[Discussion] Reviewing how NS deals with hate speech

[Minoa]

Hi all,

I feel that this is very important, especially in wake of a major debate over hate speech on social media, a major controversy where advertisers have been boycotting YouTube because their adverts were appearing with Neo-Nazi content (CBC, 31 March 2017), and the Finsbury Mosque attacks. I am aware of this post from 2012, but the controversy over hate speech has evolved dramatically since then, and NationStates has clearly become more globalised.

In March this year, I wrote this post, expressing my concern about hate speech on this forum and my belief that NationStates should review how tolerant it should be on extreme views on NationStates General, in order to ensure that we do not decline to the same level of hostile conduct that we have seen with 4chan. In response, The Blaatschapen recommended that I bring up the idea here.

This is my original post that expressed my hopefully understandable concern about extreme views in this forum:

The events of last year is something that led me to think again about the future of NationStates’ approach towards far-right and Neo-Nazi views, and whether NationStates should perhaps toughen its approach to racist content in order to ensure that we do not decline to the same level of hostile conduct that we have seen with 4chan.

The fact that the site banned the ‘echo’ is promising in my opinion but I feel I could do better to toughen its line against inciting racial hatred, as in condoning discrimination and all that hate stuff.

Of course, any action we take needs to balance freedom of expression, although here in Europe we do not see incitement to racial hatred as part of freedom of expression. Norway does have laws against hate speech (Section 135a of the Penal Code, PDF) but is #1 in the World Press Freedom Index this year with a score of 7.60 (range is 0-100, lower is better).

Maybe it is because I try to have really high standards in user conduct, even though I am openly honest about my mental health for the hopefully understandable sake of breaking the stigma (TES, 25 April 2017): while most students in my university were drinking and partying, I used the same time to study and come up with new ideas.

I should add to the first paragraph that another example of extremely hostile conduct is the YouTube comments section. I should add to the second paragraph that I am also concerned about some users making blanket assumptions, particularly the “all Muslims are terrorists” assumption.

I gave myself a bit of time to think about how I could open such a discussion since some groups in the United States see freedom of expression as sacred, regardless of intent.

During this time, I have noticed that:

1. The forum rules does not have a specific rule on hate speech or similar, including incitement to racial hatred, justification for discrimination against certain ethnic/sexual groups, or blanket vilification of foreigners or refugees;
2. Other forums on the internet remove all rule-breaking posts from public view.
3. While Facebook and YouTube has come under heavy fire for not enforcing the rules effectively, both have a policy against hate speech (linky, linky).

Hence, I feel that the main points in this discussion are as follows:

1. How should NationStates deal with extreme views, such as hate speech (including far-right and Neo-Nazi views) more effectively on NationStates General?
2. What do you think about the idea of moving all rule-breaking posts (e.g. this post, which was already addressed with this post) to the evidence locker, instead of keeping it in public view?
3. What do you think about the idea of having a specific rule about hate speech to make things more clearer?
4. What do you think about the idea of extending the report button to the forums? (but not making such function a part of GHR)* (EDIT: withdrawn due to transparency issues)
   
   Another idea I have tabled recently is whether NSG could have mentors, like roleplay mentors, to help people understand politics or society more, and positively encourage those with views of racial hatred to change through dialogue?
   
   * phpBB 3 and later supports the report function out of the box.

To reiterate, any action we take needs to balance freedom of expression, although here in Europe we do not see incitement to racial hatred as part of freedom of expression. Norway does have laws against hate speech (Section 135a of the Penal Code, PDF) but is #1 in the World Press Freedom Index this year with a score of 7.60 (range is 0-100, lower is better).

I understand that is will be a very sensitive topic, but I feel that it is necessary to bring this up in light of the current events. I hope that this is all in good faith, after reading the guidelines – after all, I don't want NationStates to get negative press attention for appearing to promote hate speech.

-- Minoa

Extra: Looking at the replies so far, it is likely that NationStates needs to be clearer in the forum rules about their approach towards hate speech.

[CoraSpia]

If mfreedom of expression requires us dipping to the same level as 4chan, I'm prepared to take that dip.

[Napkiraly]

An absolutely terrible idea, not to mention incredibly biased and one sided.

[Katganistan]

Taking off the mod hat here.

"All Muslims are terrorists" and such like comments are already dealt with under the rules banning trolling. It's textbook "All X = Y" trolling.

