[D] Is NS a safe space for leftists?

[The Huskar Social Union]

Im left as fuck and i have received multiple warnings and two bans now i think it is. Last one for me was for calling someone a cunt repeatedly iirc and ive seen plenty of other lefties get warned and banned on here too on a frequent basis.

In my opinion it only seems like there is a bias against rightwingers because more rightwingers come on here and just fail to follow the rules completely, and when they get punished as a result they scream bias.

Now are there rulings i have thought were dumb? Absolutely, though i dont think thats because of ideology or anything like that, and all the warnings and bans ive received so far have been well deserved and ive even reported myself multiple times.

Also if NS was a safe space for leftists we wouldnt have open Islamists and Nazis running around on here. But we do so no i dont think its a safe space.

[Kathol Rift]

I would say that there may be some slight bias towards the left, simply by the fact that the majority of folks on this site do lean left, but I’ve never seen it significantly affect rulings. And I’ve seen folks on the left get warns and bans plenty of times, just like I’ve seen folks on the right and center get them. So I’d say it’s a safe place for the “follows the rules” side of the political spectrum, more than anything.

[Conservative Republic Of Huang]

The fact that you can post this answers your question.

[The Black Forrest]

If anything, it ain't a safe space for rightists.

We already have a safe place. It’s called the rules.

Hmmm? A safe place for rightists. That’s been a claim for a long time. The problem? Those claiming the need for that; tend to offer “offensive” statements and back them up with no sources, weak sources if outright nonsense.

There is no “effort” to kick out those on the right. We have many here who are tough and or offer a good argument.

If people are getting trounced on; maybe they should reflect on their views and or arguments.

[Outer Sparta]

This is a ridiculous assertion. Nobody here has a "safe space" but people that stay on this site follow the site rules regardless of ideology. Those that get booted out repeatedly break the site rules.

[Nuroblav]

Aye, there are a lot of leftists here, but that doesn't make it a safe space. If it were then I doubt we'd have facists around, or threads directed specifically against leftist thought (not saying that's a bad thing, rather that it wouldn't happen if such were the case). Heh, I doubt we would have anything outside of leftism here, so the fact that you have made this post would suggest otherwise.

But in fairness I hope not - seeing as I've had some good discussions with others around the political web.

[Ghost Land]

I wouldn't consider NS or NSG a "safe space" for leftists, though it does seem that the user base of NSG is predominantly leftist and that could be a part of why right-wingers often seem quite outspoken and few of them stick around for very long. I also feel like given that we are less common here and often get criticized personally for our views to no end, that's why it seems like there's a mod bias: the right wing tends to put less emphasis on being "politically correct". We as a group tend to speak what's on our mind more without worrying as much about whose sensibilities we may offend, so our comments might come across more as "flaming" or "trolling" just because of that. I would say that some moderators do seem to rule based on their own opinions rather than the facts, and it doesn't seem like there are any right-wing mods who are active in NSG except maybe Arch (correct me if I'm wrong). It's more "socially acceptable" to be a leftist (or at least centrist by European standards/leftist by American standards), and leftists as a rule are more inclined to remain within the realm of what's politically correct, and I've noticed that several well-known left-wing posters are good at the subtly baiting one-liners that definitely serve the purpose of antagonizing, but don't technically fall afoul of any rules.

I'm old enough to remember New Mitanni, whom I'm surprised hasn't been referenced more on here in the years since his departure. He was an outspoken right-winger who hated the Obama administration and was vocal about it, and ultimately got deleted twice for taking things a bit too far. He was not, however, a deliberate troll, and I've even see people on the other side of the aisle from him say he's a quite reasonable and pleasant person when discussing things other than politics. He simply didn't conform to the doctrine of being "politically correct", and there's the distinction between a "troll" (someone who provokes people on purpose for the sake of riling up) and someone who commits the offense of "trolling" (defined here as "all X are Y" or similar inflammatory comments).

There have been times I've seen inflammatory comments made against my side of the aisle and it's at times been difficult for me to restrain myself and not outright tell the person making the comments to go and get stuffed. That takes self-control. But it does seem like there are certain posters who stay just on the right side of the line and as such end up virtually immune to moderator criticism or rebuke, even despite them and their opinions being widely disliked by other users on the board.

