NationStates Jolt Archive

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14620589&postcount=64

The last sentence. Mods only, please.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14620589&postcount=64

The last sentence. Mods only, please.

As well as a goodly part of the rest...

The first part of his post is an expression of his opinion. It may differ from yours, but it is not trolling.

Of the rest, the suggestion that you look forward to the legal execution of Christians is flaming. (Unless you have expressly made such a statement on this site, in which case it is not.)

Also, this comment --Or maybe I just allow myself to think and say that because I know it will bug you to no end.:)

-- is flamebait, despite the smiley. Yellow card.

Of the rest, the suggestion that you look forward to the legal execution of Christians is flaming. (Unless you have expressly made such a statement on this site, in which case it is not.)

I haven't. :p

It is a very interesting day when this is reported and disciplined as a personal attack, despite Heikoku's repeated calls to violence against other posters and public figures in general.

Could a Jolt forum moderator please provide me with the postal address for your legal department before you delete my nation?

And flaming. Or baiting.

Along with... threat of legal action against NSG.

Addressed (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14621686&postcount=145).

Heikoku, I have researched your posts for the past three weeks, and I cannot find any item which supports my contention that you publicly wished evil on any religious group, although it is my firm belief that these statements have been made in the past, beyond the three week scope of my ability to track down.

I apologize for stating that you had said this.

I do call into question your using mods as weapons for my comment, which I felt was reasonable and balanced in the light of your attitude and previous posts. It led me to post recklessly (for which I alone am responsible.) I hope that you will engage me on the merits next time we are in a discussion instead of reporting me or having someone else report me.

It's not mods as a weapon. You actually DID accuse him of calling for violence against other posters, which he did not do. He is allowed to report libelous statements about him.

Please, just go back to posting and stop with the apology-that's-not-an-apology.

Heikoku, I have researched your posts for the past three weeks, and I cannot find any item which supports my contention that you publicly wished evil on any religious group, although it is my firm belief that these statements have been made in the past, beyond the three week scope of my ability to track down.

I apologize for stating that you had said this.

I do call into question your using mods as weapons for my comment, which I felt was reasonable and balanced in the light of your attitude and previous posts. It led me to post recklessly (for which I alone am responsible.) I hope that you will engage me on the merits next time we are in a discussion instead of reporting me or having someone else report me.

Okay. I got banned for a day. And I find he didn't, and he actually posted this kind of thing on moderation?

What evidence does he have that I called for violence? What evidence does he have that I used mods as weapons? What evidence does he have that I had someone else report him?

I got banned for saying I'd enjoy seeing him punished, y'know, after he baited me. He threatened legal action against NSG (a bannable offense by itself, as Ard said: "Please note, however, that baseless, mischievous or frivolous threats of legal action against NS are a bannable offence." ), baited me repeatedly, and then baited me again on moderation, after getting a yellow card for the same behavior.

Even Kat called his apology "not-an-apology".

Will anything at all happen to him?

Heikoku, to be fair, from reading the thread and Ard's comments, I think it's safe to say she found that you were gloating.

You may want to dial that back a bit.

Heikoku, to be fair, from reading the thread and Ard's comments, I think it's safe to say she found that you were gloating.

You may want to dial that back a bit.

Okay, Kat, and I got punished for it. But Ard herself said threatening legal action - which he did - is a bannable offense. And then the guy comes back in moderation to make some of the same statements about me that were treated by Ard as baiting, poorly disguised by what you yourself called an apology-that's-not-an-apology.

Past history, especially current red or yellow cards, have an effect on the level of moderation.

Lack of past history also has an effect on the level of moderation.

And, as always, it is a judgment call.

And, as always, it is a judgment call.

Yup. The legal "threats" were so manifestly ridiculous that I treated them as a "head asplode" incident. I've made allowances before when posters with no negative history suddenly threw a tantrum, and no doubt I will again.

As for the ban, Heikoku, as I've said elsewhere: if you hadn't been collecting our regular-customer cards so enthusiastically, you wouldn't have won the holiday.

EDIT: Just realised that part of the problem may be the word "bannable". Okay: flaming is a bannable offence -- you are able to be banned for it -- but not everyone who flames is banned every time. Mods don't have to ban flamers. All the offences listed in The One-Stop Rules Shop are "bannable", if mods decide circumstances warrant it. But, as Kat said, it's a judgment call.

Maybe I'm pushing my luck here, but I fail to see how it is flaming to suggest that Heikoku wants to see me dead after he not-so-subtly tells me to commit suicide if a bill I don't like is passed in my home state.

I also fail to see why Heikoku should even be allowed to have a 2 after his name and not be IP banned after publicly posting things like "rape bush and kill him slowly" or "have Dr. Laura be raped by a pack of wild hyenas, then have her eyeballs gouged out" and countless other offenses which go beyond simple forum disciplinary action to actual legally actionable offenses.

