NationStates Jolt Archive

Under the new scheme of infraction versus punishment, this has got to be worth at least a week ban, no?

"...all crimes against property are equally bad and equally dire, and deserve punishment by torture and painful execution..."

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14799466&postcount=122

It's a stupid statement, but I don't think it's actionable.

Not a mod, by any means.

Doesn't appear to be actionable to me, sorry.

The same thread has a similar, but slightly more detailed post, which garnered 4 times the response I suggested. And that was parody.

I'd hate to think there was a double standard.

Slightly more detailed?

If you can't see the difference between this:
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14796472&postcount=95

and this:
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14799466&postcount=122

then it is not a fault of moderation or double standards.

If you can't see the difference between this:
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14796472&postcount=95

and this:
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14799466&postcount=122

then it is not a fault of moderation or double standards.

If you think Heikoku's parodical post was four times as bad as suggesting that anyone who steals anything deserves to be tortured and murdered... then I'd maybe agree.

But, apparently, torture and murder isn't even actionable. If the right people say it.

It's Eutrusca all over again. Bluth won't get so much as a smacked wrist till HE talks about wearing a bomb into a mosque.

But, apparently, torture and murder isn't even actionable. If the right people say it.

Such as when Heikoku says it:

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14617499&postcount=22

Such as when Heikoku says it:

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14617499&postcount=22

What's your point?

That bad calls excuse bad calls?

Or that the apparent mitigation was that Dr Laura, like Savage, is unlikely to read this site.

The problem would be that Bluth said that ANYONE who takes ANY property, should be murdered and tortured. So - no parallel.

What's your point?

That bad calls excuse bad calls?

Or that the apparent mitigation was that Dr Laura, like Savage, is unlikely to read this site.

The problem would be that Bluth said that ANYONE who takes ANY property, should be murdered and tortured. So - no parallel.Actually, he said tortured and painfully executed. Subtle difference, but important non the less.

One was a detailed description toward a single person, the other was a exaggerated viewpoint.

Or are you suggesting that people who support capital punishment should be banned too?

The mods are not going to bright line rule it, so give it up.

For those who refuse to see the difference, allow me to spell it out:

Bluth Corporation's remark was not graphic. It didn't threaten a specific person.

Heikoku2's remark was graphic - graphic does immediately imply images; wording can be graphic when the right adjectives are used. His/her remarks named specific people.

The mods are not going to bright line rule it, so give it up.

:p Don't tell me what I'm going to and not going to do.

For those who refuse to see the difference, allow me to spell it out:

Bluth Corporation's remark was not graphic. It didn't threaten a specific person.

Heikoku2's remark was graphic - graphic does immediately imply images; wording can be graphic when the right adjectives are used. His/her remarks named specific people.

:p Don't tell me what I'm going to and not going to do.

The word 'torture' is graphic.

Yes, Heikoku specified one person (or some persons), but obviously in parody of what Savage himself is famed for.

On the other hand - Bluth didn't specify a person... and that's somehow better? Okay. Now I don't have to say that parents who have their children circumcised should be facing legal action - I can say they should be tortured to death - with mod approval.

That bad calls excuse bad calls?

Except the moderators did not make a bad call. Bluth expressed an opinion that was general in terms. Heikoku's was graphic and detailed about what he wanted to do to a named person.

That would be my interpretation of the rules. Until Tuesday, my only job is to interpret rules. Granted, in my case, the rules in question are baseball rules, but still.

Except the moderators did not make a bad call. Bluth expressed an opinion that was general in terms. Heikoku's was graphic and detailed about what he wanted to do to a named person.


So... saying 'everyone should be painfully tortured to death' is okay, but saying one person should be is bad?

So... saying 'everyone should be painfully tortured to death' is okay, but saying one person should be is bad?
Yes.

"Everyone" is a general statement, not directed at any given individual.
"This person" is not a general statement, as it is directed at a specific person and could be construed as a legitimate threat, no matter how likely or unlikely it is for that person to actually see it.

I've reviewed the action taken, and see nothing bad, wrong, or double standard about the calls made. What I do see however, is an awful lot of rules-lawyering, to which I remind people that we have to handle things on a case-by-case basis, accounting for user history, prior infractions, general patterns of conduct, and so on.

Now, as the case is closed, so is this thread.

EDIT: Whoops posted after Reppy. Sorry!

The word 'torture' is graphic.
No, that word in and of itself is not graphic. Describing torture step by step the way Heikoku did *IS* graphic

Yes, Heikoku specified one person (or some persons), but obviously in parody of what Savage himself is famed for.
Well then... whoever said Savage was PG-13? There are things said elsewhere in the world that are not acceptable on this forum.

On the other hand - Bluth didn't specify a person... and that's somehow better? Okay. Now I don't have to say that parents who have their children circumcised should be facing legal action - I can say they should be tortured to death - with mod approval.
Bluth didn't go into exquisite detail what he thought (or quoting) should be done to the unnamed people. And your point about circumcision should get you laughed at in a debate, but I wouldn't rule it actionable.