I've never felt that NS was predominantly left-of-center in its user base. Maybe I'm just in the wrong threads.

Just clicking on your profile, it appears the majority of your posts have been within F&NI, which I'd say is about as unpolitical of a board as you get here; if you posted more in NSG you might think differently.

I'm not exactly a leftist and I seem to do alright.

You've been DEAT'd twice. More than that if you count those other ban-breaking puppets from back in June of this year.

[Kexholm Karelia]

Insulting Thai king is illegal in Thailand, so any criticism of him could be classified as promoting illegal activity then, technically?

That's a little fuzzy, but most likely not, as he isn't directly saying that people should ignore censorship, but rather pointing out how terrible censorship is (as far as I understand it). He does, however, admit to breaking the laws of his own country, and actively shows he has no regrets about it. By site rules that's a punishable offense.

If it were me moderating, and he had simply expressed his hate for Vajiralongkorn and censorship, I definitely would not have taken action against him.

So if I lived in Saudi Arabia and I encouraged people to publicly protest Islam, the mods would ban me for encouraging illegal activity?

[Greater Miami Shores]

I would say that there may be some slight bias towards the left, simply by the fact that the majority of folks on this site do lean left, but I’ve never seen it significantly affect rulings. And I’ve seen folks on the left get warns and bans plenty of times, just like I’ve seen folks on the right and center get them. So I’d say it’s a safe place for the “follows the rules” side of the political spectrum, more than anything.

Repeated for Emphasis:
I once came close to being deleted with all my nations, by all the Mods, and they understood I did not mean to do what I did the way I did it, and they gave me a chance. GMS.

but overall they have been fair too me. This is a Fact. I cant go into those details.
*************************************************
I have posted a few times before, most of the posters on the election threads, virus threads and violence threads are leftists of whatever kind, by about 90 % Percent to right wingers of whatever kind, 10 % Percent. While NS is majority or plurality leftist but not by 90 % to 10 % Percent.

Because many right wingers have told me on discord and TGs, they feel they cant argue with the leftists on Trump and any issues. Because many, but obviously not all leftists, say in one way or another, directly and indirectly, they are always right and we are always wrong, so their is nothing to argue about and disagree on. so they ignore you guys and these threads. I have also heard this on NS, discord and off NS.

I am very proud of my record, of no baiting, no trolling, no flaming, no using foul language, and I am not the only one on NS.

I don't put any persons on ignore for any reasons, those who put other persons on ignore, don't respect other persons rights to disagree with them. The respect to disagree is given it Is not earned. It is called Democracy.

I hate the culture of reporting on each other we have on NS, for anything we can think of to hurt each other. Even the RPs are not safe on NS, it is sad, very, very sad.

We all love NS and we are all Political Junkies on NS.

I once came close to being deleted with all my nations, by all the Mods, and they understood I did not mean to do what I did the way I did it, and they gave me a chance. GMS.

The Mods make mistakes from time to time, I strongly disagree with, but overall they have been fair too me. This is a Fact. I cant go into those details. Just follow the rules and no problems. Just respect the Mods at all times and no problems. GMS.

[The New California Republic]

Nope. If someone is flaming etc then their political leanings are irrelevant.

[Punished UMN]

I wouldn't consider NS or NSG a "safe space" for leftists, though it does seem that the user base of NSG is predominantly leftist and that could be a part of why right-wingers often seem quite outspoken and few of them stick around for very long. I also feel like given that we are less common here and often get criticized personally for our views to no end, that's why it seems like there's a mod bias: the right wing tends to put less emphasis on being "politically correct". We as a group tend to speak what's on our mind more without worrying as much about whose sensibilities we may offend, so our comments might come across more as "flaming" or "trolling" just because of that. I would say that some moderators do seem to rule based on their own opinions rather than the facts, and it doesn't seem like there are any right-wing mods who are active in NSG except maybe Arch (correct me if I'm wrong). It's more "socially acceptable" to be a leftist (or at least centrist by European standards/leftist by American standards), and leftists as a rule are more inclined to remain within the realm of what's politically correct, and I've noticed that several well-known left-wing posters are good at the subtly baiting one-liners that definitely serve the purpose of antagonizing, but don't technically fall afoul of any rules.

