NationStates

Conserative Morality wrote:

Austria-Bohemia-Hungary wrote:Remind me yet again why we are debating a bunch of individuals who are deeply disappointed that they were born too late to join the fifth columnist organisation named HIAG?

Honestly, we should have tried and executed every last member of the SS after WW2.

Reploid Productions wrote:"These people widely known to be engaged in criminal conduct should have been tried in a court of law and given capital punishment for their crimes" is not actionable.

Yusseria wrote:

Reploid Productions wrote:"These people widely known to be engaged in criminal conduct should have been tried in a court of law and given capital punishment for their crimes" is not actionable.

I see. Noted for the future.

[Violet] wrote:No rules lawyering. The intent of a post (while sometimes hard to judge), is a very important factor when determining whether or not it is actionable. The Moderation team does its best to interpret it. Agreeing or disagreeing with a moderation decision at whatever length you wish is perfectly within the rules, so long as it is done tactfully and civilly. Please see the Appeals Process (listed below) for further information.

That said, moderator decisions are not to be taken in bad faith. For instance, if something is ruled to be acceptable, don't turn around and use that ruling to bait another player (e.g. "In this case, I don't think Player 2 intended to be malicious when he described Player 1 as a 'maladjusted rapscallion.'" "Okay. Hey, Player 2! You're a maladjusted rapscallion! Moderator 3 said it's okay to call people that!"). This will never end well for you and it's best to simply leave things be; if you are doing so in an attempt to demonstrate that a moderator decision is wrong, simply file an appeal.