NationStates Jolt Archive

Some are declaring this "satire." Which in the sense of provoking people with dishonest and obnoxious commentary sounds to me like a euphemism for "trolling."

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13813587&postcount=15
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13813574&postcount=11

I could go on but it seems basically all his posts are like that.

And I'm fairly certain that saying "fuck you" is flaming.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13813610&postcount=21

Mods Only, k?

Addressed.

Addressed.

The warning I got was for flaming. May I request certiorari on the trolling?

Speaking of flaming/trolling, http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13815570&postcount=61

Also, calling a jewish person a 'hebe' is not polite conversation http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13817895&postcount=106

Also, calling a jewish person a 'hebe' is not polite conversation http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13817895&postcount=106

It's my impression from reading that post that it's self-referential. While I don't necessarily approve of self-deprecating humor, it's not exactly flaming in such cases.

It's my impression from reading that post that it's self-referential. While I don't necessarily approve of self-deprecating humor, it's not exactly flaming in such cases.

No, it was not self-deprecating, I am not a jew.

I hate jews, with their greed, dishonesty, and needlessly elaborate conversion process that discriminates against people who just aren't very good at learning languages, or grasping basic elements of jewish beliefs, and who happen to shit their pants during passover services.

The fact is, Hebe is just an abbreviation for Hebrew. If tree hugging hippies playing hackie sack can call eachother "bro", why can't I call them Hebes?

...

Even if it were "self deprecating," it's not humor. Even if it were humorous, it'd still be trolling. But as ever I'd like to know if it's acceptable, because I have some "satire" of my own I'm curious if I can unleash now.

The rules define trolling as posting "with the intent to anger people", but also mentions that intent is difficult to determine on the internet and that the mods will use their judgement.

The only thing I ask is, if I'm to be constrained from my posting style, that the mods truly look at what I've written.

Trostia doesn't think its funny, and Trostia thinks its trolling. But if you really examine what I write, do you think I'm intending to anger people?

Hammurab
And as someone of Jewish decent, I find that comment disrespectful.

Oh goodie. Rules lawyering. :rolleyes:

Oh goodie. Rules lawyering. :rolleyes:

In a thread in moderation that YOU opened, to allege infraction of rules, when I address the allegation cogently, you accuse ME of rules lawyering?

I'm starting to suspect you are the Grandmaster of the Order of Huxley, here to test me.

Hammurab
And as someone of Jewish decent, I find that comment disrespectful.

My Moreh referred me to Mortiz Gottlieb Saphir. He might be an ancestor of yours.

In a thread in moderation that YOU opened, to allege infraction of rules, when I address the allegation cogently, you accuse ME of rules lawyering?

Why, yes! And also, when you flame and troll, I'll accuse you of flaming and trolling TOO!

The NERVE! The CENSORSHIP! WAH, my genius wit is being MISUNDERSTOOD by people who don't have a SENSE OF HUMOR about being called FUCKING JEWS and HEBES!

:rolleyes:

I love Hammurab. :(

Knock it off, people. Trostia specifically said Mods Only. Hammurab is entitled to post to explain himself, links to clarify are acceptable, but, unless you're a mod, all else is not.

... if you really examine what I write, do you think I'm intending to anger people?

Yes, I do think you're intending to anger people. That's a classic feature of trolling. It's also a classic feature of satire.

I think your satire on Christian fundamentalists has caused distress to individual posters whom you did not intend to savage. I'll send you a link to one particular poster to whom I think it would be polite to offer an explanation or apology.

Note that this is not any sort of modly ruling on the general question of satire in NS. Satire is a risky tool on the internet, especially in a moderated forum, and anyone who chooses to use it, chooses to take the risk.

The fact is, Hebe is just an abbreviation for Hebrew. If tree hugging hippies playing hackie sack can call eachother "bro", why can't I call them Hebes?

While we permit and mayhaps even welcome players with irrational and blatantly stupid mindsets, we do expect them to display at least a veneer of politeness when promoting same.

As your responses here clearly demonstrate, your primary interest is disruption, not discourse. As such, we can do without your company for a week or so.

I know it says Mods only, but I do want to say that Hammurab makes me laugh until the tears run from my eyes. In my opinion, (s)he is a great satirist who raises the level of discussion in the forum. Your mileage may vary.