I'm old enough to remember New Mitanni, whom I'm surprised hasn't been referenced more on here in the years since his departure. He was an outspoken right-winger who hated the Obama administration and was vocal about it, and ultimately got deleted twice for taking things a bit too far. He was not, however, a deliberate troll, and I've even see people on the other side of the aisle from him say he's a quite reasonable and pleasant person when discussing things other than politics. He simply didn't conform to the doctrine of being "politically correct", and there's the distinction between a "troll" (someone who provokes people on purpose for the sake of riling up) and someone who commits the offense of "trolling" (defined here as "all X are Y" or similar inflammatory comments).

There have been times I've seen inflammatory comments made against my side of the aisle and it's at times been difficult for me to restrain myself and not outright tell the person making the comments to go and get stuffed. That takes self-control. But it does seem like there are certain posters who stay just on the right side of the line and as such end up virtually immune to moderator criticism or rebuke, even despite them and their opinions being widely disliked by other users on the board.

I've never felt that NS was predominantly left-of-center in its user base. Maybe I'm just in the wrong threads.

Just clicking on your profile, it appears the majority of your posts have been within F&NI, which I'd say is about as unpolitical of a board as you get here; if you posted more in NSG you might think differently.

I'm not exactly a leftist and I seem to do alright.

You've been DEAT'd twice. More than that if you count those other ban-breaking puppets from back in June of this year.

The first DEAT was deserved and the second was me fishing for a Deat

[Kungsu]

That's a little fuzzy, but most likely not, as he isn't directly saying that people should ignore censorship, but rather pointing out how terrible censorship is (as far as I understand it). He does, however, admit to breaking the laws of his own country, and actively shows he has no regrets about it. By site rules that's a punishable offense.

If it were me moderating, and he had simply expressed his hate for Vajiralongkorn and censorship, I definitely would not have taken action against him.

So if I lived in Saudi Arabia and I encouraged people to publicly protest Islam, the mods would ban me for encouraging illegal activity?

Potentially, yes. Most likely they would issue a warning rather than an outright ban. Though a mod would probably be able to answer better than I.

[The New California Republic]

So if I lived in Saudi Arabia and I encouraged people to publicly protest Islam, the mods would ban me for encouraging illegal activity?

Potentially, yes. Most likely they would issue a warning rather than an outright ban. Though a mod would probably be able to answer better than I.

The illegal activity rule can be murky and relies on Mods to use sense to be proportionate. For example if someone said they were a sexually active homosexual in Saudi Arabia then I'd imagine that it's more likely that they'll get warned to be careful about admitting such a thing rather than actually getting warned for it.

[Juristonia]

Let's cut the snark, please.

There's nothing wrong with starting a discussion over whether forum moderation is biased for or against a specific perspective, and whether - in his words - Moderation should 'do more to rule based on facts rather than feelings'.

This doesn't mean that the rest of the player base, or indeed the Moderation team, need to agree with him; but he's perfectly entitled to start a discussion on the topic, and to invite others to engage with that discussion.

Snark is a perfectly reasonable reaction to what is essentially nonsense.


What's there to discuss here?
It's just another one of GHK's whines about non-existent oppression because he went over the line with his usual shtick a bunch of times and got in trouble for it.
There's no bias to discuss here. It's just them refusing to acknowledge that maybe they are the problem, rather than everyone else.

Meanwhile, the guy runs to the mods the second anyone even vaguely disagrees with him.
Which might not be relevant, but it is hilariously hypocritical.

A safe space for me, but not for thee.

[Kexholm Karelia]

Potentially, yes. Most likely they would issue a warning rather than an outright ban. Though a mod would probably be able to answer better than I.

The illegal activity rule can be murky and relies on Mods to use sense to be proportionate. For example if someone said they were a sexually active homosexual in Saudi Arabia then I'd imagine that it's more likely that they'll get warned to be careful about admitting such a thing rather than actually getting warned for it.

So is that why Glorious Hong Kong was warned? Because they live in Malaysia and they insult Islam and support Charlie Hebdo?

