[DISCUSSION] Are naughty words now against the rules?

[WayNeacTia]

And that post clearly states that naughty behavior is far more likely to be smacked, simply because there is an election going on. The fact the mods are more lenient when there isn't an election happening doesn't change the fact.

Nonsense. Nowhere does it say that non-rules suddenly become rules, as is occurring here.

All of this seems like a mountain being made out of a molehill. The answer seems pretty clear. You want to denigrate politicians, particularly ones who are very good at riling people up on their own, then go do it on a site where it is more appropriate,.

I don't see why you aren't getting this. It's been deemed non-actionable for years, years. And then it suddenly changes with no warning. Folk are rightly concerned about the contradiction.

viewtopic.php?f=16&t=260044

1) Keep it PG-13. The standard for both the forums and game is the US movie rating "PG-13". Mild swearing may be tolerated, mild sexuality may be hinted, but explicit or excessive versions of either or both may result in proportional mod response. Anything that crosses this boundary is subject to punishment depending on how far it goes.

"Cunt" is not a mild swear. It also states it "may" be tolerated.

2) Keep it Civil. While being abrasive, mean-spirited, and mean are not against the rules, they do make you much harder to get along with and will be considered as aggravating circumstances, whether intentionally or not. Someone who's generally decent but has an off day is always going to get cut more slack than someone no one likes to be around. Additionally, if someone's being decent, it's really hard for that person to do something that will get them in trouble. When in doubt, a simple guideline is 'Don't Be A Dick'. Thanks, Scolo.

Bad Faith: It is expected that players post with the intent of making the site a better, more enjoyable place to be - this is good faith posting. Bad faith posting is when a person is no longer interested in this goal, and instead seeks to score points, contributes nothing useful, or is deceitful.

Flamebaiting: Posts that are made with the aim of angering someone indirectly. Not outright flame, but still liable to bring angry replies. Flame baiting is a far more subtle and covert action; it is an underhanded tactic that is designed to provoke a response from another player. It's in the same context of trolling but with flamebaiting it's just the one person. Also included under flamebaiting is malicious quote editing, changing the contents of a quoted post without showing the original text, either through color changes or strike-out.

Trolling/Baiting/Gloating: Trolling is defined as posts that are made with the aim of angering people. (like 'ALL JEWS ARE [insert vile comment here]' for example). Someone disagreeing with you does not equate to trolling. Intent is incredibly important and will be judged by the moderators to the best of their abilities. Honest belief does not excuse trolling. Disagreements are expected and conducting yourself in a civil manner is ideal. Trollbaiting is the action of making posts that attract trolls. A prime example of trollbaiting would be gloating over the results of an election.

All seems pretty clearly spelled out in the One Stop Rules Shop.

[The New California Republic]

-Snip-

I'm clearly not getting through to you. Weighty precedent has shown that it is not a rule, and has been deemed non-actionable in the past. And yet again none of that spells out that swearing at politicians is a rule.

And note that the swearing reference is under the PG-13 rule: none of the recent rulings mention that rule. At all.

[WayNeacTia]

-Snip-

I'm clearly not getting through to you. Weighty precedent has shown that it is not a rule, and has been deemed non-actionable in the past. And yet again none of that spells out that swearing at politicians is a rule.

And note that the swearing reference is under the PG-13 rule: none of the recent rulings mention that rule. At all.

You take your stance then. I foresee things not working out the way you hope they will though.

[The New California Republic]

I'm clearly not getting through to you. Weighty precedent has shown that it is not a rule, and has been deemed non-actionable in the past. And yet again none of that spells out that swearing at politicians is a rule.

And note that the swearing reference is under the PG-13 rule: none of the recent rulings mention that rule. At all.

You take your stance then. I foresee things not working out the way you hope they will though.

Fine. It may shock you but I'm not actually wanting things to "work out" a certain way; I'm just wanting it to be worked out...

[United Republic Empire]

And that post clearly states that naughty behavior is far more likely to be smacked, simply because there is an election going on. The fact the mods are more lenient when there isn't an election happening doesn't change the fact.

All of this seems like a mountain being made out of a molehill. The answer seems pretty clear. You want to denigrate politicians, particularly ones who are very good at riling people up on their own, then go do it on a site where it is more appropriate,.

It says that the rules will be enforced more strictly. Things not against the rules are still not against those same rules being enforced more strictly.

Yes, they were more lenient with the trolling and the very definition of what constitutes trolling in their interpretation. So now during a time of tension and violence going on, they are being more strict in enforcing the rules. It's really just best to let them discuss it among themselves and eventually come to a conclusion with better clarity.

[Valrifell]

Then why did Kat even bother posting.

For the same reason the other moderators here have posted. To give you the information that is available at this time.

Why did you bother posting this?

No, you linked us back to the rules as if the rule breaking was self-evident and that would be the end-of the case. If anything, you made it less clear what was going on. Maybe don't do that if there's an ongoing internal discussion, considering you don't speak for the whole of the team?

[Fartsniffage]

Why are we still talking about this? The mods have said that insulting any political figure is trolling the supporters of said political figure.

