NationStates Jolt Archive

We're a debate board who talks about controversial topics so why aren't we allowed to flame, bitch, discuss about the horrid website which is godhatesfags.com ?

Because it would be used as flamebait to generalize against all Christians who oppose homosexuality as bigots, haters, fanatics, etc.


That, and no hate sites are allowed I think.

I must question why anyone would want to talk about godhatesfags . com anyways.

Even if it's bitching at it, giving it and those psychos more attention is a bad thing. Ignore them and hope they all commit mass suicide, that's the best solution.

Plus any thread on ghf.com will bring out the insane fringe that agrees with them, and that will cause flames. The mods don't want to deal with that.

I must question why anyone would want to talk about godhatesfags . com anyways.

Even if it's bitching at it, giving it and those psychos more attention is a bad thing. Ignore them and hope they all commit mass suicide, that's the best solution.

Plus any thread on ghf.com will bring out the insane fringe that agrees with them, and that will cause flames. The mods don't want to deal with that.

Funny, I don't think I've ever seen anyone here say that they agree with those psychos.

I must question why anyone would want to talk about godhatesfags . com anyways.

Even if it's bitching at it, giving it and those psychos more attention is a bad thing. Ignore them and hope they all commit mass suicide, that's the best solution.

Plus any thread on ghf.com will bring out the insane fringe that agrees with them, and that will cause flames. The mods don't want to deal with that.

Ooh see you would've been better to talk to than the mod that just shut it and said "no" and hit me with a rolled up news paper.

True, but isn't it just a reflection of our society that is worth being disgusted by...Like same if I posted saipansucks.com

It informs us on society in a different light than ghf.com but actually has the same affect.

We prefer to think that such sites do not exist.

It doesn't help anyone if you keep linking to them.

God hates fags? I wasn't aware God hated cigarettes! :confused:

Because it would be used as flamebait to generalize against all Christians who oppose homosexuality as bigots, haters, fanatics, etc.


That, and no hate sites are allowed I think.
I thought stormfront could be linked to...

Because people like the ex-nation Fascist White States would end up in amassive flamewar with people like me and the mods would spend the next month wiht their finger on the delete key.

We prefer to think that such sites do not exist.

It doesn't help anyone if you keep linking to them.

God hates fags? I wasn't aware God hated cigarettes! :confused:

Jesus said it "Thou shall not puff a durry if you wanting to get to heaven in a hurry." It's funny if read in an indian accent.

1) This probabaly should have been posted in the Moderation forum (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/forumdisplay.php?f=1231), as it's a question for the mods to answer.

2) As far as I know that site does not violate the stated rules. Could you show us where someone got warned for posting a link to it?

And just so everyone is clear on the rules, here is the specific posted rule from The One-Stop Rules Shop (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8784641&postcount=3):
Forbidden links: There is not, and will not ever, be a definitive list of forbidden links. Since we don't control the content of other websites, a link which was fine yesterday may be forbidden today. Each link is judged on a case by case basis, and occasionally the Mods will outlaw certain sites.

* Any outlawed site is forbidden in the forums, as a signature, as a motto, as a World Factbook entry, or in any other format.
* General classes of forbidden links include porn or other sexual imagery, warez (see below), sites promoting other illegal activities, referral links (see below), or sites that have links to such sites as a principal component.
* Some generally unacceptable popular sites include ebaumsworld, albinoblacksheep, and plasticnipple.
* Don't link to sites where you (or a friend/relative) stand to gain financially. Feel free to contact Jolt for information on paid advertising.

The site in question doesn't violate any of the stated rules...

plastic.....nipple?

WTF would that be? And isn't it ironic that a post on moderation in NS sends me to this site?

Because people like the ex-nation Fascist White States would end up in amassive flamewar with people like me and the mods would spend the next month wiht their finger on the delete key.

Great, now Im remembering him again.

We're a debate board who talks about controversial topics so why aren't we allowed to flame, bitch, discuss about the horrid website which is godhatesfags.com ?
Because more people will flame and bitch as opposed to discuss.

Furthermore, most every time links to it have been posted, it has been in the act of trolling or trollbaiting. At times, the Might Straight Razor of Moddom cuts deep.

