[DISCUSSION] Are naughty words now against the rules?

[RiderSyl]

https://forum.nationstates.net/viewtopic.php?f=20&t=479978

Just leaving this here....

Is that when it became against the rules to flame political figures? I ask because I don't see that mentioned there.

[CoraSpia]

So let me get this straight:
People are upset because they aren’t allowed to call politicians mean names on a forum?

This is a thing?

Wow

That's not the issue people are having.

People have called politicians nasty things before, including me. In fact, much of the high quality debate on the UK politics thread concerns how x politician is a cunt, reasons why he/she is a cunt and possible ways of relieving politics of such a cunt. This has been done for...well at least the 11 years I've been around, NCR can probably tell you that it goes back longer.
If the mods had made an announcement saying 'it is now banned to call politicians cunts' people probably would be a bit less annoyed. However, they haven't done that and have instead just warned people for something that was perfectly fine and not actionable, as explained by multiple mods in the past. Also, given that 'individual cases are judged individually' as the mods like to tell us, we don't know where the line ends. Calling trump a cunt would get us into trouble, but what about Obama? Boris Johnson? Tony Abbott? Hell...is this just politicians or is any public figure...is it okay to call Jesse Lingard shit? Can I potentially annoy supporters of Roger Goodell by saying he is a corporate con-man with no knowledge of football?

This is what we're annoyed about.

[RiderSyl]

If the mods had made an announcement saying 'it is now banned to call politicians cunts' people probably would be a bit less annoyed. However, they haven't done that and have instead just warned people for something that was perfectly fine and not actionable, as explained by multiple mods in the past.

Very well said

[The Free Joy State]

As this has emerged into a discussion, I would also like to say that this apparent new direction is confusing to me. I do sort of feel there should have been notice.

I am not generally known for blatantly insulting politicians (although I may have dropped one or two of the words on NCR's helpful primer, and a couple more localised expressions -- I'm not sure). It has always been, to my knowledge, that if the person is a public (especially political) figure who is not on-site and the term is not a political nickname, you are allowed to express your distaste with their policies, actions and beliefs in a more vocal way than you may otherwise do.

I can see why a fly-by "Trump is an [insult] [insult] [insult] [insult] of an [insult]" posts can constitute trolling -- as such posts would be highly likely to rile his supporters. But, if dropping a single insulting word in the midst of a more expansive post is to be considered trolling, then that seems likely to penalise active participants in the forum's political threads.

[Greater Miami Shores]

I've changed the thread title to reflect that this has evolved into a discussion thread. I'll also note that we're intending to discuss this internally too.

To Sedgistan The Moderator or the Moderators:

Since I and two or three of us support the Moderators so called new Rules, Please keep in mind during your Moderators discussion, that we are currently not allowed to be disrespectful of real life Politicians and VIPs, on our RP threads and Posts.

Any decision on this issue either way, should also include the RPs.

Since many persons here are complaining about many persons here don't know the new rules, and they need time to get used to them, if the Moderators decide to enforce the new rules.

And I am the only who has offered suggestions to the Moderators on how to do so, if they decide to enforce the new rules.

Please keep in mind during your Moderators discussion my suggestions to the Moderators of how to inform all of us and get used to the new rules, if the Moderators decide to enforce the new rules you are all discussing now.

If the Moderators decide to enforce the new rules, and decide any or all of my suggestions I describe in detail are not good, I understand and no problems.

Here is the Link to my original Post with my suggestions for the Moderators consideration either way, if they decide to enforce the new rules:

viewtopic.php?p=37743203#p37743203

I chose my words as carefully as possible trying to explain my post to you.

Many here say my English not very good.

Thank you.

GMS.

[The New California Republic]

It isn't "modest" at all, it's a pretty fundamental shift in light of the fact that many different Moderators have said in a number of precedents spanning years that swearing at politicians isn't trolling, and that also has the potential to catch many people out. Hell, I'd have likely been caught out by this had I not seen this farce unfolding, given I've called politicians some names in my time.

Depending on the specific post in question, the issue doesn't boil down solely to using naughty words in reference to politicians. People didn't get in trouble in a lot of cases simply for that. They got in trouble for trolling - which has always been against the rules. And a lot of the examples that have been cited or brought up looked like trolling if we're being frank.

Sorry but no, that is total nonsense. You cannot possibly spin it to say that the huge list that I compiled mostly consists of trolling; that just isn't true. It's highly unlikely that the huge list I compiled just slipped under the net; someone would have caught it. The reason it was never caught or reported is because it probably only looks like trolling now, ex post facto, under the new interpretation of the rule.