Since this thread is mods-only, please do feel free to delete this post if you find it objectionable, but I'd just like a bit of clarification of the rules as related to this discussion, and it seems silly to start a new thread just for that. Apologies in advance if I should have done that instead.

As I understood it, the rules against trolling ban posts made with the intent to anger, and obviously that's a slightly tricky line to draw - but it seems eminently clear to me, and, I think, to rather a lot of other posters, that Hammurab's intent is not to anger but amuse. I mean, for Pete's sake, he explained that Sir Francis Bacon adopted his surname to prevent his children from being eaten by Jews. He suggested that Jews have a vast international conspiracy to stake the entire wealth of the world on the box-office success of "You Don't Mess With the Zohan." He has repeatedly referred to Stormfront as a "weather prediction site that has lots of discussion about Jews for some reason." I really don't think anyone could read those posts and honestly conclude that he was being serious. (He has also at least once included white text in a post explicitly saying that he was kidding.)

So, my question is this - is the onus on a poster being satirical to make absolutely sure no one takes him seriously, or on other posters to read carefully enough to catch at least very, very obvious satire? Should every joke on these forums really have to be accompanied by an explicit statement that one is just kidding and doesn't really think that Francis Bacon lived in fear of cannibalistic Jews o' doom to prevent being considered trolling? I have to admit I rather hope not, but obviously it's you mods' call, not mine.

Again, sorry if I shouldn't have posted this here. :)

Knock it off, people. Trostia specifically said Mods Only. Hammurab is entitled to post to explain himself, links to clarify are acceptable, but, unless you're a mod, all else is not.

Is a 'mods only' request binding? I don't see it as a closed rp thread. I see it more like trying to start a private thread in General which I am pretty sure isn't binding.

Of course, I'll defer to your decision, but I just want confirmation that asking that the moderation discussion of a thread, which others may have differing opinions on can be designated 'mods only' and the OP having an expectation of limiting opinion that way.

Edit: Especially since I'm one of the 'offended' parties.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8784654&postcount=5

Moderation

Moderation is for issues related to player interaction. Reporting of flaming, spam, and other inappropriate behavior goes here. Moderation should be used with care, as some problems can only be identified by special mod tools. When in doubt, use the Getting Help page or #themodcave IRC channel instead. Players often have suggestions for solutions to problems, but only moderator answers can be considered definitive. Linking or quoting relevant moderator decisions (or this thread) may be entirely acceptable.

"Mods Only": Players may request that only moderators or admins respond to threads in Moderation. Players should not respond in these threads.

Rule-breaking in Moderation: If someone flames or spams in Moderation, don't create a new thread about it. We're going to see it anyway, so don't clutter the forum with irrelevancies.

Speculation: If you don't definitively know the answer or have a link to a prior mod decision that is entirely relevant, don't try to answer other player's requests. It can be confusing to new players. You're not always aware of all the facts. ONLY moderator statements are definitive, so don't use language that implies that you are 100% certain.

Indeed, when a player asks that only mods or admins respond to a thread, players who are not directly named in the matter are not supposed to be posting. LG.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8784654&postcount=5



Indeed, when a player asks that only mods or admins respond to a thread, players who are not directly named in the matter are not supposed to be posting. LG.

I missed that part as I skimmed through. Okie dokie. Won't happen again.

:eek: Oops. I did it again. Sorry.

*runs*

Since this thread is mods-only, please do feel free to delete this post if you find it objectionable, but I'd just like a bit of clarification of the rules as related to this discussion, and it seems silly to start a new thread just for that. Apologies in advance if I should have done that instead.

As I understood it, the rules against trolling ban posts made with the intent to anger, and obviously that's a slightly tricky line to draw - but it seems eminently clear to me, and, I think, to rather a lot of other posters, that Hammurab's intent is not to anger but amuse. I mean, for Pete's sake, he explained that Sir Francis Bacon adopted his surname to prevent his children from being eaten by Jews. He suggested that Jews have a vast international conspiracy to stake the entire wealth of the world on the box-office success of "You Don't Mess With the Zohan." He has repeatedly referred to Stormfront as a "weather prediction site that has lots of discussion about Jews for some reason." I really don't think anyone could read those posts and honestly conclude that he was being serious. (He has also at least once included white text in a post explicitly saying that he was kidding.)

