[Discussion] Free Speech and Unrestricted Comedy

[Gandoor]

This post and your one above it seem to be contradicting each other to be honest.

Not really.
I feel that certain things, like people whose only purpose on these forums seems to be to troll, should be reported as they add no value to the community. A person who debates, but who occasionally gets a little heated and might flame or say something that could be construed as trolling once in a while doesn't need reporting. Those records mount up, and especially when someone has pretty extreme views, and are expressing in a way that they feel is perfectly reasonable, a stream of reports following them is something that can lead people not to bother with nsg.
I just think a little more moderation needs to be done (in the more standard definition of the word) concerning reports. People should think whether a report is really necessary before deciding that that is the best course of action to take.

Just because someone only rarely breaks the rules doesn't mean they should be ignored and not get in trouble.

They're still breaking the rules.

[Sacara]

Just because someone only rarely breaks the rules doesn't mean they should be ignored and not get in trouble.

They're still breaking the rules.

If someone has a clean record, and breaks one rule, that should not constitute a warning in my opinion. A loom for sure, but depending on the severity, not a warning.

[USS Monitor]

Just because someone only rarely breaks the rules doesn't mean they should be ignored and not get in trouble.

They're still breaking the rules.

If someone has a clean record, and breaks one rule, that should not constitute a warning in my opinion. A loom for sure, but depending on the severity, not a warning.

Sometimes that will get a loom if it's mild.

[NERVUN]

Just because someone only rarely breaks the rules doesn't mean they should be ignored and not get in trouble.

They're still breaking the rules.

If someone has a clean record, and breaks one rule, that should not constitute a warning in my opinion. A loom for sure, but depending on the severity, not a warning.

By and large (With a whole heck of a lot of caveats) that is the case. The GENERAL progress is unofficial, official, 1 day, 3 day, 1 week, DEAT. And yes, we really do take history into account. If I'm looking at someone who hasn't been warned ever or their warning was many moons ago, and has been here years I'm probably more likely to reach for the rolled up newspaper instead of the ban hammer.

Of course, actual millage may vary. There are things that will earn an instant ban or DEAT regardless.

[Magheraat]

Well, i don't see any reason to continue with this discussion considering how most of the people here aren't able to read my original point, on which i already quoted myself three times, and continue with their hypocritical line of thinking ("Don't like the rules? Leave this site for another one").
Anyways, the last thing i want to say is directed towards the people calling me an edgelord: edgyness is pretty relative and here's one example of that-while in decadent West being homo"phobic" is considered to be edgy, because it goes against the western "values" (or, more like, their absence), Saudia Arabia punishes openly gay people with flogging, life sentences and death penalties, so being supportive of gays will be considered there to be edgy (they just don't use this word), so you can throw your pathetic buzzword as long, as you like, but it won't change anything.

[USS Monitor]

Well, i don't see any reason to continue with this discussion considering how most of the people here aren't able to read my original point, on which i already quoted myself three times, and continue with their hypocritical line of thinking ("Don't like the rules? Leave this site for another one").
Anyways, the last thing i want to say is directed towards the people calling me an edgelord: edgyness is pretty relative and here's one example of that-while in decadent West being homo"phobic" is considered to be edgy, because it goes against the western "values" (or, more like, their absence), Saudia Arabia punishes openly gay people with flogging, life sentences and death penalties, so being supportive of gays will be considered there to be edgy (they just don't use this word), so you can throw your pathetic buzzword as long, as you like, but it won't change anything.

Yeah, this is a continuation of your argument about RL anti-discrimination laws that I told you to drop. You're trying to reference it juuuust enough so people know what you're talking about and you can continue to rile people up about RL issues, but not enough so I can warn you. Well, guess what: *** warning for threadjacking ***

If you want to post this stuff, put it in NSG where it belongs.

[Greater vakolicci haven]

Not really.
I feel that certain things, like people whose only purpose on these forums seems to be to troll, should be reported as they add no value to the community. A person who debates, but who occasionally gets a little heated and might flame or say something that could be construed as trolling once in a while doesn't need reporting. Those records mount up, and especially when someone has pretty extreme views, and are expressing in a way that they feel is perfectly reasonable, a stream of reports following them is something that can lead people not to bother with nsg.
I just think a little more moderation needs to be done (in the more standard definition of the word) concerning reports. People should think whether a report is really necessary before deciding that that is the best course of action to take.

Just because someone only rarely breaks the rules doesn't mean they should be ignored and not get in trouble.

They're still breaking the rules.

If what they're doing isn't particularly harm-causing (expressing an opinion in a trollish way, calling people a mean word etc) then I personally wouldn't report.

[Illegal Planets]

Is the Bad Faith rule a good idea as well as whether banning a voice for men links being anti-free-speech

While I don't sympathize with incels, MGTOW, or any men's rights movement, I think that as long as those links don't lead to anything illegal, obscene, or threatening, etc, that they shouldn't be banned.

Does being free from offence trump the right to free speech and for unrestricted comedy

Absolutely not. But, then again, that's just my opinion. However, when we talk about "unrestricted comedy", I don't think that "gas the *insertdemographic*!" or the like should fall under that protection because it is both obscene and threatening.

Should nation states lax its policy on banning 'offensive' nations

I'm not sure what is meant by this. I've never encountered a specific nation I find offensive, even the radical leftists I come across in other threads. Any nation with outright profanity or slurs in it;s name or info should be banned, but edgy commie or fash nations shouldn't be banned as long as there are no swastikas. Thing is, I could argue that an equal number of atrocities have occured under the hammer and sickle, but that's not really relevant.