There's a point at which using incendiary language towards a group of people ceases to serve any constructive function and serves only to elicit negative and ugly reactions.

...that isn't really what is happening here. The word is directed at a politician. Singular.

---

So let me get this straight:
People are upset because they aren’t allowed to call politicians mean names on a forum?

This is a thing?

Wow

Given that for years, years, such a thing has been deemed not actionable, and then suddenly the rule changes with no consultation or warning and people get dinged for it, then perhaps you can understand why people are "upset".

[Greater Miami Shores]

Depending on the specific post in question, the issue doesn't boil down solely to using naughty words in reference to politicians. People didn't get in trouble in a lot of cases simply for that. They got in trouble for trolling - which has always been against the rules. And a lot of the examples that have been cited or brought up looked like trolling if we're being frank.

Sorry but no, that is total nonsense. You cannot possibly spin it to say that the huge list that I compiled mostly consists of trolling; that just isn't true. It's highly unlikely that the huge list I compiled just slipped under the net; someone would have caught it. The reason it was never caught or reported is because it probably only looks like trolling now, ex post facto, under the new interpretation of the rule.

There's a point at which using incendiary language towards a group of people ceases to serve any constructive function and serves only to elicit negative and ugly reactions.

...that isn't really what is happening here. The word is directed at a politician. Singular.

---

So let me get this straight:
People are upset because they aren’t allowed to call politicians mean names on a forum?

This is a thing?

Wow

Given that for years, years, such a thing has been deemed not actionable, and then suddenly the rule changes with no consultation or warning, then perhaps you can understand why people are "upset".

As I posted to Sedgistan and the other Moderators, on my post directly above yours:

Since I and two or three of us support the Moderators so called new Rules, Please keep in mind during your Moderators discussion, that we are currently not allowed to be disrespectful of real life Politicians and VIPs, on our RP threads and Posts.

Any decision on this issue either way, should also include the RPs.

[The New California Republic]

Sorry but no, that is total nonsense. You cannot possibly spin it to say that the huge list that I compiled mostly consists of trolling; that just isn't true. It's highly unlikely that the huge list I compiled just slipped under the net; someone would have caught it. The reason it was never caught or reported is because it probably only looks like trolling now, ex post facto, under the new interpretation of the rule.


...that isn't really what is happening here. The word is directed at a politician. Singular.

---

Given that for years, years, such a thing has been deemed not actionable, and then suddenly the rule changes with no consultation or warning, then perhaps you can understand why people are "upset".

As I posted to Sedgistan and the other Moderators, on my post directly above yours:

Since I and two or three of us support the Moderators so called new Rules, Please keep in mind during your Moderators discussion, that we are currently not allowed to be disrespectful of real life Politicians and VIPs, on our RP threads and Posts.

Any decision on this issue either way, should also include the RPs.

That's RP. Slightly different rules apply to different sections of the forums because of the different context of the relevant subsections. For example the thread ownership rules differ between forum sections. Using this specific example however, insulting politicians has always been deemed to be not actionable in NSGeneral, there is weighty precedent showing that to be the case.

[The Free Joy State]

Sorry but no, that is total nonsense. You cannot possibly spin it to say that the huge list that I compiled mostly consists of trolling; that just isn't true. It's highly unlikely that the huge list I compiled just slipped under the net; someone would have caught it. The reason it was never caught or reported is because it probably only looks like trolling now, ex post facto, under the new interpretation of the rule.


...that isn't really what is happening here. The word is directed at a politician. Singular.

---

Given that for years, years, such a thing has been deemed not actionable, and then suddenly the rule changes with no consultation or warning, then perhaps you can understand why people are "upset".

As I posted to Sedgistan and the other Moderators, on my post directly above yours:

Since I and two or three of us support the Moderators so called new Rules, Please keep in mind during your Moderators discussion, that we are currently not allowed to be disrespectful of real life Politicians and VIPs, on our RP threads and Posts.

Any decision on this issue either way, should also include the RPs.

[/notamod] That said, the same rules cannot apply exactly the same across all areas of the site. Mods working with GI, for example, have shown some latitude with gravedigging (mostly to allow OPs to resurrect old drafts). Also, drafts and issues can include -- in the options -- some words that would be regarded as trolling in other areas of the site (consideration of PG-13 appropriateness withstanding).

