by Mega City 5 » Mon Jun 20, 2016 5:01 pm
by Tim-Opolis » Mon Jun 20, 2016 5:24 pm
Mega City 5 wrote:The Nationstates website advertises itself as gauranteeing free-speech
Q: It's free speech, so I can post whatever I like here, right?
A: Ahahahaha! Hahaha! Free speech! No, it's not. I run this web site, see, so you have to play by my rules. It's like my own Father Knows Best state.
<Koth - 06/30/2020> I mean as far as GPers go, Tim is one of the most iconic
by Kryozerkia » Mon Jun 20, 2016 5:25 pm
It's free speech, so I can post whatever I like here, right?
Ahahahaha! Hahaha! Free speech! No, it's not. I run this web site, see, so you have to play by my rules. It's like my own Father Knows Best state.
I got into an argument with this idiot in the forums, and I got deleted and he didn't! How come you allow pro-Catholic argument, but when someone tries to tell the TRUE story of the coming of Christ—
Okay, let me stop you there. It might look as if you are being persecuted for your political views, but what most likely happened is you made a personal attack and your opponent didn't. No matter what the subject matter, if you don't conduct yourself in accordance with the rules of etiquette, you will get into trouble with the moderators. The best way to get your points across in the forums is to remain calm and respect other people's right to disagree with you.
by Idzequitch » Mon Jun 20, 2016 5:28 pm
by Mega City 5 » Mon Jun 20, 2016 5:28 pm
by Ranko Kanzaki » Mon Jun 20, 2016 5:31 pm
Ardoki wrote:Hitler was basically a libertarian, he supported the libertarian ideology of social Darwinism.
by Mega City 5 » Mon Jun 20, 2016 5:33 pm
Ranko Kanzaki wrote:You're browsing a site where the powers that be are actually proud of the fact that they suppress certain speech. Just look at every other complaint about the speech restrictions here and the manner in which the responses are given.
I support certain changes to the speech policies, personally, but they are not going to happen.
by Mega City 5 » Mon Jun 20, 2016 5:42 pm
Idzequitch wrote:Also worth noting that while no opinion is banned outright, there are many opinions that are extremely difficult to argue in favor of without trolling.
by Distantiality » Mon Jun 20, 2016 5:47 pm
Kryozerkia wrote:From the FAQ:It's free speech, so I can post whatever I like here, right?
Ahahahaha! Hahaha! Free speech! No, it's not. I run this web site, see, so you have to play by my rules. It's like my own Father Knows Best state.
I got into an argument with this idiot in the forums, and I got deleted and he didn't! How come you allow pro-Catholic argument, but when someone tries to tell the TRUE story of the coming of Christ—
Okay, let me stop you there. It might look as if you are being persecuted for your political views, but what most likely happened is you made a personal attack and your opponent didn't. No matter what the subject matter, if you don't conduct yourself in accordance with the rules of etiquette, you will get into trouble with the moderators. The best way to get your points across in the forums is to remain calm and respect other people's right to disagree with you.
There is no free speech here.
by Mega City 5 » Mon Jun 20, 2016 5:48 pm
Distantiality wrote:Good job not addressing the underlying complaint of the OP.
by Geilinor » Mon Jun 20, 2016 5:58 pm
Mega City 5 wrote:Idzequitch wrote:Also worth noting that while no opinion is banned outright, there are many opinions that are extremely difficult to argue in favor of without trolling.
You understand that the opinion of what those positions are is going to vary based on the community?
You likely hold positions which would get you banned on a fundamentalist Christian or Muslim board.
Fact is, however, that NationStates explicitly says that we can argue for any position we want, so long as, in effect, we aren't engaging in malicious, illegal, etc. behavior, and that the mods must respect our right to do so.
Again, I provide quotes for all of this in the OP.
by Distantiality » Mon Jun 20, 2016 6:00 pm
Geilinor wrote:Mega City 5 wrote:
You understand that the opinion of what those positions are is going to vary based on the community?
You likely hold positions which would get you banned on a fundamentalist Christian or Muslim board.
Fact is, however, that NationStates explicitly says that we can argue for any position we want, so long as, in effect, we aren't engaging in malicious, illegal, etc. behavior, and that the mods must respect our right to do so.
Again, I provide quotes for all of this in the OP.
If you have been banned from this site, then it was most likely due to a clear rules violation on your part.
by Ratateague » Mon Jun 20, 2016 6:00 pm
Mega City 5 wrote:I simply want a rule-set that permits a level playing field between liberals and conservatives (which currently does not exist).
I fully agree that people shouldn't go around insulting each other, calling each other vulgar names, spamming, etc (though, in fact, liberals already do this with impunity).
But I shouldn't be banned simply for expressing and arguing a position in a language which is natural for someone who holds that position to use.
I'm not arguing for anarchy.
I'm arguing for equity and ideological neutrality on the part of the mods.