Arch indicated that it was a mass decision rather than a new mod making a mistake. We all have to be nice about the politicians we despise or we get warned for trolling. No insulting people not on the forum.

[Greater Miami Shores]

I think most of the persons on NS arguing just want the right to trash real life politicians and VIPs, like Trump, Biden, Obama, Hillary, Nancy Pelosi, Adam Schiff, Chuck Schumer, Andrew Coumo, Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio, Rudy Guiliani and all world leaders.

In the general and RP Forums.

But I think we should be allowed to call Joe Biden, Uncle Joe, in a positive context?

The Great Democrat Governor of Louisiana, Huey P Long, The King Fish?

The Great Duchess, Prime Minister of Great Britain, Maggy Thatcher The Iron Lady of Britain??

on the General and RP Forums?

[Fahran]

I think most to the persons on NS arguing just want the right to trash real life politicians and VIPs, like Trump, Biden, Obama, Hillary, Nancy Pelosi, Adam Schiff, Chuck Schumer, Andrew Coumo, Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio, Rudy Guiliani and all world leaders.

It's possible to trash them without violating even this novel interpretation of the rules. It's not so much about what you say in many instances, but about how you say it. The easiest way to remain within the rules, even supposing the decision is to make any and all insults against the rules (which doesn't seem like what the mod team is suggesting anyhow), is to shift to talking about policies, behaviors, and actions and applying adjectives to those instead. Instead of saying "Trump is dumb", you can simply argue "Trump's policies are dumb for x reason." Instead of saying "Xi Jinping is evil", you can simply argue "Xi Jinping is committing genocide. And that's evil." You wind up with the same approximate effect and it's really, really hard to interpret that as trolling or even needlessly incendiary because you're not describing a person but an action and your posts are bound to have an actual good faith argument contained within them.

[Greater Miami Shores]

I think most to the persons on NS arguing just want the right to trash real life politicians and VIPs, like Trump, Biden, Obama, Hillary, Nancy Pelosi, Adam Schiff, Chuck Schumer, Andrew Coumo, Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio, Rudy Guiliani and all world leaders.

It's possible to trash them without violating even this novel interpretation of the rules. It's not so much about what you say in many instances, but about how you say it. The easiest way to remain within the rules, even supposing the decision is to make any and all insults against the rules (which doesn't seem like what the mod team is suggesting anyhow), is to shift to talking about policies, behaviors, and actions and applying adjectives to those instead. Instead of saying "Trump is dumb", you can simply argue "Trump's policies are dumb for x reason." Instead of saying "Xi Jinping is evil", you can simply argue "Xi Jinping is committing genocide. And that's evil." You wind up with the same approximate effect and it's really, really hard to interpret that as trolling or even needlessly incendiary because you're not describing a person but an action and your posts are bound to have an actual good faith argument contained within them.

I just edited my post after you quoted me like always, a very bad habit I have, like I have said, you guys have to give me at least an hour

What do you think of this idea I support?

But I think we should be allowed to call Joe Biden, Uncle Joe, in a positive context?

The Great Democrat Governor of Louisiana, Huey P Long, The King Fish?

The Great Duchess, Prime Minister of Great Britain, Maggy Thatcher The Iron Lady of Britain?

And so on - on the General and RP Forums?

[Fahran]

What do you think of this idea I support?

But I think we should be allowed to call Joe Biden, Uncle Joe, in a positive context?

I don't think the cultural context surrounding that nickname is positive because the two ways I've actually heard it used are "Crazy Uncle Joe" and "Creepy Uncle Joe." So any reasonable person plugged into American political culture would probably interpret it as insulting and puerile.

The Great Democrat Governor of Louisiana, Huey P Long, The King Fish?

The Great Duchess, Prime Minister of Great Britain, Maggy Thatcher The Iron Lady of Britain?

And so on?

I don't view any of those nicknames as trolling because they're actually positive, unlike say "Tricky Dick" or "The Cheeto", and have been used to express support in the past. For historical figures, such as Henry Clay or Abraham Lincoln, it's even common to refer to them by nicknames and epithets in a neutral sense. In my mind, it's the intentions and connotations that matter. Because the actual rule, to my knowledge, isn't against nicknaming in the abstract, but rather against trolling through the use of derogatory political nicknames. Some names such as "Emperor" for Trump come across as gloaty and could arguably be trolling in that sense.

[The New California Republic]

Why are we still talking about this? The mods have said that insulting any political figure is trolling the supporters of said political figure.

Arch indicated that it was a mass decision rather than a new mod making a mistake. We all have to be nice about the politicians we despise or we get warned for trolling. No insulting people not on the forum.

I was reading this and thought you were being serious, but I reached the bottom lines and then realised "k he is just being facetious".

[Nanatsu no Tsuki]

Why are we still talking about this? The mods have said that insulting any political figure is trolling the supporters of said political figure.

Arch indicated that it was a mass decision rather than a new mod making a mistake. We all have to be nice about the politicians we despise or we get warned for trolling. No insulting people not on the forum.

I was reading this and thought you were being serious, but I reached the bottom lines and then realised "k he is just being facetious".