The purpose of allowing distasteful opinions to be aired when they are aired civilly is to expose the ideas and to allow them to be argued. Thus, they do not fester in silence with no one to disagree with them, and persons who may not be involved in the discussion as well as people who are might be swayed if they see how illogical the arguments and how reprehensible others see them.

By silencing them entirely, you allow a clannish echo-chamber where all they hear is that they are right, and oppressed, and heroic. By exposing such arguments to being torn down logically, you may change minds -- if not of the participants, then of posters hanging back and observing because they aren't sure which way they really go yet.

[Mefpan]

The forum rules does not have a specific rule on hate speech or similar, including incitement to racial hatred, justification for discrimination against certain ethnic/sexual groups, or blanket vilification of foreigners or refugees;

If you can't convince people that you're right, find better arguments or re-evaluate your own point of view. Don't try to shut them up so you don't have to worry about it.

Other forums on the internet remove all rule-breaking posts from public view.

And I'd rather have rulebreaking posts remain so that people can see what exactly was ruled on. It adds a level of transparency to the entire system of rule enforcement.

While Facebook and YouTube has come under heavy fire for not enforcing the rules effectively, both have a policy against hate speech (linky, linky).

Now if they were consistent in enforcing these rules...

How should NationStates deal with extreme views, such as hate speech (including far-right and Neo-Nazi views) more effectively on NationStates General?

Not. It should not deal with them. Especially since the last couple of years led to words like "far-right", "fascist" and "nazi" being drained of all meaning for the purposes of slamming political opponents with negative labels.
Last I checked, hardcore tankies weren't cracked down on either.

What do you think about the idea of moving all rule-breaking posts (e.g. this post, which was already addressed with this post) to the evidence locker, instead of keeping it in public view?

As I've said before, this is a stupid idea. Leaving the things that people got punished for visible adds a level of transparency to moderation. Make posts and posters disappear without leaving behind visible evidence and the talk of moderator bias will grow even louder.

What do you think about the idea of having a specific rule about hate speech to make things more clearer?

No. People disagree with you. People may have opinions you find abhorrent or disgusting. Get used to it. It's an important skill to have for life outside of the internet.

What do you think about the idea of extending the report button to the forums? (but not making such function a part of GHR)*

For the sake of transparency, I'd also consider it important to be able to see what gets reported, and who does the reporting.

I don't want NationStates to get negative press attention for appearing to promote hate speech.

You think NationStates is a big enough fish on the internet to warrant being reported on by the media.

That's cute.

-- Minoa

You don't need to sign all of your bloody posts with your name. Put it in the signature if you want it to show under every one of them.

[Thyerata]

"All Muslims are terrorists" and such like comments are already dealt with under the rules banning trolling. It's textbook "All X = Y" trolling.

Quite so Kat, but there is more to it then that. I get the impression, based on what I've seen in this forum, that Moderation doesn't have a fixed view on neo-nazis - for example you've allowed nations that parody neo nazism, but you don't allow actual neo nazism (obviously). The trouble with that is that there is then a question over what is a 'parody"?

[Katganistan]

"All Muslims are terrorists" and such like comments are already dealt with under the rules banning trolling. It's textbook "All X = Y" trolling.

Quite so Kat, but there is more to it then that. I get the impression, based on what I've seen in this forum, that Moderation doesn't have a fixed view on neo-nazis - for example you've allowed nations that parody neo nazism, but you don't allow actual neo nazism (obviously). The trouble with that is that there is then a question over what is a 'parody"?

I believe the thread is on banning hate speech on the forums, and not on Gameside matters.

[Herskerstad]

Taking off the mod hat here.

"All Muslims are terrorists" and such like comments are already dealt with under the rules banning trolling. It's textbook "All X = Y" trolling.

There was a massive debate on the X=Y notion and it's nuances, and I will levy Arc's post in said regard.

viewtopic.php?f=16&t=407285&p=31414229#p31414229

This is precisely what Discussion threads are for, and we should welcome Herskerstad's attempts to outline his position clearly and reasonably.

For the record, regardless of Monitor's status as a mod, but acknowledging my own status as an Orthodox Christian, had the post outline by Herskerstad in the OP of this thread been reported as a formal report (as opposed to a moderation discussion), and had that report ended up as my responsibility, I would not have found it actionable.

The key point is that Monitor's post posits that members of a specific group is more likely to engage in a particular pattern of behaviour. This is not the same as making an all X are Y argument. Saying that a particular type of Christian is more likely to be an Islamophobic asshat is not the same as stating that all of that particular type of Christian are Islamophobic asshats. It's an argument for partial correlation, not total overlap.

