[DISCUSSION] Are naughty words now against the rules?

[The New California Republic]

I do think this marks a modest change in how trolling is interpreted

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.

I agree that the mod team does need to discuss the recent warnings and bans to arrive on a more clear consensus given the confusion in the community as a whole.

I wouldn't call many of the responses "confusion"; "indignation" would be more apt.

[United Republic Empire]

If anything the mods could of issued a warning for the C word being used, if they felt the need to - it is described as a usually disparaging and obscene term for a woman. It is a vulgar word talking about a lady's genitalia.

[Vistulange]

If anything the mods could of issued a warning for the C word being used, if they felt the need to - it is described as a usually disparaging and obscene term for a woman. It is a vulgar word talking about a lady's genitalia.

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.

[Torisakia]

If anything the mods could of issued a warning for the C word being used, if they felt the need to - it is described as a usually disparaging and obscene term for a woman. It is a vulgar word talking about a lady's genitalia.

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.

[Vistulange]

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.

I mean, it's true in a sense, but it's a bit unfair and unrealistic to change a single sentence in the OSRS or ToS, not give any notification whatsoever—especially when Moderation has given such notifications, usually in the forms of large stickied threads, when such changes occured, for instance the recent moratorium on a specific range of topics—and then expect people to become aware of it.

It can technically be the case, but it's sneaky, unfair, and a bit malicious, if it's the case. I don't think it is, mind you.

[The Reformed American Republic]

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 was no text change. Just how the rule is interpreted and enforced has changed. It's not fair when that is done and the only indication of the change are other players suddenly being punished for things that used to be allowed. Just because they aren't legally obligated to give notices or anything like that does not mean this is good moderation policy.

[Torisakia]

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 was no text change. Just how the rule is interpreted and enforced has changed. It's not fair when that is done and the only indication of the change are other players suddenly being punished for things that used to be allowed. Just because they aren't legally obligated to give notices or anything like that does not mean this is good moderation policy.

Well unfortunately you have to accept it, regardless of whether it's good policy or not. That's just how life goes.

[The Reformed American Republic]

There was no text change. Just how the rule is interpreted and enforced has changed. It's not fair when that is done and the only indication of the change are other players suddenly being punished for things that used to be allowed. Just because they aren't legally obligated to give notices or anything like that does not mean this is good moderation policy.

Well unfortunately you have to accept it, regardless of whether it's good policy or not. That's just how life goes.

I hope their discussion results in a clear and concise policy. It's not out of line to ask the moderation team for something. Just because they technically can say "no" does not mean asking is out of line.

[United Republic Empire]

If anything the mods could of issued a warning for the C word being used, if they felt the need to - it is described as a usually disparaging and obscene term for a woman. It is a vulgar word talking about a lady's genitalia.

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.

What can I post?
You can discuss and argue about almost anything, so long as it's vaguely relevant to politics or NationStates and doesn't fall into any of the categories below. You don't have to be politically correct, but you must maintain a minimum standard of behavior.

What can't I post?
Any content that is:

obscene
illegal
threatening
malicious
defamatory
spam

I bolded the two parts that I'm talking about - Do you agree that this word is offensive to females and really shouldn't be okay to use when describing someone whether they be here or not ??

[Torisakia]

Well unfortunately you have to accept it, regardless of whether it's good policy or not. That's just how life goes.

I hope their discussion results in a clear and concise policy. It's not out of line to ask the moderation team for something. Just because they technically can say "no" does not mean asking is out of line.

Just trying to be realistic.

[Vistulange]

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.

What can I post?
You can discuss and argue about almost anything, so long as it's vaguely relevant to politics or NationStates and doesn't fall into any of the categories below. You don't have to be politically correct, but you must maintain a minimum standard of behavior.

What can't I post?
Any content that is:

obscene
illegal
threatening
malicious
defamatory
spam

I bolded the two parts that I'm talking about - Do you agree that this word is offensive to females and really shouldn't be okay to use when describing someone whether they be here or not ??

Once more, it's about the enforcement. Examples of a variety of vulgar words being used and not being acted upon, and probably not being reported at all because they were largely understood to be not offensive (in context of the site rules) have been provided in prior pages. What I think of that specific word here is irrelevant; I may think it's acceptable, or I may think it's unacceptable, but it does not matter because I am not the one who formulates and enforces moderation policy. What I can see is that something that has been acceptable in NS, and I've been around here since 2012, so I daresay I've been around for a good while, is suddenly not acceptable without prior notification.

While I would prefer that vulgarities be acceptable in the current state they are, that's not the point. The point, and the problem, is that nobody was told that they were no longer kosher, and were subject to punishment.

[The New California Republic]

I hope their discussion results in a clear and concise policy. It's not out of line to ask the moderation team for something. Just because they technically can say "no" does not mean asking is out of line.

Just trying to be realistic.

It's realistic that we just need to accept that rule interpretation was changed and folk then punished under it with no forewarning whatsoever?

[Torisakia]

Just trying to be realistic.

It's realistic that we just need to accept that rule interpretation was changed and folk then punished under it with no forewarning whatsoever?

Pretty much. This isn't Burger King, you can't have it your way.