So, my question is this - is the onus on a poster being satirical to make absolutely sure no one takes him seriously, or on other posters to read carefully enough to catch at least very, very obvious satire? Should every joke on these forums really have to be accompanied by an explicit statement that one is just kidding and doesn't really think that Francis Bacon lived in fear of cannibalistic Jews o' doom to prevent being considered trolling? I have to admit I rather hope not, but obviously it's you mods' call, not mine.

Again, sorry if I shouldn't have posted this here. :)

I'm hoping the mods only applied to the original request.

I've seen a lot of discussion of Hammurab because people really like him/her, but it's not reasonable to expect people to research him in order to get that she's joking. Read what was written in this thread, which is what he was modded for, and imagine you didn't have the context you just mentioned.

Should a poster reasonably be expected to ignore racial epithets because it might be a joke and they may discover that if they read enough posts? Should the mods be expected to ignore that posters AREN'T going to do that and are OFTEN going to respond to one or a couple of posts without trying to feel out the poster first?

Poli, I'm sure you see the potential for a problem here. You've seen successful satirists in the past and you know they permit it. If a satirist is struggling with going afoul of the rules, maybe the burden of research should be placed on that poster. Clearly, much can be learned from those satirists who both made us laugh and followed the rules. Jhaha is a glaring example.

Hammurab is on a whole 'nother level of satirical construction than most of us -- notice "us", as I include myself. The "fuck you" was clearly meant as a whiplash reversal of tone from the high-end sophistry and rhetoric used to mock-castigate LG. Why don't you ask LG if he was offended, and if he was, HE can bring a Moderation complaint.

Folks, it's skin-thickening time. Hammurab's an abrasive genius with these posts. I read nothing that crosses the line in them (especially his excellent use of back-formation as a legitimate defense of "Hebe").

Even if it were "self deprecating," it's not humor. Even if it were humorous, it'd still be trolling. But as ever I'd like to know if it's acceptable, because I have some "satire" of my own I'm curious if I can unleash now.

Objection: subjective judgment.

Why, yes! And also, when you flame and troll, I'll accuse you of flaming and trolling TOO!

The NERVE! The CENSORSHIP! WAH, my genius wit is being MISUNDERSTOOD by people who don't have a SENSE OF HUMOR about being called FUCKING JEWS and HEBES!

:rolleyes:

Objection: misrepresentation and hyperbolic emotional response.

Was anyone actually CALLED a "fucking Jew" or a "Hebe"? No.

I love Hammurab. :(

Open and shut on at least THIS "charge".



EDIT: Hadn't read the second page about Mods only. I'll take my lashes and go quietly.

A decision has been made.
You may not agree with it; that's your right, of course.

However, if you reference the One Stop Rules Shop, you will see that posts in question certainly fell within the definitions given for trolling and for flaming. Two moderators had explicitly said certain posts were "not flaming" and "not trolling" while a third (myself) made a ruling on one post about flaming.

One moderator warned that satire is a risky tool to use on the internet.

Then Hammurab went just a bit too far... in a moderation thread.

It's a judgment call whether or not it was meant maliciously. The judgment was, in this case, "yes."

The judgment was also that abusing someone whose posts you consider to be trolling is also malicious and not tolerated.

Perhaps both posters will learn to moderate their tones and to keep well back from the line before crossing it next time.

The standard of reference for whether someone is trolling or flamebaiting is not that player's entire post history, it is the posts in a given thread. If there is a high probability of someone stepping into that thread, reading those posts, and seeing that post as trolling, then it's probably trolling. It doesn't make the slightest bit of difference that NSG regulars have absorbed his history and declared "we love him". The post is the standard.

Several of Hammurab's posts failed to meet that standard, including his back-formation defense of 'hebe'. That said, he earned a week's vacation and an admonition not to bring his Jew-hating 'character' back to NSG. He's neither been permabanned nor deleted.

We've managed to have polite, interesting, and non-rule-breaking conversations with Nazis, pedophiles, and other folks who don't enjoy broad levels of support. If Hammurab is as brilliant as some seem to think, then he's smart enough to post within our rules and still be amusing.

I think we're done here.