On the same logic, I also wouldn't have found the hypothetical second example actionable.

However, since I'm specifically named as a counter example of a different type of the nominated group in the post that was considered potentially problematic, I'll openly acknowledge that my opinion possibly don't amount to a hill of beans in this crazy world.

and

In the end, the moderation team are going to make judgement calls on this sort of thing on the basis of our understanding of intent, track record of the poster, and context of the post. Perhaps we don't always get it right, and sometimes it take a little while for a poster to build the necessary track record and reputation (either positively or negatively) that helps facilitate a judgement of intent - but we can generally tell the difference between someone making a constructive if controversial argument, and someone who's trying to use semantics to deliberately weasel their way out of being held to account for breaking the rules. We can also generally identify people who are deliberately tapdancing just this side of openly actionable behaviour.

Not everyone will always agree with us when we make those decisions - which I'm comfortable with - but it's precisely because these things can be judgement calls that we often stress the need to consider the particular context of a post before deciding whether a post is actionable or not. Some decisions are clear cut; but the majority require some level of judgement on all of these factors. And because those judgements will necessarily involve a level of subjectivity, not everyone will always agree with a decision (at which point this paragraph is becoming dangerously circular). For better or for worse, that's an inevitable part of the process.

The short end I got from this is that correlation based on partial inferences are sanctioned, but using said logic only in order to create a toxic environment can lead to some finger wagging. Meaning that there is an admittedly subjective standard of taste that can get enforced, to which the obvious objection can be that it is likely not to behave charitably, as which behaviour I can attest to myself on the site, to the opposition. Internal settling of issues in regards to mods where users will have been smacked around with warnings and bans, inconsistencies, and all manner of less than transparent actions.

Now my greatest concern is that this standard of taste will not merely stifle uncomfortable debates that need to be had in regards to groups, cultures, ideologies, ect to the point that even quoting statistics and what they infer becomes verboten. At that point it's pretty much over, NS will have become a safe space with a pronounced favouritism.

[Minoa]

Taking off the mod hat here.

"All Muslims are terrorists" and such like comments are already dealt with under the rules banning trolling. It's textbook "All X = Y" trolling.

The purpose of allowing distasteful opinions to be aired when they are aired civilly is to expose the ideas and to allow them to be argued. Thus, they do not fester in silence with no one to disagree with them, and persons who may not be involved in the discussion as well as people who are might be swayed if they see how illogical the arguments and how reprehensible others see them.

By silencing them entirely, you allow a clannish echo-chamber where all they hear is that they are right, and oppressed, and heroic. By exposing such arguments to being torn down logically, you may change minds -- if not of the participants, then of posters hanging back and observing because they aren't sure which way they really go yet.

In my opinion, allowing distasteful opinions (particularly anti-Muslim sentiment) to be aired could go in either direction: indeed, one possibility is that it is calmly debunked thoroughly, but I think that it could more likely spread by enticing more people into believing in such beliefs.

In my opinion, I feel that if NationStates stood up against hate speech on NSG, then those who incite racial hatred will realise that more people than now are not interested in their ideas, and may think again.

I believe the thread is on banning hate speech on the forums, and not on Gameside matters.

More particularly the off-topic sections: for clarity, I am not trying to ban parodies, given that the UK’s history of mocking the former Nazi regime to boost morale.

[Napkiraly]

Except actual Nazis are not banned. Use of Nazi symbolism is banned, but being a Nazi is not. As long as they stay within the rules (though that does rarely happen) then they are allowed to be here. As are fascists, Stalinists, National Bolsheviks, etc. Not to mention that Herk's post goes into great depth on how many issues surrounding controversial rhetoric and topics are handled which is adequate for the kind of site this is. When I first joined, there were tons of threads about how Christianity and Christians are evil; you will still find people here who treat Christianity in a hostile manner and the...feeling of their posts when discussing Christians can also have a whiff of hostility and dislike. That's fine as long as they remain within the rules - the same applies to other religious groups here, including Muslims.

[The Empire of Pretantia]

Minoa, I have a foolproof solution to views you consider reprehensible: foe list.

