[R] advocating violence in impeachment thread

[Tarsonis]

It matters not what else is brought up in connection with Ukraine. Mitch McConnell and the rest of the Senate GOP will not allow an impeachment inquiry to prosper, this much is certain.

You can also forget about voting Trump out -- even if popular fervor somehow survives Trump's attempts at election fraud, Trump simply will not leave office, and he will have the backing of the GOP, the military, and his supporters.

So the only way out before either eventuality is to protest en masse for as long as needed. Call for the resignation of every Republican official, from Trump on down. Dispose of the Republican Party, bloodily if need be, before Trump and the Republican Party disposes of democracy, and with it, as many battered and broken bodies as they can.

Emphasis added

viewtopic.php?p=36631396#p36631396

[Gormwood]

Flaming.

The only edge I see is people still somehow insisting that 250 years of laws, norms, and precedents will finally hold Trump accountable, when there is every reason to be certain Trump won't ever be held accountable for anything so long as he is POTUS.

Here's an idea, unless you're an American how about you shut the fuck up about what Americans must do? Really that should he a general view. Unless you're a citizen of x nation, your opinion on what the citizens of x nation should do is irrelevant so keep it to yourself.

[Gormwood]

Has it been ruled on?

[Lamoni]

Addressed

AND

Addressed

[Tarsonis]

Addressed

AND

Addressed

I'd like to ask for a second opinion. In context I wasn't simply telling him to stfu, I was making the point that it's poor form to tell people they need to violently overthrow their government when they're not a citizen of said country, and have nothing to risk in such a scenario. They should keep such opinions such opinions to themselves. I was being crass to punctuate the point not attacking him personally, which is a common occurrence on nsg.

[The Archregimancy]

I'm looking at it - at Lamoni's specific request rather than on my own initiative.

Give me a few moments.

[The Archregimancy]

Right...

The action taken against Duhon was proportionate and appropriate in the context of player record. I personally would have clarified that it was a warning for trolling via advocating violence against a specific political group - 'advocating violence' is not inherently actionable in and of itself, but is rather a form of trolling - but that's quibbling. The ban stands.

The warning issued to Tarsonis, however, was not proportionate, and seems to be based on a misreading of the post. First of all, telling someone to 'shut the fuck up', while intemperate and potentially ill-advised, is not flaming. In some circumstances it could be construed as trolling or flamebaiting, but I do not believe that to be the case here. The key part of the post is "Really that should he a general view. Unless you're a citizen of x nation, your opinion on what the citizens of x nation should do is irrelevant so keep it to yourself"; this to my mind makes it clear that Tarsonis is advancing an argument on the extent to which non-citizens should publicly advance an opinion on the affairs of another nation. Again, the phrasing may be intemperate, but it is not flaming.

Where this leaves non-citizen permanent residents (eg Green Card holders in the US example at hand) is anyone's guess, but is not particularly germane to the ruling; it's something best discussed in the original thread.

Short version:
Duhon ruling stands.

Tarsonis ruling overturned on appeal



Edit:
I have now used our sekret mod/admin toolbox to remove the warning from Tarsonis's record.

[Tarsonis]

Right...

The action taken against Duhon was proportionate and appropriate in the context of player record. I personally would have clarified that it was a warning for trolling via advocating violence against a specific political group - 'advocating violence' is not inherently actionable in and of itself, but is rather a form of trolling - but that's quibbling. The ban stands.

The warning issued to Tarsonis, however, was not proportionate, and seems to be based on a misreading of the post. First of all, telling someone to 'shut the fuck up', while intemperate and potentially ill-advised, is not flaming. In some circumstances it could be construed as trolling or flamebaiting, but I do not believe that to be the case here. The key part of the post is "Really that should he a general view. Unless you're a citizen of x nation, your opinion on what the citizens of x nation should do is irrelevant so keep it to yourself"; this to my mind makes it clear that Tarsonis is advancing an argument on the extent to which non-citizens should publicly advance an opinion on the affairs of another nation. Again, the phrasing may be intemperate, but it is not flaming.

Where this leaves non-citizen permanent residents (eg Green Card holders in the US example at hand) is anyone's guess, but is not particularly germane to the ruling; it's something best discussed in the original thread.

Short version:
Duhon ruling stands.

Tarsonis ruling overturned on appeal



Edit:
I have now used our sekret mod/admin toolbox to remove the warning from Tarsonis's record.

Thank you Arch.