[Kungsu]

Potentially, yes. Most likely they would issue a warning rather than an outright ban. Though a mod would probably be able to answer better than I.

The illegal activity rule can be murky and relies on Mods to use sense to be proportionate. For example if someone said they were a sexually active homosexual in Saudi Arabia then I'd imagine that it's more likely that they'll get warned to be careful about admitting such a thing rather than actually getting warned for it.

Right, there is some leeway with grey areas like this. It still remains a possibility at the mod's discretion, at which point several factors end up going into the final result.

[Nanatsu no Tsuki]

Potentially, yes. Most likely they would issue a warning rather than an outright ban. Though a mod would probably be able to answer better than I.

The illegal activity rule can be murky and relies on Mods to use sense to be proportionate. For example if someone said they were a sexually active homosexual in Saudi Arabia then I'd imagine that it's more likely that they'll get warned to be careful about admitting such a thing rather than actually getting warned for it.

IIRC, warning in such an instance would probably come if the poster in question disregarded mod advice. I think this is what happened in the case of 1000 Cats. He was asked repeatedly to stop posting about his proclivities. But he didn’t and therefore warned and I can’t recall but was he ultimately DOSd? Partly to perhaps protect the poster but also to protect the site from legal action. I could be wrong.

[Kungsu]

The illegal activity rule can be murky and relies on Mods to use sense to be proportionate. For example if someone said they were a sexually active homosexual in Saudi Arabia then I'd imagine that it's more likely that they'll get warned to be careful about admitting such a thing rather than actually getting warned for it.

So is that why Glorious Hong Kong was warned? Because they live in Malaysia and they insult Islam and support Charlie Hebdo?

No, it was that plus going out of his way to break the [PG-13] rule, as well as the implications that people should be able to freely promote genocide. It adds up and tips the scales. If it was an isolated violation, they probably would not have been warned.

[Lord Dominator]

Thanks NCR on the link - I would just point out that some of the basis for illegal activities there is based on a test of it being illegal in the US/Canada/Australia/UK, not enforcing the laws of every nation.

Again noting that OP was most probably warned not for insulting the king of Thailand, but all the other trollish statements in the same post.

[Torisakia]

We don't like left handed people on this forum. Right Handed Master Race unite!

But seriously, everyone here is subjected to the same rules regardless of where they lie on the political spectrum. If you absolutely believe that a mod or mods are targeting you based on that, then file a GHR for mod abuse since that's flagged for immediate attention by an admin. I don't fully see the point of discussing it.

[Senkaku]

It's really not hard to follow the site rules, they're fairly clear. If you're constantly getting hit with warnings or going through nations like a chain-smoker going through cigarettes, that is not in and of itself evidence to support your persecution complex. It's probably just an indication that you need to dial it the fuck back on the pointless bomb-throwing, bloggish screeds, and personal attacks.

[Cordel One]

This place has quite a bit of tolerance for racist assholes whereas leftists really have to hold their tongues. For example, do you really thing my ideology stops with what I say here? The mods generally enforce the rules through a "centrist" perspective.

[Greater Miami Shores]

It's really not hard to follow the site rules, they're fairly clear. If you're constantly getting hit with warnings or going through nations like a chain-smoker going through cigarettes, that is not in and of itself evidence to support your persecution complex. It's probably just an indication that you need to dial it the fuck back on the pointless bomb-throwing, bloggish screeds, and personal attacks.

I know about unnecessary actionable and non actionable personal and political attacks, better than anyone on NS from personal experience, lol. GMS.

While I am very civil. While I always follow NS rules of decency. GMS.

[The Notorious Mad Jack]

Racism isn't a punishable offence in of itself and saying ACAB gets you banned. How on earth is NS a safe space for leftists?

[Gandoor]

If NS was a leftist safe space then they'd ban the fascists and Nazis outright instead of going 'Well it's not specifically against the rules to be fascist or a Nazi, so we'll only warn/ban them when they actually break the rules'.

Edit: Actually, for real why the hell is it so common for people who blatantly break the rules and get in trouble to immediate jump to the conclusion that they're getting in trouble because the mods are biased against their side/in favor of the other side and not, you know, the fact that they broke the fucking rules that they agreed to adhere to when they joined and are literally right at the top of this board?