[Kostov]

If you put that nation in question on your foe list then you haven't to read them, and then aren't they annoying you. I did the same by Kannadrickenium, Willania Imperium, West Sylvania and Reich of the New World Order, and you can then just skip them. That's my advice

[Minoa]

Hi,

I understand the friends/foes button, but I feel that it would be divisive and thus I use it very sparingly. I do understand the importance of freedom of expression within the current forum rules, but civility is important, the rising concern about hate speech on the Internet has changed everything, and at present NS does not appear to be clear in the forum rules about its approach towards such, by that term.

[Hirota]

I don't see anything compelling to prompt a rules change.

[Vulgar Bulgar]

I understand the friends/foes button, but I feel that it would be divisive and thus I use it very sparingly. I do understand the importance of freedom of expression within the current forum rules, but civility is important, the rising concern about hate speech on the Internet has changed everything, and at present NS does not appear to be clear in the forum rules about its approach towards such, by that term.

So you "understand the importance of freedom of expression" but want to ostracize people because their views don't conform to your world view, yet refuse to use a tool that would would protect you from those evil facists-nazis because muh h8 speech. Either grow a pair or use the foe tool, you're not special enough for the world to bend to your ideals.

[Napkiraly]

Hi,

I understand the friends/foes button, but I feel that it would be divisive and thus I use it very sparingly. I do understand the importance of freedom of expression within the current forum rules, but civility is important, the rising concern about hate speech on the Internet has changed everything, and at present NS does not appear to be clear in the forum rules about its approach towards such, by that term.

The friend/foe list is divisive, but what you are proposing is not?

[Thyerata]

To be honest I think that we'll just end up seeing a revival of this... viewtopic.php?f=16&t=407285 (long debate but no actual clarification on what the rules mean)

Also, NS can garner press coverage sometimes. Those with longer memories than me will probably remember when [v] had to block the entirety of New Zealand to try to identify a troll...

[Herskerstad]

Hi,

I understand the friends/foes button, but I feel that it would be divisive and thus I use it very sparingly. I do understand the importance of freedom of expression within the current forum rules, but civility is important, the rising concern about hate speech on the Internet has changed everything, and at present NS does not appear to be clear in the forum rules about its approach towards such, by that term.

What would be exceptionally divisive is compelled civility beyond that which is clearly trolling or harassment. The nebulous term of hate speech should not constitute group critics or even some aspersions, but the cheering, encouragement, and advocation of genocide, threats of violence, ect. I find the more American definition of the notion to be more rigorous in that sense than that of Scotland. The thread I went over it had some debate over the rigours and I will admit that some of the definitions I found lacking, but I doubt there is a perfect medium out there.

Take some hypothetical statements of the likes.

A - All Muslims are terrorits
B - Most Muslims are terrorists
C - A great deal of Muslims are terrorists
D - Half of Muslims are terrorists
E - A disturbingly large minority of Muslims are terrorists
F - A minority of muslims are terrorists
G - A tiny minority of Muslims are terrorists
H - No Muslims are terrorists

Now, if by the interpretation given as I understand it in the other thread, only A would be offence worthy as per the rules directly. I suspect B-D would at worst get an ominous looming because it is bad form and afactual. E-H Would likely not get anything of the sort even with H being entirely nonfactual. So we are allowed to err on the side of inaccuracies one way that does not implicate an entire group. Meaning if one said "All Mexicans are drug dealers" would likely end up with a warning, but if someone said "No Mexicans are drug dealers." it would gain no such attention.

Now by nations things get even murkier. Consider some of the following statements.

A - Saudi Arabia is a terror state.
B - Sweden is a terror state.

I would be surprised if A did get a warning, but I would be quite surprised if B did not under certain cirumstances. This is of course excluding metaphorical devices, often ignored in judgement, like satire, bantz, and other such notions. The reason is not so much the opinion but the likely inference of - Sweden takes in a lot of Muslims, and hence is being turned into a terror state, would likely earn warning based on an indirect All X=Y, even though by the direct statement above option B would not get so. Even though both of said examples implies Muslims = Terror increases. However, I would suspect if a strongly Islamic person said B in the context of - Sweden supports wars in the middle east. It would not gain the same. Because its nation = Terror. Had the implications been Swedes = Terror, then it would likely suffer the same fate as this versions B.

Then you got general statements of the likes, and imagine them within their likely context. Lets do a full alphabet of statements that are in themselves dubious, but may or may not be eligible for warnings.