If you want, however, you may discuss the shockingly similar site, God Hates Figs (http://www.godhatesfigs.com/).

How about http://www.godhatessweden.com ? That site is hilarious. Is it just the "fags" one or all of the other ones they have? Because, I like ghs.com - its depiction of the royal family as incestuous demon spawn ruling a land of "drippings from the Devil's own penis" is almost orgasmic to an atheist republican such as myself.

"The King looks like an anal-copulator[sic!], & his grinning kids look slutty & gay!"

I mean, what else is there to say?

It's "hilarious" in much the same way that godhatesfags is. It's little more than trolling, much like godhatesamerica and godhatescanada. If someone wants to argue that countries are wallowing in sin, they can do so without Phelps.

Because more people will flame and bitch as opposed to discuss.

Furthermore, most every time links to it have been posted, it has been in the act of trolling or trollbaiting. At times, the Might Straight Razor of Moddom cuts deep.
So is it now a forbidden link? And if so, it should be announced as such, as it doesn't violate the posted rules regarding forbiddeen links and has been deemed acceptable in the past (by it's not having been oppressed until now).

as it doesn't violate the posted rules regarding forbiddeen links and has been deemed acceptable in the past (by it's not having been oppressed until now).

Sure it does:

What can't I post?

Any content that is:

* obscene
* illegal
* threatening
* malicious
* defamatory
* spam

I would argue that it is rather malicious and defamatory, and at times quite threatening. Furthermore, people have been diciplined for linking to Phelps sites (godhatesamerica, specifically). Remember the whole mess with Decisive Action and his use of a link to that site in his sig?

First, just let me say I am simply trying to pin down more clearly exactly what is legal to link so that I myself don't get in trouble for an illegal link. I am sure you're aware of my recent questions re the issue of forbidden links. I just hope to get the rules are as clear as possible.

Sure it does:

What can't I post?

Any content that is:

* obscene
* illegal
* threatening
* malicious
* defamatory
* spam


I would argue that it is rather malicious and defamatory, and at times quite threatening.

Haven't malicious, defamatory, and threatening been adjudged to be content directed towards a specific player, such as this definition of threats:

Threats: Any post, telegram, or other entry which can be read as a threat against a player's life or safety is forbidden. We will consider all such threats to be real and actual, not satire or hyperbole, and act accordingly.

If content that is in general "malicious, defamatory, and threatening" is illegal, there are quite a few currently active threads that should be dealt with....


Furthermore, people have been diciplined for linking to Phelps sites (godhatesamerica, specifically).

Sure it does:

Remember the whole mess with Decisive Action and his use of a link to that site in his sig?

Actually, no I don't, and that's why I want this clarified.
There is no statement specifically forbidding this site, and it isn't clear that it does violate the stated rules.
Any random new player could link to this site, or others that are only known to be banned by experienced players, and get in trouble. Even experienced players such as myself could get into trouble, as almost happened with the article I wanted to post from rotten...

All it basically comes down to is common sense. If you think a website that you link to is going to promote flames and uproars from the other people involved in a debate, such as the link you are asking about, then its best to not post from it. Especially in a thread debating on homosexuality, the link would promote hatred for those arguing on the side of homosexuality, which could easily be considered trolling, since you are essentially offending the entire side you are debating against. There is just no possible way for us to gather a list of websites that would be banned from this site, because essentially, there could be thousands upon thousands, so we leave it up to the judgement of the player.

If content that is in general "malicious, defamatory, and threatening" is illegal, there are quite a few currently active threads that should be dealt with....

Then by all means, link us to them.


~The Modified Freedom Forces of Euroslavia
Nationstates Forum Moderator~

The site in question doesn't violate any of the stated rules...You seem to have overlooked an important part:

Forbidden links: There is not, and will not ever, be a definitive list of forbidden links. Since we don't control the content of other websites, a link which was fine yesterday may be forbidden today.

All it basically comes down to is common sense.

:D Yes, but what happens when your "common sense" clashes with the stated policies?

If you think a website that you link to is going to promote flames and uproars from the other people involved in a debate, such as the link you are asking about, then its best to not post from it.

