NationStates

Posted: **Sun Apr 12, 2015 6:50 pm**

Ranoria wrote:If she IS elected, there's an AR-15 round with her name on it.

Posted: **Sun Apr 12, 2015 8:28 pm**

A former business competitor of mine occasionally told his customers that he had a shotgun shell with my name on it. When he died, the executor of his estate (a mutual friend) actually delivered a red shotgun shell with my name written on it with a Sharpie. He didn't own a shotgun, so the worst he would have been able to do would be to throw it at me.

In other words, not every "threat" is advocating death. Let's apply a little common sense rather than reporting every single instance of hyperbole.

Posted: **Sun Apr 12, 2015 10:11 pm**

Frisbeeteria wrote:A former business competitor of mine occasionally told his customers that he had a shotgun shell with my name on it. When he died, the executor of his estate (a mutual friend) actually delivered a red shotgun shell with my name written on it with a Sharpie. He didn't own a shotgun, so the worst he would have been able to do would be to throw it at me.

In other words, not every "threat" is advocating death. Let's apply a little common sense rather than reporting every single instance of hyperbole.

Okay, I'm sorry, and will take a warn for spamming Moderation if that's what's called for here, but...really?

A business competitor of yours, who I will assume was a known entity to you, and about whom you could properly gauge the threat level or lack thereof is not the same thing as someone on the internet stating that there is an AR-15 round with the name of a well-known and highly controversial public figure on it, especially not when said round is linked to her winning the goddamned Presidency. This constitutes an actual threat. Your call was a bad one. Whether or not I have the right to appeal in this circumstance, I am begging any other moderator or admin to look into this.

Posted: **Sun Apr 12, 2015 10:26 pm**

What would you suggest the mods do? Forward the information to The Secret Service? I can tell you right now as a member of law enforcement (Canadian I must admit) who was assigned to a protective detail, these kind of threats happen all the time against political figures. Admin would be doing themselves no favors turning that info over to authorities, lest they bring the wrath of the FBI and NSA down on top of us all. They would act on that information, and quite possibly bring down the site scouring every post for political threats of any kind. If that post had clear intentions on it, and credible information, then yes it would be considered a threat. That was just someone being a clown, behind what they think is internet anonymity.

As much as it pains me to say this, Fris made the correct assessment.

I apologize for interjecting myself in this report thread, but I felt the information was relevant.

Posted: **Sun Apr 12, 2015 10:29 pm**

Jean Pierre Trudeau wrote:What would you suggest the mods do? Forward the information to The Secret Service? I can tell you right now as a member of law enforcement (Canadian I must admit) who was assigned to a protective detail, these kind of threats happen all the time against political figures. Admin would be doing themselves no favors turning that info over to authorities, lest they bring the wrath of the FBI and NSA down on top of us all. They would act on that information, and quite possibly bring down the site scouring every post for political threats of any kind. If that post had clear intentions on it, and credible information, then yes it would be considered a threat. That was just someone being a clown, behind what they think is internet anonymity.

As much as it pains me to say this, Fris made the correct assessment.

I apologize for interjecting myself in this report thread, but I felt the information was relevant.

Since I'm talking about administrative action rather than law enforcement action, no, your information is totally irrelevant.

Posted: **Sun Apr 12, 2015 11:07 pm**

Even if one were to accept this as a viable threat, it still does not say 'I have a bullet with her name on it'. It could mean anyone. Be incensed all you like, but it is vague enough, and not nearly actionable enough given the context and typical 'internet tough guy' one-off response there, that I agree with Fris on it not worth a warning. Mind, that is 'as it stands' from what I'm reading there in the report. Does not give carte blanche to anyone to start tossing around vague threats without being specific on themselves being the ones making them in order to skirt rules, etc. We get that 'Oh I see, so I can ...' response far too often, even if it should be clear that is not at all what's being said.

There's plenty of people that aren't well liked by some. There's plenty of talk about these very public persons that often goes over the top, due to the impossibility, or at the very least, improbability of anything ever coming of it. "I am so going to kill you," would be warnable by the same token, in spite of it being delivered sarcastically.

I do not see this as an ominous post of impending death threat, sorry.

Posted: **Sun Apr 12, 2015 11:58 pm**

I'm sorry, but with all due respect: How is saying (paraphrased) "if she is elected, there's a bullet with her name on it" in a thread about Hillary Clinton and her likely run for the presidency vague enough that it could be a threat to anyone? Yes, this person is not threatening anyone on NS, but holy shit, I feel like people here should not be threatening to assassinate public figures and I'm pretty sure that this sort of (actually very specific) threat has resulted in red text in the past.

edit: To be perfectly clear, this is a request for yet another look.

Posted: **Mon Apr 13, 2015 8:53 am**

Seriously? I know other people have put their two cents in, but I'd like to say something too. Is it suddenly the policy of Moderation that something can only be taken literally? This is quite clearly threatening to kill her. To suggest that it could mean something akin to the scenario Fris posed is frankly absurd.

Posted: **Mon Apr 13, 2015 1:07 pm**

I expect Fris to do all kinds of mental acrobatics to justify doing nothing, but DLN? I'm surprised.

Posted: **Mon Apr 13, 2015 1:20 pm**

Dakini wrote:I'm sorry, but with all due respect: How is saying (paraphrased) "if she is elected, there's a bullet with her name on it" in a thread about Hillary Clinton and her likely run for the presidency vague enough that it could be a threat to anyone? Yes, this person is not threatening anyone on NS, but holy shit, I feel like people here should not be threatening to assassinate public figures and I'm pretty sure that this sort of (actually very specific) threat has resulted in red text in the past.

edit: To be perfectly clear, this is a request for yet another look.

Request noted, it is under discussion.

The Batorys wrote:I expect Fris to do all kinds of mental acrobatics to justify doing nothing, but DLN? I'm surprised.

Considering your record take a *** One day ban for baiting and spamming moderation ***

Posted: **Tue Apr 14, 2015 8:07 pm**

After reviewing the post and discussing it amongst the moderation staff, we've decided to reverse the decision and designate the post as trolling: viewtopic.php?p=24214304#p24214304

Posted: **Wed Apr 15, 2015 8:57 am**

Thank you for taking the time to do this.

NationStates

[report] Advocating death in Clinton thread

[report] Advocating death in Clinton thread