A - Latin America is a hotbed of failed states.
B - The west is patriarchal.
C - Old white men are patriarchal
D - Africans are genetically superior to whites.
E - Whites are genetically superior to blacks.
F - Noble prize winner James Watson says there are genetic, and not just environmental distinctions in the difference between the average IQ of different races.
G - Travis Bradberry proves that women are smarter than men.
H - Bell-Curve inventor Charles Murray says there are genetic, and not just environmental distinctions in the difference between the average IQ between blacks and whites, therefore whites are superior.
I - Honourable Sheikh Jordan says Jews are the pigs and apes of the world.
J - White Americans invented slavery and are still slave owners.
K - Africans enslaved themselves.
L - Africans enslaved themselves and deserved it.
M - White males are responsible for all the problems in the world.
N - Blacks are responsible for all the crime in the inner cities.
O - Men should be castrated.
P - Men should live only to serve women.
Q - Men should serve women because women have served men for thousands of years.
R - Men should become the slaves of women.
S- Outside of the kitchen and bedroom, women have no place in society.
T - France is a lazy, shitty, and unproductive country.
U - French are lazy, shitty, and unproductive.
V - Idi amin did nothing wrong.
W - Hitler did nothing wrong.
X - Stalin did nothing wrong.
Y - Churchill did nothing wrong.
Z - Kelloggs is the best cereal ever.

Now, Z is likely the only one that would get you insta-DEATED. But I do imagine a couple of the above will run into phrasings and context being more central to our sentiments than their effects. Take R and S for example, they both carry the same message, but I imagine the context and sentiments being something that could well see S struck down Harder than R. I've seen dispersions on nations gained bans, even in comedic context, although I disagree with such as nations do not equal it's populace directly, and falls under the B - D on the first listing. The examples of T and U are illustrative of that, if one can paint with broad strokes states, then one should be able to do the same with countries. I've seen someone who called Muhammad, the central figure of Islam, Old Mo, getting struck down which borders on blasphemy laws in my book. Take the listings of V-Y. W would almost certainly get a ban because of the implications of the holocaust, but would X, responsible for a couple of genocides and ethnic cleansing of the tartars? Would V be protected despite being arguably more comedically worse? I doubt Y would get a warning, not that he did not do some mildly put it dubious stuff to certain groups as well. Would I gain a warning? I doubt it would if the word honourable was removed as it would then just be stating an uncomfortable opinion of a rabble rouser. Would C get a warning? If not because it's so nebulous, how could we then not apply the same standard to other group aspersions? F states an opinion, but does adding credence to a similar opinion as in H constitute hate speech even given the community it comes from?

I am not going to lie, I found a couple of inconsistencies of my own going through said list and I feel context, sentiments, intent, wording, end result, advocacy, and all manner of different distinctions that has to be balanced in making a judgement on them. The goal should be to have as equal to a universal standard one could have and at least be aware of ones own biases. Not saying the job is easy because it is not, but at times the behaviour of certain subsets of the moderation team has appeared downright tribal in regards to some dealings I've witnessed. Which is why, even in a hypothetical world where it could be perfectly policed, I would not be comfortable with such implementations.

[Thermodolia]

If mfreedom of expression requires us dipping to the same level as 4chan, I'm prepared to take that dip.

Freedom of expression doesn't exist here

[Herskerstad]

If mfreedom of expression requires us dipping to the same level as 4chan, I'm prepared to take that dip.

It would be the best thing that had happened to NS if we got some quest threads up.

[Raionitu]

Hi,

I understand the friends/foes button, but I feel that it would be divisive and thus I use it very sparingly. I do understand the importance of freedom of expression within the current forum rules, but civility is important, the rising concern about hate speech on the Internet has changed everything, and at present NS does not appear to be clear in the forum rules about its approach towards such, by that term.

The problem with making the rules super clear cut is that it enables rule lawyering. The gist of the rules is "don't be a dick", and if someone is being intentionally hateful/flaming they will likely get punished, but they aren't gonna get punished just for having a negative view of group X. I think the rules are just fine because they allow enough freedom for (almost) anything to be said, but enough restriction that it has to be kept at least somewhat civil.
If they made super specific rules like you seem to want, you would get people toeing the line then pointing out how the nuance of the rule meant that it was legal. No one wants to deal with that.

[Tinhampton]

If mfreedom of expression requires us dipping to the same level as 4chan, I'm prepared to take that dip.

Freedom of expression doesn't exist here

Nor, mfor that matter, does mfreedom of expression. If Max Barry wants to put out a mandate that all words beginning with "F" must be prefixe with an "M", then his word goes.

