the rules. That much I do know. Yet he took their harsh one week forum ban none the less. We didn't come back to cause trouble. Zep decided to create a character. What was the point of this character? I believe it was to have fun. Not to stir the pot with the mods given he had never had a problem with the mods or the players. It also seems rather odd that people who role play on a daily basis would not understand the desire to create a character, just another hypocrisy perhaps? As for General not having IC characters, well those of us who have spent the last few years in General know, there is lots of IC role play that goes on in there. Just not quite in the same way as in II, as they role play war and such where as Zep role played "The Rude Pundit".

And gee Scolo, you sure seem to be making this quite personal. Aren't you! Zeppistan never had so much as a warning and played the game for two years and he never fell out of favour with the other players, I did, so please don't take your hostility towards me out on my husband.

Let's try this again.

You swore too much. So much that Cog was forced to revoke your right to swear.

And yet according to Cog's own post, he never so much as warned Leperous monkeyballs for swearing. How odd he would get a different set of rules for some thing he was never even warned for.

Spin it however you'd like; rile up the masses too. Get them to see the great conspiracy we have, or the great vendetta I have for you and only you... or anyone else we happen to enforce the rules on. If that makes you feel better about yourself and you just happen to follow the terms of service while you're at it, good on you, it's not my problem.

The less things that are or become my problem, the better. Anyway, I figure this horse has been flogged into the dirt and any points that were supposed to sink in already have or else have been deflected off the steely hide of ego... side unmentioned, because I do think someone mentioned us mods as being too damn stubborn... ;)

Oh, and Xanaz, the horse's bolted. Sorry.

Shine on, you crazy diamonds.

No Scolo, I don't believe there is any mod "conspiracy" going on per se, but I do believe that you cherry picked the rules to suit what out come you desired. Leperous monkeyballs never broke the rules and you and I know that. But if the horse has bolted, then so be it. Doesn't change the fact that yes, he swore a lot, but never flamed anyone nor did he flamebait or troll. So, really the only thing you're left with is he swore a lot and that is not against the rules and it was never directed in a flaming way at any NS player nor did he ever flamebait any NS player. That much as a former Game Mod I do know. But I know better to argue with the mods....So, whatever.

I cherry picked the rules, eh?

I don't remember making any decisions on this... thought Cog and Fris were the main offenders there... but woe to me for siding with them, I guess. Woe to you for siding with your husband, I suppose, in the exact same light. What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander...

Anyway, to whip the poor deceased horse one last time: Monkeyballs didn't meet the bare minimum standard of decorum, broke the rules, got wrist-slapped for it like any other user, and if lessons are learned everything should be just fine. If not, then that'll be a problem quickly resolved if it comes up. Still, Monkeyballs is a responsible adult and therefore I expect him to have sufficient self-control to prevent any problems in the future.

Anyway, thanks for the vote of confidence, y'all. I'd best be moseying on outta here, 'cuz there's more ranchin' to be done elsewhere. If anyone's got anythin' they wants to say ta me pers'nal-like, they's can send me a 'gram.[/Southern drawl]