NationStates Jolt Archive

Question: Were someone to come here and claim 9/11 was warranted, or that Hitler was right, would they be modded for flamebaiting? Because it's just as illegitimate and infuriating an opinion as claiming the coups in Brazil (for me) and Chile (for any Chilean in this forum) were. I'm asking this for clarification purposes, because there is no doubt that supporting Hitler or 9/11 and supporting the coups in South America are one and the same.

Question: Were someone to come here and claim 9/11 was warranted, or that Hitler was right, would they be modded for flamebaiting? Because it's just as illegitimate and infuriating an opinion as claiming the coups in Brazil (for me) and Chile (for any Chilean in this forum) were. I'm asking this for clarification purposes, because there is no doubt that supporting Hitler or 9/11 and supporting the coups in South America are one and the same.
/Notamod

If I remember right, even Andaras' opinion that Stalin was right, and that all those poor souls got what was coming to them was tolerated, I think those opinions will be. Of course, I must reiterate:
/Notamod!

/Notamod

If I remember right, even Andaras' opinion that Stalin was right, and that all those poor souls got what was coming to them was tolerated, I think those opinions will be. Of course, I must reiterate:
/Notamod!

Very well.

We've had Nazi apologists and Stalinist apologists and the like about before. I don't think we've had Al Qaida supporters or Pol Pot afficionados yet, but all things are possible given time.

We don't moderate points of view. What we moderate is behaviour. You can claim whatever extremist viewpoint you like so long as you don't flame or flamebait or otherwise be a jerk. As Wil Wheaton says, "Don't be a dick". The viewpoint itself is not intrinsically flamebait.

~ Tsar the Mod.

We've had Nazi apologists and Stalinist apologists and the like about before. I don't think we've had Al Qaida supporters or Pol Pot afficionados yet, but all things are possible given time.

We don't moderate points of view. What we moderate is behaviour. You can claim whatever extremist viewpoint you like so long as you don't flame or flamebait or otherwise be a jerk. As Wil Wheaton says, "Don't be a dick". The viewpoint itself is not intrinsically flamebait.

~ Tsar the Mod.

So, if I want to make a thread calling for agents from the rest of the world to mess with and hack the machines in the American election to force our desired result I can? Because, as a native of one of the countries the US raped in the 60s (though it has evolved, I only wish I knew how much), it would be quite less than the things some people here support.

OK, I see I have to pull the FAQ card again ...
>What can't I post?

Any content that is:
obscene
illegal
threatening
malicious
defamatory
spam


If you want to debate the facts about Chile, Brazil, American elections, or almost anything else, you can do so as long as you stick within the guidelines listed above. People whose opinions differ from yours are welcome to post their views while following the same guidelines.

If you encourage people to break the law by hacking election machines anywhere in the world, that would fall under the "illegal" clause and would most likely get you suspended or banned. If you want to discuss or debate the premise that Americans hacked election machines in Brazil or Chile, that's debate, not a call to lawbreaking.

Finally, if you think someone is breaking site rules with a given discussion, please bring it to our attention. We may not always agree with you, but we will give it an unbiased and non-nationalist review.

OK, I see I have to pull the FAQ card again ...

If you want to debate the facts about Chile, Brazil, American elections, or almost anything else, you can do so as long as you stick within the guidelines listed above. People whose opinions differ from yours are welcome to post their views while following the same guidelines.

If you encourage people to break the law by hacking election machines anywhere in the world, that would fall under the "illegal" clause and would most likely get you suspended or banned. If you want to discuss or debate the premise that Americans hacked election machines in Brazil or Chile, that's debate, not a call to lawbreaking.

Finally, if you think someone is breaking site rules with a given discussion, please bring it to our attention. We may not always agree with you, but we will give it an unbiased and non-nationalist review.

What I meant was the debate that the coups were good things. What you're saying then is, should something to that effect happen in the US, people CAN argue that it "was" good, then? Or, hell, 8 years from now, if Obama somehow starts killing off Republicans, I'd not be "inciting" anything if I argued it was a good thing then? Because TAI's views on the coup in my country sicken me, but I'm checking if they are moddable through an analogy here.