[USS Monitor]

[*]The forum rules does not have a specific rule on hate speech or similar, including incitement to racial hatred, justification for discrimination against certain ethnic/sexual groups, or blanket vilification of foreigners or refugees;

I don't support adding such a rule. Trolling covers the most vitriolic hate speech and takes the most extreme and unreasonable racists out of circulation when they earn themselves a DOS. If people have some racist views, but are willing to have a reasonable debate, it is worthwhile to engage in conversation and introduce them to other points of view. You'll never reach people and change their minds by refusing to even talk to them.

[*]Other forums on the internet remove all rule-breaking posts from public view.

There was recently a discussion backstage about removing troll posts from view. I think there's some value in leaving mild rule-breaking visible to help people understand where the line is, and so that the flow of conversation is not disrupted by missing posts.

But [v] asked us to be a bit more proactive about removing "GAS THE KIKES!!!" type of troll posts.

[*]What do you think about the idea of extending the report button to the forums? (but not making such function a part of GHR)*
* phpBB 3 and later supports the report function out of the box.

The report button is used by mods as our "2nd opinion flare."

Creating a separate feature that players could use to report forum posts would require some tricky modification of the forum software. Also, it would be open to abuse by people that just go down a thread reporting every post as a form of spam, or people who get mad at another player and report all of their posts.

[Luminesa]

I recall standing on my college campus several months ago, close the the Student Union, and a group of street preachers were making generally hateful and racist arguments. Anything from anti-Semitic remarks in general to remarks against African-American students to even (perhaps a little more comedically) girls who are blondes are generally not very intelligent. As the number of students around the group increased, generally these discussions split into groups around specific preachers. I got caught in a conversation with a Reform Jew and an African-American serviceman (not sure what branch of the armed forces he served) who were discussing this exact topic. The Reform Jew was saying the street preachers should have been dragged off campus (really my opinion, if I wanna be totally honest). The serviceman, however, noted that there are no hate-speech laws in the Constitution, and that they had a freedom to say what they wanted. Technically, neither was wrong, though I stepped away from such for some time, as I got lost in the argument.

The point of this anecdote is that as I was speaking with them, I came to my own conclusion on the topic. Rather than simply banning the speech, we should rather seek to represent what is not hate, and to bring goodness to others. That is how you defeat such, not by locking it all away. By learning to see hatred and to perhaps be examples of kindness to others, that is how we fight such speech and create a culture of love. Thus, Min, the problem with your argument is that it causes for fruitful discussion, and the opportunity to perhaps do good in the world, to be wasted and essentially tossed in the trash. When you ban the ability for others to speak their minds, even hatefully, you're not creating anything. I do agree that things such as Nazi symbols, KKK symbols, and other such symbols of hateful regimes should be banned.

Finally, I have to give a warning as to the tone of your post. And you may disagree, though I mean no disrespect. I believe the topic was...Brexit? It was something related to the U.K., you post on a lot of U.K. threads. But you said something about, "If X happened, I'll kill myself, and the world will miss my unique blend of intellectualism and [something else went here, I think progressivism?]." While I ultimately sympathize and do hope that you are taking care of yourself, and that if you are suicidal that you seek help as quickly as possible, but I think it is a rather inappropriate to present yourself in a rather...what comes across to me as a "haughty" attitude. Nobody is entirely "enlightened" to the point in which they can claim that they are going to essentially be the "savior" of an Internet forum, with a single sweeping post. I joined two (now almost three) years ago hoping simply to represent the faith I had come to love, via 20 years of living, and to have fun with people RPing and goofing I've come to care about (and even with some with whom I frequently butt heads). I think it's important to remember that you're merely a poster on an Internet forum, and while you might change someone's life, with some people the most caring thing you can do is engage in fruitful debate and discussion, and perhaps exchange ideas in hopes of coming to an understanding. As St. Francis de Sales-also an intellectual-once wrote, "Be patient with all things, but first with yourself." (This also happens to be my nation's slogan, because FRANCIS DE SALES IS AWESOME!!!)

Have a good day and God bless!

[USS Monitor]

Finally, I have to give a warning as to the tone of your post.

This type of "warning" is a way of attempting to police who is allowed to participate in rules discussions and what they are allowed to say. It's not welcome. It interferes with our ability to have an open dialog between Moderation and the community.

This thread is a discussion of site policy, not a referendum on Minoa's posting history.