Caveats:
1. If this is not the appropriate forum for this thread, I ask that it be moved to the appropriate forum and reviewed by the appropriate mods, admins, etc.
2. This thread is not a request for an appeal of a moderator ruling. Any moderator rulings mentioned in this thread are solely for evidential support for the need of the changes I am proposing.
Proemium:
The NationStates website advertises itself as a politically neutral site wherein any number of opinions may be expressed, so long as they do not fall under a given set of prohibited categories, namely, and I quote from the FAQ ( http://www.nationstates.net/page=faq ): "Any content that is: obscene, illegal, threatening, malicious, defamatory, spam." In explanation of the ban on malicious content, we read ( https://forum.nationstates.net/viewtopi ... 6&t=217052 ) that what is prohibited is "The "malicious" category includes material that a reasonable person would believe endorses or celebrates violence against real-life people." I'll assume, of course, that "defamatory" shall be understood according to the legal sense. Note that for a defamation claim to stick, the one defaming must: 1. be speaking falsely, 2. believe that he is speaking falsely (in order for defamation simply to occur) 3. cause an actual concrete loss to the person being defamed (in order for there to be a defamation case).
The same FAQ mentioned previously guarantees me the right to say whatever I want, so long as what I say doesn't fall under any of those restricted categories. I quote:
"What can I post?
You can discuss and argue about almost anything, so long as it's vaguely relevant to politics or NationStates and doesn't fall into any of the categories below. You don't have to be politically correct, but you must maintain a minimum standard of behavior."
In the rules section (viewtopic.php?f=16&t=260044 ) furthermore, we are told, and I quote:
"Note on Mod Oppression and Mod Bias: NationStates moderation is based on acting against rule-breaking in the games and the forums. Political opinions do not factor into official decisions by moderators. We make our rulings and interpretations as official representatives of NationStates, and are acting in the name of Max Barry. Our only agenda is RULES ENFORCEMENT. All viewpoints are acceptable so long as they are argued within the rules."
The apolitical and neutral nature of moderation activity, furthermore, is further emphasized in the explanations of appeals proceedings.
In sum, I wish to stress this fact: Nationstates advertises itself as a site in which free speech is actively protected, on an apolitical, unbiased and neutral basis, so long as the speech doesn't fall under the list of prohibited categories of speech (of which, I can only assume, the further rules are mere elaborations).
PROBLEM:
In point of fact, however, the moderators do not actually govern the site on this basis. There is a clear liberal bias, if not in intent, then definitely in impact. I wish to call attention to the fact that in the Orlando Shooting thread which was trawled, it was the anti-Muslim, anti-immigration conservatives in the thread who received the harshest and most penalties, whereas the liberals received the lightest and fewest punishments.
This is not an isolated incident. I have been banned for saying that if sex and gender are the same, then transgendered persons are mentally deranged. I have received a warning or worse for asserting that transgendered persons who do not reveal their birth-sex to their sexual partners are, in effect, committing rape. I have received a ban for endorsing US acts of war against nations which facilitate terrorism.
Say what you want, but the protection of my free-speech rights advertised by this site have not been protected, simply because I happened to express views which other people found offensive, or else, I expressed these views in a way which people deemed (though was not expressed for the sake of being) offensive, which is precisely what the Nation-States FAQ, rules section, etc. guarantee protections against.
The simple fact, furthermore, is that the problem does not lie merely with the bias of the predominately liberal moderation team which seem to have heavy "SJW" leanings (I apologize for the use of the term; I use it simply for lack of a better one), but with an expanded ruleset which lends itself, if not to actual liberal moderator abuse/censorship, then at least to the occasion and appearance of liberal moderator abuse/censorship.
And if you examine the previous moderator actions, you will find, I am sure, a disproportionate impact on conservative posters.
The simple fact is, moderators, if your site advertises apolitical, unbiased moderation and gaurantees me the right to say whatever I want within the given limitations, then I have every right to expect a moderation team, a rule-set, etc. which facilitates that.
In fact, what we are actually faced with is rampant liberal bias and an a priori prejudice against conservative points of view facilitated/build into the very ruleset itself.
Therefore, I propose:
1. That the rule against advocating death be deleted and replaced with "You will not make death threats or incite, or otherwise, encourage anyone to illegal acts of homicide (including, but not limited to, suicide).
As it stands, the rule against advocating death is:
i. Prejudicial against conservative points of view (which may include advocacy of such things as the death penalty, acts of war, justified use of lethal force both by policemen (in carrying out their duties) and private citizens (in self-defense).
and
ii. Unequally enforced. Last I checked, persons who are "pro-choice" (i.e., advocate, from the conservative point of view, the killing/death of unborn persons) are not actively censored by the moderation team.
If you answer 2, moderators, by saying that unborn persons are not actually persons, and, therefore, the advocating death rule does not apply, then you only reveal your own biases and your inability to carry out your moderator duties in a fair, unbiased and a-political manner.
Again, mods, when's the last time you banned a liberal for expressing support for euthanasia/physician assisted suicide?
You haven't? "And it's OK because that's OK?"
Once again, you reveal your own biases and inability to do what you're supposed to be doing.
Therefore, the advocating death rule itself, given the internal logic of what this site gaurantees (a-political moderation), must be stricken down.
2. The rule against trolling must be stricken from the ruleset.
i. This rule is used as a "catch all" excuse by the moderation team to ban people who say things deemed offensive to them and to the (liberal) NSG community. I quote the moderator who relatively recently ruled against me:
"If you want to make those comments which you believe are perfectly fine, then I suggest finding a forum of like-minded people who will applaud them."