While there are some overall rules that we all signed up to follow, Mods have always shown some variation in their interpretation across different subforums.

I'm not sure that RP is overly relevant to the real-world politics of NSG.

[Greater Miami Shores]

As I posted to Sedgistan and the other Moderators, on my post directly above yours:

Since I and two or three of us support the Moderators so called new Rules, Please keep in mind during your Moderators discussion, that we are currently not allowed to be disrespectful of real life Politicians and VIPs, on our RP threads and Posts.

Any decision on this issue either way, should also include the RPs.

That's RP. Slightly different rules apply to different sections of the forums because of the different context of the relevant subsections. For example the thread ownership rules differ between forum sections. Using this specific example however, insulting politicians has always been deemed to be not actionable in NSGeneral, there is weighty precedent showing that to be the case.

I see your point.

But what is more disrespectful, disrespecting real life Politicians and VIPs on the RPs or disrespecting real life Politicians and VIPs on the general forum, which is a clear form of baiting, which leads their supporters to flame, troll, and use foul language against those who have disrespected their favorite politicians and VIPs?

I say, disrespecting their real life Politicians and VIPs on the general forum is more disrespectful, and is a clear form of baiting, which leads their supporters to flame, troll, and use foul language against those who have disrespected their favorite politicians and VIPs.

While I see your point, your point sounds like excuses.

Why cant they do what I and many others on NS do and not do so and problem solved?

[Salandriagado]

Vulgar words and cursing have never been forbidden before, however, when applied as an insult to third-parties who aren't users on NS. Generally, politicians and public figures are assumed to not have a presence on NS.

If I said "Trump is a [insert insult]" here, without political nicknaming, I was perfectly fine. If I said "United Republic Empire, you are a [insert insult]", I would be flaming. The distinction between the two used to be really quite clear. Of course, posts whose sole content is an insult to Trump can easily fall under trolling, because it contributes nothing and solely riles people up, but if there's substance other than the insult in a post, it would most likely get a pass.

The issue we're having here is more that nobody was told that a new rule had been created, or a pre-existing rule was now being interpreted and enforced in a different manner than we know. The enforcement of a new rule without prior notification is the problem people have with this whole thing.

Personally I think it's the responsibility of the user to be up-to-date on rule changes. Is there anything in the OSRS or ToS that states that users have to be notified of new rules? Legitimately asking.

There hasn't been a change in the rules as written, though: the first notification of the rule change was that people started getting warned for it. How was Fartsniffage supposed to be "up-to-date" on a rule change that was first written down in his warning?

[The Free Joy State]

That's RP. Slightly different rules apply to different sections of the forums because of the different context of the relevant subsections. For example the thread ownership rules differ between forum sections. Using this specific example however, insulting politicians has always been deemed to be not actionable in NSGeneral, there is weighty precedent showing that to be the case.

I see your point.

But what is more disrespectful, disrespecting real life Politicians and VIPs on the RPs or disrespecting real life Politicians and VIPs on the general forum, which is a clear form of baiting, which leads their supporters to flame, troll, and use foul language against those who have disrespected their favorite politicians and VIPs?

I say, disrespecting their real life Politicians and VIPs on the general forum is more disrespectful, and is a clear form of baiting, which leads their supporters to flame, troll, and use foul language against those who have disrespected their favorite politicians and VIPs.

While I see your point, your point sounds like excuses.

If a dropped curse word in the middle of an erudite post about someone's "favourite politician" triggers an automatic flame response, then I would say the responsibility is on the person who feels so compelled to flame to find a way to contradict the argument without flaming.

To say one shouldn't "disrespect" someone else's favourite politician or their policies, lest they be flamed in response, is very similar logic to those people who tell wives that -- if they didn't wish to be hit -- they shouldn't argue with their husband.

[Greater Miami Shores]

Personally I think it's the responsibility of the user to be up-to-date on rule changes. Is there anything in the OSRS or ToS that states that users have to be notified of new rules? Legitimately asking.

There hasn't been a change in the rules as written, though: the first notification of the rule change was that people started getting warned for it. How was Fartsniffage supposed to be "up-to-date" on a rule change that was first written down in his warning?

Good point, but if the Moderators decide to enforce the rules, they cant undo what was done in the past, because it is too much for them to do.

As I posted to the Moderators.

If they excuse Fartsniffage now, they have to excuse all who have been warned for breaking this rule. He is not the only one.