Finally, I fail to see why mods go so soft on him saying "It's ok, we understand based on your history and posting style that this is normal." How is it normal to say and do these things? How is it slanderous for me to call him on it?

Maybe I'm pushing my luck hereYes, you definitely are pushing your luck.

... but I fail to see how it is flaming to suggest that Heikoku wants to see me dead after he not-so-subtly tells me to commit suicide if a bill I don't like is passed in my home state.

I assume, since you didn't post a link, that your are referring to this (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14620561&postcount=63) exchange:


True, and I am prepared to die for it when it comes to that.

When (not if; when. It will happen, and it will happen within your lifetime) your state passes gay marriage, I'll be assuming you lied if you show up the next day to post your drivel, then.


That is not a call to you to suicide. It is a response to the logic of your claim that you would die if a particular event occurred. Heikoku did not mention suicide. You, in your next post, did.
I also fail to see why Heikoku should even be allowed to have a 2 after his name and not be IP banned after publicly posting things like "rape bush and kill him slowly"
Public figures are public figures. This is a political discussion board and we have no intention of stopping our posters, who are members of the public, from discussing public figures and supporting or objecting to their actions, policies or attitudes. If you do not wish to see politicians criticised, you are in the wrong place.

or "have Dr. Laura be raped by a pack of wild hyenas, then have her eyeballs gouged out" ...

Heikoku's remarks about Dr Laura were brought to Moderation and the complaint ruled on (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14617937&postcount=5). End of story.

... and countless other offenses which go beyond simple forum disciplinary action to actual legally actionable offenses.

And this is where you pushed your luck too far. I pointed out to you earlier that legal threats were bannable offenses. I clearly told both you and Heikoku to stop the "git the law on you" nonsense.

... Finally, I fail to see why mods go so soft on him saying "It's ok, we understand based on your history and posting style that this is normal." How is it normal to say and do these things? How is it slanderous for me to call him on it?

There has been enough bandying-about of legal terms. I won't call it either slander or libel. I'll simply say that if you persist in accusing posters (including mods) of saying or doing what they have not done, if you continue doing what two mods have told you not to do, you must expect a short shrift and a long rope.

Which, in this case, consists of a 24-hour ban.

Ard, it should be made somewhat clearer to a few posters that, yes, it is kosher to wish whatever it is on public figures that do not post in this forum. Hell, this is the second time in less than a month that people try to screw me over due to remarks on my wishes towards certain people (and I wasn't half as creative towards Dr. Laura as I can be). It gets aggravating, mainly because I know fully well that I'm within the rules. As for Dr. Laura, I was using her exactly to make this point: That I can wish on or call public figures anything that doesn't involve the posters on this forum, a point that flew over the heads of some to result even in a guy calling for my IP ban. As I said, though, that's not even the beginning of the ill I can creatively wish on certain public figures that do strive to make the world a worse place. Regardless, the suggestion stays: A list of what is NOT actionable added to the one-stop rules...

Side note: "short shrift and a long rope"? That Australian or all kinds of English?

Ard, it should be made somewhat clearer to a few posters that, yes, it is kosher to wish whatever it is on public figures that do not post in this forum.Considering that people post under their nations' names rather than their personal ones, how do you know just which public figures have a presence here on NS?
And if one or more other posters express support for some public figure's views, wouldn't you subsequently "wishing whatever" on that public figure -- rather than just criticising their policies -- constitute flamebaiting of those supporters?

Considering that people post under their nations' names rather than their personal ones, how do you know just which public figures have a presence here on NS?
And if one or more other posters express support for some public figure's views, wouldn't you subsequently "wishing whatever" on that public figure -- rather than just criticising their policies -- constitute flamebaiting of those supporters?

1- "I may be offending them" means squat. If it does begin to mean anything, it's quite easy for someone to make puppets pretending to be a given public figure and lock down debate about anything here.

2- The Ops have repeatedly ruled in my favor on this issue. Flamebaiting is when you deliberately irk the poster, maybe with a comment to the sound of "all people of X ideology should be jailed", not by making a public statement on a public figure. Their support or lack thereof means nothing. I hate GWB. But if I were to try and get someone modded for praising the mass-murderer, I would be the one modded for mods-as-weapons. Conversely, I can say whatever I wish about Bush, and indeed about whoever is not a poster here, and this conversation and the two guys' attempts to get me in trouble for what began as me calling Dr. Laura a moron are getting me closer and closer to driving that point home, GTA style, though, yes, within the rules, in General.

3- I am Brazilian. TAI, for one instance, has repeatedly praised the dictatorships here and in Chile, essentially treating both Brazilians and Chileans as chess pieces in an ego dispute with the USSR. That isn't moddable. This forum being coherent, were some moron to, within the rules, praise 9/11, it wouldn't be moddable either. If THESE aren't moddable, I highly doubt wishing eternal hellish pain on whoever it is that's a public figure and not a poster in this forum would be.

Considering that people post under their nations' names rather than their personal ones, how do you know just which public figures have a presence here on NS?