The mods should not presuppose, for their moderator activities, that "transgendered women" are either men or women. They should allow us to use whatever pronouns we feel comfortable with.
I got into an argument with this idiot in the forums, and I got deleted and he didn't! How come you allow pro-Catholic argument, but when someone tries to tell the TRUE story of the coming of Christ—
Okay, let me stop you there. It might look as if you are being persecuted for your political views, but what most likely happened is you made a personal attack and your opponent didn't. No matter what the subject matter, if you don't conduct yourself in accordance with the rules of etiquette, you will get into trouble with the moderators. The best way to get your points across in the forums is to remain calm and respect other people's right to disagree with you.
by Mega City 5 » Mon Jun 20, 2016 6:01 pm
Geilinor wrote:If you have been banned from this site, then it was most likely due to a clear rules violation on your part.
by Geilinor » Mon Jun 20, 2016 6:02 pm
Mega City 5 wrote:Geilinor wrote:If you have been banned from this site, then it was most likely due to a clear rules violation on your part.
I've been banned for advocating death (i.e., asserting that the State should conduct lawful and justified acts of war against offending nation-states) and trolling (expressing opinions that liberals don't like). I have yet to be banned for flaming, flame-baiting, etc., i.e., for actually engaging in objectionable behavior.
by Mega City 5 » Mon Jun 20, 2016 6:04 pm
Ratateague wrote:http://forum.nationstates.net/viewtopic.php?p=29039086#p29039086
viewtopic.php?p=29038704#p29038704
viewtopic.php?p=29038821#p29038821
And judging by more of your most recent posts, I would say you are in no position to complain about namecalling. It looks like you're already treading on thin ice as it is. A fair warning from one NS player to another.
/notamod
by Mega City 5 » Mon Jun 20, 2016 6:05 pm
Geilinor wrote:If I recall correctly, you were banned for calling for the destruction of the Middle East.
by Vavax » Mon Jun 20, 2016 6:07 pm
Mega City 5 wrote:Distantiality wrote:Good job not addressing the underlying complaint of the OP.
I've come to expect as much from the mods.
All the more reasons why the last 3 rules I proposed for the mods with respect to themselves are absolutely essential.
by Kryozerkia » Mon Jun 20, 2016 6:10 pm
by Mega City 5 » Mon Jun 20, 2016 6:13 pm
Vavax wrote:I do agree with you that there could be more freedom of speech, however this is a privately owned website, and the owners/moderators/whatever therefore have to right to do whatever they want with it.
On the topic of those, I have to disagree. First how are the moderators supposed to know what the faith, political views, and ideological standpoints one may have, it is frankly a bit unrealistic.
Second that would not end well, for the same reason that having people from an opposite viewpoint would have. It wouldn't be fair, those who had the same views as the mod would more than likely get off easier than the opposing viewpoint.
And once again, mods reserve the right to do as they please
and also this too is unrealistic, a large site like NS can't spend massive amounts of resources on two people who happened to get into a flame war.
Finally, have some respect for the mods, I understand you may not have a good relationship with them but they have a hard job and do a good job at it from my standpoint.'
by Mega City 5 » Mon Jun 20, 2016 6:20 pm
Kryozerkia wrote:A rule isn't thrown out simply because inconvenient for an individual. Even if the position is well articulated.
It's possible to advocate for the death penalty or execution for certain severe crimes.
There is a difference between expressing an unpopular opinion and deliberately trying to provoke individuals through offensive language.
by Maljaratas » Mon Jun 20, 2016 6:32 pm
Mega City 5 wrote:C. Any moderator action which is overturned shall be deemed a case of moderator abuse and shall result in punitive actions against that moderator, up to and including a permaban from the NationStates website, and never less than the punishment unduly administered by that mod himself in that case.
Currently, moderators have no compelling reason to follow the site rules and moderate in a fair, unbiased, a-political manner. If they don't, so what? Even if that 7 day ban gets appealed, that's no skin off of the initial moderator's nose.
If moderators, who have just as much a tendency to act from their own preferences, biases, etc. as anyone else, are going to be in charge of moderating a site in which the subscribers are gauranteed, BY THE RULES, freedom of speech and a-political, neutral, unbiased moderation, then the moderators simply must be given an external check/balance to ensure their compliance with the stated site moderating philosophy.
It's unfair to the unfairly banned user to serve out his ban (later to be overturned), but meanwhile receive no remediation or redress against the offending mod.
by Distantiality » Mon Jun 20, 2016 6:35 pm
Maljaratas wrote:Might it be possible to provide links to examples of the liberals getting away with flaming, trolling, etc
by Maljaratas » Mon Jun 20, 2016 6:36 pm
by Distantiality » Mon Jun 20, 2016 6:37 pm
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: Asuncion City Paraguay, Fort Viorlia, Improper Classifications, Ineva, Zemuria
Advertisement