[The New California Republic]

That's RP. Slightly different rules apply to different sections of the forums because of the different context of the relevant subsections. For example the thread ownership rules differ between forum sections. Using this specific example however, insulting politicians has always been deemed to be not actionable in NSGeneral, there is weighty precedent showing that to be the case.

I see your point.

But what is more disrespectful, disrespecting real life Politicians and VIPs on the RPs or disrespecting real life Politicians and VIPs on the general forum, which is a clear form of baiting, which leads their supporters to flame, troll, and use foul language against those who have disrespected their favorite politicians and VIPs?

The rules are likely different because talking about that kind of thing in RP isn't where it belongs.

And sorry, but if calling a politician a moron "causes" the politician's supporters to start flaming etc then that's squarely on the shoulders of the supporters themselves.

I say, disrespecting their real life Politicians and VIPs on the general forum is more disrespectful, and is a clear form of baiting, which leads their supporters to flame, troll, and use foul language against those who have disrespected their favorite politicians and VIPs.

...except it isn't being classed as baiting, it's now being classed as trolling, so your reasoning doesn't hold water.

While I see your point, your point sounds like excuses.

Please don't belittle my position as being "excuses", as it makes it sound like I'm being disingenuous.

[Salandriagado]

There hasn't been a change in the rules as written, though: the first notification of the rule change was that people started getting warned for it. How was Fartsniffage supposed to be "up-to-date" on a rule change that was first written down in his warning?

Good point, but if the Moderators decide to enforce the rules, they cant undo what was done in the past, because it is too much for them to do.

If they excuse Fartsniffage now, they have to excuse all who have been warned for breaking this rule.

Yes. They should excuse them all, because they were all in the same position of having no way of knowing that it was a rule. If they now want to announce a rule change and enforce it going forward, that's fine, but it should be announced before it starts being enforced.

[The Archregimancy]

https://forum.nationstates.net/viewtopic.php?f=20&t=479978

Just leaving this here....

And absolutely nothing in there says that personal attacks towards politician aren't allowed.

Are you seeing the issue we're having?

I believe that my colleague was trying to reference this section of that link, particularly the first three sentences (and even more particularly the third sentence):

3) Expect slightly stricter punishments in election-related debates. Politics, especially US politics, are an extremely incendiary topic of debate. With the election season getting everybody all riled up, we will be more liberal with the *** warnings and short-term forumbans *** to try and hose everything down before a massive flamefest can get started. I will note that "But $IRL_political_person says $thing!" does NOT excuse behaving in a similar fashion here. It's been stated before for instance, that if President Trump was an NS player, the way he behaves would swiftly get him banned from the site. Just because a politician or celebrity acts a certain way does elsewhere does not magically make similar behaviors rule-abiding here, so use caution when emulating the behavior of such media personalities.

While I entirely appreciate that this does not explicitly state that personal attacks on politicians are not allowed, it does explicitly state that we're likely to be stricter with warnings and forum bans during the election. This is particularly the case now that we're in the last month of the US election.

Could we have been clearer about communicating this? Possibly; but the principle that we're often stricter during heated election campaigns is not new - and the present election campaign is unusually heated by modern standards, so the context is also unusual.

If the US election goes off smoothly, and the result isn't disputed, then I would hope that normal service would be quickly resumed.


I would also take a moment to explicitly put on the record that any gloating - by either side - over the election result will also likely see the metal on metal anvil descend.

Since I and two or three of us support the Moderators so called new Rules, Please keep in mind during your Moderators discussion, that we are currently not allowed to be disrespectful of real life Politicians and VIPs, on our RP threads and Posts.

Any decision on this issue either way, should also include the RPs.

No it shouldn't, and no it won't. Please stop pursuing this point.

[Nobel Hobos 2]

Since many years ago I have taken it as an unwritten rule, not to call anyone a "cunt" ... and since it's not a polite way of saying "pussy" really not to use the word at all.

At least as far back as ... that General poster who had a simple picture of a house-front in his flag. Um. Anyway, the final straw for mods seemed to be when he called the UK Prime Minister a "turbocunt". It's a shame, but I admit he did break a lot of rules.

[The New California Republic]

There hasn't been a change in the rules as written, though: the first notification of the rule change was that people started getting warned for it. How was Fartsniffage supposed to be "up-to-date" on a rule change that was first written down in his warning?

Good point, but if the Moderators decide to enforce the rules, they cant undo what was done in the past, because it is too much for them to do.