You have now added a third definition of what is forbidden to the clashing stated policies.

We have:
1) "General classes of forbidden links include porn or other sexual imagery, warez (see below), sites promoting other illegal activities, referral links (see below), or sites that have links to such sites as a principal component." As the rules posted by Fris.
2) Undefined "obscene, illegal, threatening, malicious, defamatory, and spam" from the TOS, interpreted by Hack to be aimed at people in general.
3) Links likely to promote flaming.

This is exactly my point. The mods seem to be using different sets of rules.
Like I pointed out above, the Hack and your definitions are not covered by the Rules Shop.
The three sets seem to agree. The Rules Shop says aimed at players. I understand Hack's interpretation of the TOS rules to mean that any defamatory links (blogs that denounce Bush for example) are forbidden. And you say it's anything that's likely to cause flames.

Especially in a thread debating on homosexuality, the link would promote hatred for those arguing on the side of homosexuality, which could easily be considered trolling, since you are essentially offending the entire side you are debating against.

Which would fall under trolling, not forbidden links, wouldn't it. And what if the forbidden link is used for discussion not flames?

There is just no possible way for us to gather a list of websites that would be banned from this site, because essentially, there could be thousands upon thousands, so we leave it up to the judgement of the player.

I understand that. However some of the links that are common and don't have pages without any forbidden content (rotten, ghf, and a few others) aren't on the generally unacceptable list.


As for your suggestion, here are the threads on the first page with content which seem to fall under the definitions of defamatory, malicious, and/or likely to cause flamage:
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=437321
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=437280
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=435470
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=437013
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=436593

Anyway, I appreciate the continued patience of all the Mods on this question. Thank you. :D

You seem to have overlooked an important part:


Can you please point out where I asked for a definitive list or the rellivance of the second bolded portion?

Can you please point out where I asked for a definitive list or the rellivance of the second bolded portion?The fact that you continue to complain about godhatesfags dot com and you continue to question the fact people are being warned about referring to it.

The relevance of the second bolded portion is that just because that website hasn't appeared on the forbidden list before doesn't mean it isn't forbidden now or won't be forbidden in the future. And frankly, if Max Barry, the Administrators, or the Moderators decide to forbid mention of the website, it's their right.

Not once did I say that it was illegal to do so, I suggested against it.

What I meant to say was that sites linked, such as the one being discussed in this thread, is going to produce flaming in most cases. Posting links to sites such as this, for the simple fact of upsetting the rest of the players involved in the debate is the part that isn't allowed. If you're going to be debating in a thread about homosexuality, I suggest that you find a more relevant website, one that doesn't cause so much controversy.

The usage of the word 'fag' (in reference to homosexuality, rather than a cigarette) is otherwise offensive in itself, so the title of the website alone could be considered offensive too. Not stating this as official policy, just pointing out the fact that it can immediately be taken as flamebaiting.


~The Modified Freedom Forces of Euroslavia
Nationstates Forum Moderator~

Sarzonia, none of your comments has any relivance to my questions, which are in regards to the clarity of the rules regarding forbidden links. Please do not confuse me with the OP. Unless you have relavant comments, I will now allow the mods to answer without further response to you. Thank you.

Also, users have been banned in the past for posting that link (ghf), so it stands to reason that it should not be posted again. :-)

Not once did I say that it was illegal to do so, I suggested against it.

What I meant to say was that sites linked, such as the one being discussed in this thread, is going to produce flaming in most cases. Posting links to sites such as this, for the simple fact of upsetting the rest of the players involved in the debate is the part that isn't allowed. If you're going to be debating in a thread about homosexuality, I suggest that you find a more relevant website, one that doesn't cause so much controversy.

The usage of the word 'fag' (in reference to homosexuality, rather than a cigarette) is otherwise offensive in itself, so the title of the website alone could be considered offensive too. Not stating this as official policy, just pointing out the fact that it can immediately be taken as flamebaiting.


~The Modified Freedom Forces of Euroslavia
Nationstates Forum Moderator~


Thank you. That was the exact clarification I was looking for. :D (And again a big thank you to all the mods who have dealt with my continuing questions regarding legal and illegal links. Your time and patience are appreciated. :D)