Then you should have linked to the thread in question. We can't mod through analogy.

You're misreading Fris's answer if you think it would justify a "Nerny ner, glad (X) happened, serve you right!" post. But a post along the lines of "(X) was ghastly and inhuman, but (Y) ultimately beneficial effect followed from it" could be a debate topic.

It would have been much simpler to say, "This discussion (link) is bothering me because (reason). Could a mod please have a look at it?"

"TAI's views on the coup in my country sicken me"

So long as he's not insulting you, he can hold whatever views he wants. If you don't like his views, you can debate him, or ignore him, or build a psychic mind ray to alter his mind to your liking.

"TAI's views on the coup in my country sicken me"

So long as he's not insulting you, he can hold whatever views he wants. If you don't like his views, you can debate him, or ignore him, or build a psychic mind ray to alter his mind to your liking.

>.>

<.<

How did you know?

I don't think we've had Al Qaida supportersActually, we did, but he was just a trolling jackass who didn't last long.

And said his daddy would sue NS (and me specifically) for banning him. Ah... good times... just wouldn't be NationStates if some prat wasn't threatening to sue me.

Actually, we did, but he was just a trolling jackass who didn't last long.

And said his daddy would sue NS (and me specifically) for banning him. Ah... good times... just wouldn't be NationStates if some prat wasn't threatening to sue me.

I have yet to threaten to sue anyone. :p

Can I threaten to sue you? Pleeeeease? ^_^

I don't think we've had Al Qaida supporters or Pol Pot afficionados yet, but all things are possible given time.We've had an Indonesian Al Qaeda supporter, actually.

I have yet to threaten to sue anyone. :p

Can I threaten to sue you? Pleeeeease? ^_^

been done. someone who was trying to sue the mods and Max about allowing racists remarks to remain on the forum.

say... what ever happened with that... I know that poster SAID he reported the forum to his government...

It's quite convienent that H2 made this thread. He's been raging about, a bit too emotional for my tastes and doing a bit of flaming/trolling. I'll just post some stuff for the mods to keep an eye on and decide whether or not to act on his multiple offenses in this one thread.

Also, I can't help but feel he is trolling by responding to my posts with emotionally charged outbursts and ignoring the facts and sources I am presenting to him, choosing instead to "shout" at me in CAPS and make emotional attacks on my character instead of attacking and debating the sources/facts that I showed him (which he has ignored over and over again)

Trolling by calling me a nazi and an Al Qaida supporter, which is obviously not the case.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14000680&postcount=144


Here again

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14000707&postcount=147

Obviously putting words in my mouth when I never stated, anywhere that, as he quoted me as saying, "I support the mass murder of people who are not like me."

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14000715&postcount=150

Simple flame/flamebating. Clear and obvious.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14000792&postcount=169
It was a source I used in my research paper on Pinochet and the Junta last semester.

Did they take it with all the yellowish-white stains?

Other poster, Sdaeriji, calls H2 also on the flaming and all around rudeness:

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14000839&postcount=177

Another poster, Intangelon, also calls H2 on his flaming and poor conduct:

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14001855&postcount=244

Just bringing this to your attention, Mods.

YOU flamebaited FIRST when YOU said you know what's best for US:

Because you were like a child and we obviously knew what was best for you.

How do you expect me, a citizen from the country you support the rape of, to react? You openly claimed a right to install dictatorships in MY country. That's flamebaiting.

Not that it matters, since Tsaraine, who I saw looking at that thread lots of times, didn't react to any post.

And yes, when you support dictatorships, you DO support whatever crimes they commit. And when one supports murder done in the name of any ideology, yes, one does support murder done in the name of them all. That's a statement of fact.

Calm down, cool off, and shut up, both of you. This isn't General.

I glanced casually at one link and read both posts, and it appears more like histrionic debating styles than actual trolling and flamebaiting. I don't have time right now for an exhaustive review.

One of us will review the links above to see if there was any rulebreaking. In the meantime, lay off of each other.