[The New California Republic]

It's realistic that we just need to accept that rule interpretation was changed and folk then punished under it with no forewarning whatsoever?

Pretty much. This isn't Burger King, you can't have it your way.

Sorry but no. Changing rules and then punishing folk under it without telling folk of the changes is pretty dirty in any context, and even the Mods implicitly admit so by mere fact that they usually announce such changes very clearly.

[The Reformed American Republic]

Pretty much. This isn't Burger King, you can't have it your way.

Sorry but no. Changing rules and then punishing folk under it without telling folk of the changes is pretty dirty in any context, and even the Mods implicitly admit so by mere fact that they usually announce such changes very clearly.

Indeed. This isn't good moderation policy and it is not out of line to complain.

[Torisakia]

Pretty much. This isn't Burger King, you can't have it your way.

Sorry but no. Changing rules and then punishing folk under it without telling folk of the changes is pretty dirty in any context, and even the Mods implicitly admit so by mere fact that they usually announce such changes very clearly.

Again it's more on the user for not consistently keeping up with the rules, imo. Just because moderation announced changes before doesn't mean they'll always do it. Ignorantia juris non excusat.

Sorry but no. Changing rules and then punishing folk under it without telling folk of the changes is pretty dirty in any context, and even the Mods implicitly admit so by mere fact that they usually announce such changes very clearly.

Indeed. This isn't good moderation policy and it is not out of line to complain.

It may not be out of line to complain, but just don't expect anything to come of it.

[The Reformed American Republic]

Alright you said your piece, but we're still going to at least try. The moderators don't need you defending them.

[The New California Republic]

Sorry but no. Changing rules and then punishing folk under it without telling folk of the changes is pretty dirty in any context, and even the Mods implicitly admit so by mere fact that they usually announce such changes very clearly.

Again it's more on the user for not consistently keeping up with the rules, imo. Just because moderation announced changes before doesn't mean they'll always do it. Ignorantia juris non excusat.

How can we? There was no announcement of the change. Nor is it written anywhere in the rules. You are blaming us, the userbase, for not knowing something that is impossible for us to know.

[Torisakia]

Alright you said your piece, but we're still going to at least try. The moderators don't need you defending them.

Then I say good luck to you.

Again it's more on the user for not consistently keeping up with the rules, imo. Just because moderation announced changes before doesn't mean they'll always do it. Ignorantia juris non excusat.

How can we? There was no announcement of the change. Nor is it written anywhere in the rules.

I'd say in that case it would be better to ask, but given that (according to everyone else) it was fine to do beforehand, I don't know what else I can say. Good luck on getting things changed. You'll need it.

[The New California Republic]

How can we? There was no announcement of the change. Nor is it written anywhere in the rules.

I'd say in that case it would be better to ask, but given that (according to everyone else) it was fine to do beforehand, I don't know what else I can say.

In what possible context would we need to ask beforehand if a rule has been changed, a rule that has been the same way for years? You are demanding something of us that isn't reasonable. The onus isn't on us to constantly ask if a rule has been changed and not announced, lest we get dinged under the change.

[Torisakia]

I'd say in that case it would be better to ask, but given that (according to everyone else) it was fine to do beforehand, I don't know what else I can say.

In what possible context would we need to ask beforehand if a rule has been changed, a rule that has been the same way for years? You are demanding something of us that isn't reasonable. The onus isn't on us to constantly ask if a rule has been changed and not announced, lest we get dinged under the change.

That's why I said that I didn't know what else to say. It's more likely that I'm just an idiot, honestly.

[RiderSyl]

If anything the mods could of issued a warning for the C word being used, if they felt the need to - it is described as a usually disparaging and obscene term for a woman. It is a vulgar word talking about a lady's genitalia.

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.

This is my problem as well. The mod team gave players no chance to pre-emptively correct their behavior, which is quite unprofessional of them. I'll ask the mods this: If a street you've been walking down for nearly a decade suddenly had a "no crossing" law, there were no signs to indicate this law, and the police ticketed you for crossing, how fair would that be to you?

[New haven america]

Well, since Sedge locked the thread, can I get a 2nd opinion on this?

As can be found here and here and here, it is apparently against the rules insult public figures like Donald Trump.

But yet when I make a report thread of someone insulting Trump, using the terms and I quote "An ass and a fool and a prating coxcomb" I get called out as making a bad faith post and rules lawyers. And similar to how someone came to the conclusion that insulting a public figure is trolling, I have no god damn clue how Sedge came to this conclusion.

[Katganistan]

Second opinion: giving an example and then saying that one would not use it because it breaks the rules is not breaking the rules.

[New haven america]

Second opinion: giving an example and then saying that one would not use it because it breaks the rules is not breaking the rules.

She wasn't using it as an example though, she was outright stating that's what she thought of him.

But who's the party getting trolled/flamed?

Trolling affects a public figure's supporters. Do I think Trump is an ass and a fool and a prating coxcomb? Absolutely. Would I use the modern equivalents to describe him in the forums? No, because that would not be civil, that would, in fact, be trolling. Similarly, if someone describes Joe Biden as a doddering old shithead, they're getting warned, too. As with everything, it is all in how you express yourself.