NationStates Jolt Archive

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9693247&postcount=10

I must thank Kat for enlightening me that sharing the opinion that any nation 'sucks' is a warnable offense.

With this newfound understanding I think it apropriate that the following players receive equal treatment for their imprudent trangressions;

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9530587&postcount=218
America Sucks Balls!
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9457167&postcount=381
"...yes it does"
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9435624&postcount=12
I think America sucks
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9435587&postcount=8
you won't make people suddenly turn arround and say "yeah, America sucks!".
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9120257&postcount=87
america sucks, sorry but it does.
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9137836&postcount=471
just call us anyone who thinks america sucks alliance
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9229754&postcount=21
"conservative right wing America sucks"
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8957789&postcount=35
"America Sucks.... F*ck America"
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9703884&postcount=29
"Maybe Israel just sucks?"
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9696843&postcount=7
North Jersey sucks.
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9703625&postcount=53
"your syntax and sentence construction sucks..."
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8592471&postcount=10
"If you want to hear American citizens jerking off over their reflection and going on about how amazing they are, go back to your other forums and shove your head back into the ground."
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8592615&postcount=18
"You idiot"
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8367910&postcount=14
"America Sucks"
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8367953&postcount=325
"many of us are stupid....51% of us voted for George W Bush."
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8364358&postcount=231
long flame ending with "America is the country that saw it's potential and settled for an ego"
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8228012&postcount=2
"Ha-Ha America Sucks"
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=7951730&postcount=18
"So the point is, America sucks."
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=7889609&postcount=86
the crappy culture of the US
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=7889463&postcount=75
-thats one of the many reasons why america sucks.
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=7876189&postcount=31
America sucks shit.

I am so pleased to participate in a forum that is as fair and balanced as the Chinese state-run media.

Right. As if every single case is identical to other cases, and past histories of the people involved does not matter, right?

First of all, YOU were asked to stop. Did you? No. You went right on and posted the same message again, in the same thread, after I had warned you.

"I shouldn't be in trouble even though I threw a rock through your window because six other people who you didn't catch also threw rocks." Wrong. I saw you. It works as well in the real world as it does here.

Then there is past history to examine as well. You have been warned unofficially many times, and officially a few, against your pattern of aggressive and combative posts. Apparently, you seem to think that the rules against flamebaiting and flaming do not apply to you. They do.

Rather than pointing the finger everywhere and blaming everyone else for your warning and brief ban, I'd seriously consider following the rules.

Sorry Mods, but I am so gobsmacked that I have to comment on this.....



I really don't believe that you actually went through all that stuff just to find the word 'suck' to try and prove your point.

Many of them (some so old you must have had to blow the dust off them) are completely out of context with your 'point'.

Are you so filled with hatred that you need to do this?
Look you were spotted, you were complained about, you lost because you pushed it too far.
Just move on and deal with it.......

Right. As if every single case is identical to other cases, and past histories of the people involved does not matter, right?

First of all, YOU were asked to stop. Did you? No. You went right on and posted the same message again, in the same thread, after I had warned you.

"I shouldn't be in trouble even though I threw a rock through your window because six other people who you didn't catch also threw rocks." Wrong. I saw you. It works as well in the real world as it does here.

Then there is past history to examine as well. You have been warned unofficially many times, and officially a few, against your pattern of aggressive and combative posts. Apparently, you seem to think that the rules against flamebaiting and flaming do not apply to you. They do.

Rather than pointing the finger everywhere and blaming everyone else for your warning and brief ban, I'd seriously consider following the rules.

I will probably be banned, warned or chastised myself for this but what the hell, I hate seeing someone get steam rolled and called hostile, agressive and further falsely mislabled for dissent. Especially when they have a valid point which will not even be acknowleged by those that are supposed to ensure something resembling a level playing field.

At no time did the guy ever so much as insinuate that every single case was identical or that past histories didn't matter. You did however Kat open your response by attempting to discredit him by insinuating that very thing. If one is able to see through this attempt, they are bound right off the bat to believe that you may be trying to mislead them.

Yes, he was asked to stop and failed to do so, however, if one reads the time stamp on the messages, it becomes quite clear that the degree of malicious disregard your wording conveys, simply may not ever have existed. During the minute or two in his response to the message in which he repeated himself it is more than likely that he didn't see the first warning in time. Not an excuse of course but as you say, not all situations are identical and you lead me to believe that you prefer to understand that sort of thing.

You quote, "I shouldn't be in trouble even though I threw a rock through your window because six other people who you didn't catch also threw rocks." and then you answer the statement with, "Wrong"
Might I ask when this childish statement was made and answered? or is this another case of attempting to discredit this individual by falsely accusing him of making it. Perhaps it is just another case of insinuating he might have made such a statement had he thought of it, by your way of thinking?
In any event, if 7 people threw a rock through your window, and you only caught 1,even though no one ran (or edited their offensive post), I for one would be a bit concerned as to your intentions. In this case however, he does not ask for immunity from prosecution as you insinuate. He asks for equal treatment for the 21 other people that threw rocks, many with horrible behaivorial histories, that also did not run, (or edit their posts) and of which you chose not to catch even a single one. Is it unreasonable for a rational person to belive that there is a degree of unjust tolerance for certain points of view over anothers? I don't believe so.

In any event, the guy has gone to a lot of trouble to document a pattern of unequal enforcement of your own policies, which should at the very least be acknowleged and examined by your own staff. A failure to do so will only serve to lend credibility to your detractors.

Once again, we return to the histories in which unofficial warnings are used to damn this individual. Unofficial warnings that I have on more than one occasion seen this guy get for simply disagreeing with a moderator which I thought Max Barry says is allowed. Maybe he should say is allowed without prejudice?

Liverbreath']
At no time did the guy ever so much as insinuate that every single case was identical or that past histories didn't matter. You did however Kat open your response by attempting to discredit him by insinuating that very thing. If one is able to see through this attempt, they are bound right off the bat to believe that you may be trying to mislead them.

Actually when i first read his post that is exactly how it came across, saying 'i got warned so these posts should be warned too' does sound very similar to saying that the cases are the same.

He asks for equal treatment for the 21 other people that threw rocks, many with horrible behaivorial histories, that also did not run, (or edit their posts) and of which you chose not to catch even a single one. Is it unreasonable for a rational person to belive that there is a degree of unjust tolerance for certain points of view over anothers? I don't believe so.

if you read what kat already said then this really comes back to 'not every case is exactly the same'

Once again, we return to the histories in which unofficial warnings are used to damn this individual. Unofficial warnings that I have on more than one occasion seen this guy get for simply disagreeing with a moderator which I thought Max Barry says is allowed. Maybe he should say is allowed without prejudice?

If hes unhappy with a warning of any kind then surely he can appeal it at the time? Not have it used as an excuse to argue with a mods decision later on?

Also, when looking at the warning given you have to wonder, is it actually the 'sweden sucks' comment that kat is warning for, or is it the insult towards the thread starter? Personally reading it i would think it was more aimed at that rather than the cheap shot at sweden.

Btw: Not a mod, never will be :)

It has been explained quite well by my illustrious colleague that prior history is considered when we make judgements. People are free to disagree with us, but being nasty about it gets nobody anywhere, so this thread is pretty much an example of How Not To Do It.

If you have a question about a judgement upon yourself or a friend, it may be a wise idea to let it sit a while, instead of posting in the heat of the moment. We don't like to have to force people to take time to cool off, after all.

Thread locked.

~ Tsar the Mod.