Wait, did they make a ruling already or is this still under moderation discussion?

[Attempted Socialism]

I was reading this and thought you were being serious, but I reached the bottom lines and then realised "k he is just being facetious".

Wait, did they make a ruling already or is this still under moderation discussion?

They didn't; it's still under discussion. What Fartsniffage refers to is that it was earlier suggested that it was a new moderator being overzealous, which Arch clarified it wasn't.

[New haven america]

"Flame" a politician can only happen if the politician is a site user. The Mods have made this abundantly clear numerous times over the course of years.

And as has been pointed out in my posts, there is an abundance of use of swear words against politicians that is not intended as trolling their supporters.

Wayne, we are wanting clarification of the rule, because as it stands it is contradictory. That's why we are all asking them for some kind of update to the rules or a clear message to spell out that the recent rulings are contradictory and will be reversed.

viewtopic.php?f=20&t=479978

How much clearer does it really need to be spelled out?

There is nothing in that post that can be considered clear.

[Lockdownn]

Why are we still talking about this? The mods have said that insulting any political figure is trolling the supporters of said political figure.

Arch indicated that it was a mass decision rather than a new mod making a mistake. We all have to be nice about the politicians we despise or we get warned for trolling. No insulting people not on the forum.

Well, you have to make sure nobodies "feefees" get hurt when saying certain politicians are what they are.

[Greater Miami Shores]

viewtopic.php?f=20&t=479978

How much clearer does it really need to be spelled out?

There is nothing in that post that can be considered clear.

As I pointed out on a previous post, the Moderators cant undo their rullings they have done already. They are too much, and if they forgive the recent rullings against certain persons, they have to forgive their ruling against all persons online, it is too much to undo.

All they can do is clearly state the rules, and make their future rullings.

I think I make good Points.

NHA: I saw your post on the locked thread, where you defend the Trump supporters from baiting, flaming, trolling, and foul language against President Trump, I have been meaning to have the chance to thank you for it.

So I thank you for it, on behalf of myself and all Trump supporters.

Thank You - GMS.

You posted it on the locked thread, when you were trying to defend yourself and you used it as an example.

[The Horror Channel]

So, can we still type the word "fuck" or not?

[Greater Miami Shores]

So, can we still type the word "fuck" or not?

Awesome question direct to the Moderators.

I don't use it and I don't use any foul language.

I don't insult any fellow nation persons favorite Politicians and VIPS.

I don't bait, flame, troll or use foul language of any kind towards my fellow nations and their favorite Politicians and VIPS.

And I am very proud of it.

So their rullings don't affect me either way.

And I am not the only on NS who does like I do.

My advice to all of you is just don't do it and no problems.

Problem solved.

[Aeisonia]

To be honest I haven't had the best experience with mods on NS. If there was personal bias at play I wouldn't be surprised.

[The New California Republic]

There is nothing in that post that can be considered clear.

As I pointed out on a previous post, the Moderators cant undo their rullings they have done already. They are too much, and if they forgive the recent rullings against certain persons, they have to forgive their ruling against all persons online, it is too much to undo.

No, sorry, but that is self-evidently total nonsense.

[The Horror Channel]

So, can we still type the word "fuck" or not?

Awesome question direct to the Moderators.

I don't use it and I don't use any foul language.

I don't insult any fellow nation persons favorite Politicians and VIPS.

So their rullings don't affect me either way.

And I am not the only on NS who does like I do.

My advice to all of you is just don't do it and no problems.

Problem solved.

I like using the word. I like foul language. I find that it gets the point across much better than beating around the bush or being mamby-pamby about stuff.

[The New California Republic]

So, can we still type the word "fuck" or not?

That isn't really what the thread is about. Have a read through the thread to see what it is about.

So, can we still type the word "fuck" or not?

Awesome question direct to the Moderators.

It isn't an "awesome" question at all; it's actually a totally irrelevant question given the context of the thread.

[WayNeacTia]

There is nothing in that post that can be considered clear.

As I pointed out on a previous post, the Moderators cant undo their rullings they have done already. They are too much, and if they forgive the recent rullings against certain persons, they have to forgive their ruling against all persons online, it is too much to undo.

All they can do is clearly state the rules, and make their future rullings.

NHA: I saw your post on the locked thread, where you defend the Trump supporters from baiting, flaming, trolling, and foul language against President Trump, I have been meaning to have the chance to thank you for it.

So I thank you for it, on behalf of myself and all Trump supporters.

Thank You - GMS.

You posted it on the locked thread, when you were trying to defend yourself and you used it as an example.

You don't know what you are talking about, and you are not qualified to make rulings.

[Phaenix]

If the mods do decide to ban expletives, I'd be a bit pissed. See how that sounds natural? Swearing, while it may seem crude, helps get a point across much more than saying, "To be honest, in my opinion, [INSERT POLITICIAN NAME] is doing a bad job." Bad job doesn't sound nearly as good as, "shitty job," or, "a piss poor job." Swearing definitely helps convey a point, especially over the internet where the tones of your voice can't be heard. Hopefully the mods take this into consideration with their rulings.