If Bush, Obama, bin Laden, Castro, Clinton(s), Netanyahu et al care to submit a Getting Help request, mods will deal with their complaints. If not, suck it up, guys. (NOTE: A cheque for a large sum drawn on your personal account and completed with an authenticated signature would be a suitable form of identification. Make it out to Max, we trust him.)

And if one or more other posters express support for some public figure's views, wouldn't you subsequently "wishing whatever" on that public figure -- rather than just criticising their policies -- constitute flamebaiting of those supporters?

Sometimes it does, sometimes it doesn't. Judgment call. Healthy exercise for mods.

2- The Ops have repeatedly ruled in my favor on this issue.

We have repeatedly ruled in favour of the rules.

Conversely, I can say whatever I wish ... about whoever is not a poster here,

No, you can't. You are limited by the rules. The rules are framed to encourage civil debate on all subjects.

... are getting me closer and closer to driving that point home, GTA style, though, yes, within the rules, in General.

Your post history means you are tap-dancing on very thin ice, wearing lead boots. Your PR people should be telling you that a higher profile is inadvisable at this point in time.

Side note: "short shrift and a long rope"? That Australian or all kinds of English?

Shrift: noun from "shrive" -- religious ritual in which person confesses repented sins and is cleansed. Long rope: if you're hanged with a rope too long for your weight and height, you die a long death by strangulation instead of a quick death by having your neck broken when you drop.

So if your shriving is cut short, you die with sins blackening your soul, and if the rope is too long, you die in agony. Found in all kinds of English, but particularly common, for historical reasons, among Scots and Irish.

Snip.

Thanks for the clarification on linguistics.

Regardless, to prevent further incident of another person trying to get me in trouble because they didn't like me calling Dr. Laura a moron (she is), the suggestion that the point is made that, yes, it is okay to insult (very blandly in this case, it's not like I called her the OTHER things she is) a public figure that's not in NSG, the suggestion that it might be good to get some "Things that are not actionable" list stands. To wit, I only expounded on what ELSE I wished on Dr. Laura after proper stimulation towards doing so, and with the express purpose of making a point. And now I see another guy trying to get me perma-banned for something not even considered an offense.

Also, Ard, I added the "though, yes, within the rules" for a reason: Thin ice or not, I am hard-pressed to believe I will be banned regardless of following the rules or not because I annoy a guy that thinks, for instance, that it's "flaming" to call Dr. Laura a moron. It's the second new guy that tries to get me punished for within-the-rules behavior, and my creativity towards Dr. Laura (or whoever else from PNAC), kept within the rules at all times, which, I believe, thin ice or not, would keep me safe, is a way to express my annoyance at it. Not that I intend to make a highly-descriptive list of wishes towards PNAC-person X or Y right now, but I know that, kept within certain parameters, it is within the rules.

The point of having a One-Stop Rules Shop is that it stays short and readable, while establishing general principles on which posters should be able to make their own decisions.

If I added a line saying "Public figures are fair game. Fellow posters are not," and you quoted it at every person who objected to your rather Grand Guignol (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grand_Guignol) style, there would still be threads in Moderation demanding a specific interpretation of the words "public", "figure", "fair" and "game".

Mods work on the (possibly flawed) assumption that NS posters will generally try to act like reasonable people and take responsibility for their own actions, rather than depend on a set of rules to prop up their consciences. More detailed rules just mean more detailed rules-lawyering.

If I added a line saying "Public figures are fair game. Fellow posters are not," and you quoted it at every person who objected to your rather Grand Guignol (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grand_Guignol) style, there would still be threads in Moderation demanding a specific interpretation of the words "public", "figure", "fair" and "game".

You're cultured. I like that. :D

Can I steal this line to refer to my style?

You're cultured. I like that. :D

It's amazing what you can fake after staying awake through most of Film and Television Studies 101, aka "that bludge course".

Can I steal this line to refer to my style?

Feel free, it's not copyright.

It's not all that complimentary, either.

It's amazing what you can fake after staying awake through most of Film and Television Studies 101, aka "that bludge course".

Feel free, it's not copyright.

It's not all that complimentary, either.

1- You stayed awake? How did you manage?

2- It's not about the complimentary, Ard. It's about reality. :p Arguing isn't pretty business, and I'm perfectly willing to debase myself quite a bit to make a point the moment I see my opponent doing the same. It's partially why I have that delightful little card collection (mind you, one yellow card there was given in jest, as I'm sure you know). It's sort of why I take offense at "America-hater" but not at "Arrogant, conceited, presumptuous asshole": The first one isn't true. To wit, my reaction to "Arrogant, conceited, presumptuous idiot" would be "I take offense to that last one. (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/ITakeOffenseToThatLastOne)".

3- I love speaking to you, if for no other reason (Uhm, that does mean "even if I had no other reasons", right?) because of the fact that I learn quite a bit of down-under (said the Brazilian) lingo. :D