As I posted to the Moderators.

If they excuse Fartsniffage now, they have to excuse all who have been warned for breaking this rule. He is not the only one.

You are missing the point he is making. It's unreasonable to expect folk to follow new rules if there has been no warning that a rule that has been the same for years is suddenly changed.

[Greater Miami Shores]

I see your point.

But what is more disrespectful, disrespecting real life Politicians and VIPs on the RPs or disrespecting real life Politicians and VIPs on the general forum, which is a clear form of baiting, which leads their supporters to flame, troll, and use foul language against those who have disrespected their favorite politicians and VIPs?

The rules are likely different because talking about that kind of thing in RP isn't where it belongs.

And sorry, but if calling a politician a moron "causes" the politician's supporters to start flaming etc then that's squarely on the shoulders of the supporters themselves.

I say, disrespecting their real life Politicians and VIPs on the general forum is more disrespectful, and is a clear form of baiting, which leads their supporters to flame, troll, and use foul language against those who have disrespected their favorite politicians and VIPs.

...except it isn't being classed as baiting, it's now being classed as trolling, so your reasoning doesn't hold water.

While I see your point, your point sounds like excuses.

Please don't belittle my position as being "excuses", as it makes it sound like I'm being disingenuous.

Ok I see your point, and I apologize to you for that. I am sure you mean what you say.

By your logic, any negative things we say to each other on the general forum, should be non actionable, because our reactions to it, are squarely on our shoulders.

No matter if it is baiting, flaming, trolling and using foul language.

[The Free Joy State]

The rules are likely different because talking about that kind of thing in RP isn't where it belongs.

And sorry, but if calling a politician a moron "causes" the politician's supporters to start flaming etc then that's squarely on the shoulders of the supporters themselves.


...except it isn't being classed as baiting, it's now being classed as trolling, so your reasoning doesn't hold water.


Please don't belittle my position as being "excuses", as it makes it sound like I'm being disingenuous.

Ok I see your point, and I apologize to you for that. I am sure you mean what you say.

By your logic, any negative things we say to each other on the general forum, should be non actionable, because our reactions to it, are squarely on our shoulders.

[/notamod] There are rules against flaming and baiting other players. Rules we signed up to.

A real-world politician is not a fellow player, and this is being judged as trolling not flaming/baiting. The examples are not equivalent.

EDIT: As for the bit you edited in. We can swear. We can call something "fucking amazing", "fucking stupid", "bloody ridiculous". Foul language itself is not banned. Certain usages can be actionable (under the rules we all signed up to).

[The Archregimancy]

I regret having to post this, but can I just make it very clear that Greater Miami Shores is not in any way, shape, or form representing the position of the moderation team; and while he clearly believes he's being supportive, his posts in this thread are not remotely endorsed by the team.

[The New California Republic]

By your logic, any negative things we say to each other on the general forum, should be non actionable, because our reactions to it, are squarely on our shoulders.

No that's not at all what I am saying. The insult of the politician is not directly targeted at the supporters, while saying such things to each other clearly is. Chalk and cheese.

[Greater Miami Shores]

Ok I see your point, and I apologize to you for that. I am sure you mean what you say.

By your logic, any negative things we say to each other on the general forum, should be non actionable, because our reactions to it, are squarely on our shoulders.

[/notamod] There are rules against flaming and baiting other players. Rules we signed up to.

A real-world politician is not a fellow player, and this is being judged as trolling not flaming/baiting. The examples are not equivalent.

I think I have made many good points.

[Nobel Hobos 2]

I'll be blunt: the problem is New Visayan Islands, and the culture of Mod-dom that defends NVI's overly harsh rulings.

I get that all Mods have to learn on the job to some extent, but NVI should be on training wheels. Don't allow them to hand out any punishments without review by another mod. Or just sack them.

I did not vigorously appeal my own warning from NVI, since 3 other mods took their side, and I have come to see it as a justified decision. I was not advocating the death of a President, but to the notional "average reader" it must look like I was. I'll be more careful with that in the future, where senior politicians, death, and guns are concerned. I'm only going on about my own case to establish that it's not a personal grudge. I really believe NVI is not cutting it as a Mod.

[Albrenia]

While this is one of few decisions by the admins I somewhat disagree with, I'm generally pretty good with following these sorts of rules. Your house, your rules and all.

I shall moderate my less flattering name-calling of Trump and the like, just as I refrain from using political nicknames.