IN OTHER WORDS:
"I don't like what you are saying. Stop saying things I don't like!"
The rule against trolling often is used (at least against me), not to censor speech whose only aim is to offend, but to censor any speech which is found offensive, which the FAQ specifically tells me should not be happening:
"People get offended at different things, so first make sure it falls into one of the above categories. If it does, please report it to the game moderators using the Getting Help page, or if it's in the forums, to the Moderation forum."
Again:
"You do not have to be politically correct."
2. This rule is not and cannot be applied fairly by a biased, liberal moderation team. What's considered offensive is relative to different sets of people. What a "SJW" (again, sorry for the term, but I don't know of a better one) finds offensive will be different from what a Muslim finds offensive will be different from what a Christian finds offensive.
I find it offensive when liberals dehumanize unborn persons by calling them "parasites" and "blobs of cells," when atheists make one-line posts in a thread to the effect of "God doesn't exist, lol," etc.
But those things are not censored by the mods.
The moderator use of the trolling rule reflects their own liberal presuppositions and points of view. And even if they didn't, once again, the rule presents the APPEARANCE of bias/conflicts of interest. Giving the moderators the ability to give out bans for what they personally deem offensive gives at least the APPEARANCE of moderator bias against conservatives and in favor of liberals, and even the mere appearance is unacceptable.
3. The structure of the rule itself, as commonly quoted (i.e., saying that all x's are y's) is de iure prejudicial against any number of political or ideological beliefs, namely, those which take the form of a universal affirmative propositions. Why shouldn't I be able to express such opinions? Are all universal affirmative propositions false? Take a controversial one: "All transgendered persons suffer from a mental disorder." You very well might find that offensive. But the simple fact is that, if liberals are wrong and conservatives are correct (i.e., in saying that transgenderism is a mental disorder), it's a true universal affirmative proposition.
Again, why should there be a rule against my saying and giving arguments in favor of the proposition all Muslims, insofar as Muslims, cannot be good western citizens?
You'll answer that it's offensive, and I'll respond with arguments for the truth of the proposition. Some truths take the form of a universal affirmative proposition. Some true universal affirmative propositions are truths to which some people take offense.
Again, why shouldn't I be able to say that the State should put all persons guilty of serial murder to death?
Why should I be prevented, from the get go, from expressing such beliefs? The FAQ explicitly gives me permission to do so.
In fact, if you read the actual rule, the intent of the rule is perfectly clear:
"like 'ALL JEWS ARE [insert vile comment here]' for example."
The original intent of that rule obviously was not to censor all universal affirmative propositions (offensive or otherwise), but categorical insults. In fact, the moderation team and NSG community, however, have taken this perfectly reasonable rule (no categorical insults) and twisted it to suit their own liberal biases (no universal affirmative propositions involving people AT ALL, because there's no such thing as true universal affirmative propositions, because relativism and subjectivism, right?).
4. It's a rule that requires you to judge somebody's intent or motivations, which should be utterly irrelevant when adjudicating a case. Either a wrongful act has been committed or not, independently of intent.
5. The rule is superfluous. There already are and should be rules against posting inherently offensive or frivolous content (e.g., spam, flaming, etc). The addition of a rule against trolling (which can only be adjudicated from a viewpoint of prejudice/bias) adds nothing useful to the currently existing ruleset other than the opportunity to stifle political/ideological dissidence.
6. It allows moderators, as written and understood, to censor/take action against people who spoke in only prima facie universal affirmative form, simply for not speaking in an unnatural and grammatically pedantic way. "Liberals sure do like bernie sanders" may be taken as offending against the "All x's are y's" rule...because you are simply missing the obvious meaning of the sentence "A whole lot of liberals, especially the ones that I know of and have encountered, sure do like bernie sanders."
Which leads me to:
7. The rule cannot be fairly applied by practically any moderator (whether biased or not) because every linguistic act, as such, finds itself and takes determinate meaning and realization in a determinate context. Unless a mod goes through the entire conversation in which the linguistic act takes place (which mods generally do not do), you simply cannot make a reasonable attempt to ascertain the intent of a given speaker (which you shouldn't be doing in the first place, mind you).
In short: Get rid of the trolling rule (a mere ploy for liberal censorship) and replace it with rules against pre-determined classes of speech which do not require a judgment call of "intent" on the part of the presiding moderator, rules which are not inherently prejudicial against socially conservative points of view.
3. I furthermore insist that the NationStates website instate the following rules specifically for the moderation team:
A. Only moderators who have similar ideological/religious/political views to the alleged offending party may make a ruling on so called "judgement calls." I.e., if it's not immediately clear that a given post violates a rule (other than the ones I have proposed to be stricken down), then only a moderator who would otherwise sympathize with that poster may make that call.
There is no such thing as an apolitical or unbiased ruling when it comes to matters of politics and religion. A "SJW" (again, simply for lack of a better term) cannot make a fair ruling either for or against a conservative. He has a vested interest, from the get go, in taking action against said conservative and interpreting him in an unfair way.
B. Only moderators who have similar ideological/religious/political views to the alleged offending party may resolve appeals.
For the same reason as the above.
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.
IN SUM:
The Nationstates website advertises itself as gauranteeing free-speech and unbiased, politically unmotivated, neutral moderation, but has a moderation record, a composition of its practically all liberal moderation team and (at least informal) rule set which prejudices AGAINST conservative subscribers and IN FAVOR of liberal subscribers, contra the liberties gauranteed, in writing, on the site FAQ and rules page.
I hereby propose these rule changes to the moderators in the interest of actually aligning the ruleset and moderating practices with the expressed site philosophy.