I would not be willing to stick around if the site was full of abuse and insults as a purely free speech site would be

Nor would I. But just because the rules on free speech would be laxed, does not mean that people would suddenly be allowed to call eachother names, flame, troll, or use slurs.

I don't want to read ridiculously stupid and inflammatory things.

Here is the thing. If you find a discussion might contain themes that could potentially be inflammatory for you, don't enter the discussion. Move on. Nobody forces you to read anything or participate in any debates.

[Minoa]

I don't want to read ridiculously stupid and inflammatory things.

Here is the thing. If you find a discussion might contain themes that could potentially be inflammatory for you, don't enter the discussion. Move on. Nobody forces you to read anything or participate in any debates.

I think Ethel mermania may be referring to activity that would have happened if there were absolutely no rules on NationStates. To give an example, how members of 4chan responded to the Annapolis shooting with an inflammatory post — I know the article I am referring to is on Snopes.com, but I am not sure if I can post the link here as it contains screenshots of inflammatory content.

[Illegal Planets]

Here is the thing. If you find a discussion might contain themes that could potentially be inflammatory for you, don't enter the discussion. Move on. Nobody forces you to read anything or participate in any debates.

I think Ethel mermania may be referring to activity that would have happened if there were absolutely no rules on NationStates. To give an example, how members of 4chan responded to the Annapolis shooting with an inflammatory post — I know the article I am referring to is on Snopes.com, but I am not sure if I can post the link here as it contains screenshots of inflammatory content.

TG me the link so I have a bit of context. Still though, it's not like we are talking about allowing people to troll, flame, or use slurs.

[The New California Republic]

Well, i don't see any reason to continue with this discussion considering how most of the people here aren't able to read my original point, on which i already quoted myself three times, and continue with their hypocritical line of thinking ("Don't like the rules? Leave this site for another one").

A bit rich coming from someone who has consistently refused to answer any queries regarding their point of view, preferring instead to double down and just repeat the same thing.

[The New California Republic]

Just because someone only rarely breaks the rules doesn't mean they should be ignored and not get in trouble.

They're still breaking the rules.

If what they're doing isn't particularly harm-causing (expressing an opinion in a trollish way, calling people a mean word etc) then I personally wouldn't report.

The Mods use context to decide. It is common to see instances of flaming or trolling which, on closer inspection, is actually an inside joke between parties involved, or is meant in a sarcastic, ironic, or a tongue-in-cheek way.

[Jebslund]

[shnip]

I would not be willing to stick around if the site was full of abuse and insults as a purely free speech site would be

Nor would I. But just because the rules on free speech would be laxed, does not mean that people would suddenly be allowed to call eachother names, flame, troll, or use slurs.

[shnip].

That's *precisely* what it would mean. NS is already fairly lax. Pretty much everything currently not allowed falls into one of those categories, and, even then, slurs aren't really banned anyway. There have been several posts that have been blatantly racist that were ruled not actionable because they didn't fall under flaming or trolling, with the justification being that users aren't barred from holding or expressing disgusting/crass/offensive views, so long as they express said views appropriately (in accordance with site rules).

[Greater vakolicci haven]

If what they're doing isn't particularly harm-causing (expressing an opinion in a trollish way, calling people a mean word etc) then I personally wouldn't report.

The Mods use context to decide. It is common to see instances of flaming or trolling which, on closer inspection, is actually an inside joke between parties involved, or is meant in a sarcastic, ironic, or a tongue-in-cheek way.

Didn't someone get a lengthy ban for doing just that several months ago and the mods refused to listen to his appeals?

[Jebslund]

The Mods use context to decide. It is common to see instances of flaming or trolling which, on closer inspection, is actually an inside joke between parties involved, or is meant in a sarcastic, ironic, or a tongue-in-cheek way.

Didn't someone get a lengthy ban for doing just that several months ago and the mods refused to listen to his appeals?

A couple of threads here come to mind, and, in one of them, the member had a lengthy warning history, and, in the other, it was the Autistic Screeching meme, if memory serves.

[The New California Republic]

The Mods use context to decide. It is common to see instances of flaming or trolling which, on closer inspection, is actually an inside joke between parties involved, or is meant in a sarcastic, ironic, or a tongue-in-cheek way.

Didn't someone get a lengthy ban for doing just that several months ago and the mods refused to listen to his appeals?

I mean don't get me wrong, there will obviously be some rule-breaking so extreme that even the context doesn't excuse it. The autistic screeching meme is one example. I seem to remember a case where someone (entirely unjustifiably) tried to be edgy and use the meme in an ironic way.

[Greater vakolicci haven]

Didn't someone get a lengthy ban for doing just that several months ago and the mods refused to listen to his appeals?

I mean don't get me wrong, there will obviously be some rule-breaking so extreme that even the context doesn't excuse it. The autistic screeching meme is one example. I seem to remember a case where someone (entirely unjustifiably) tried to be edgy and use the meme in an ironic way.

TBH I'm autistic and that meme doesn't strike me as offensive. I can't see why it would.

[The New California Republic]

I mean don't get me wrong, there will obviously be some rule-breaking so extreme that even the context doesn't excuse it. The autistic screeching meme is one example. I seem to remember a case where someone (entirely unjustifiably) tried to be edgy and use the meme in an ironic way.

TBH I'm autistic and that meme doesn't strike me as offensive. I can't see why it would.

The usual target of it is Leftists, not autistic people as such. Sure, it mocks them too, but not as the primary target. It is trolling the Leftists.

[Xmara]

[shnip]


Nor would I. But just because the rules on free speech would be laxed, does not mean that people would suddenly be allowed to call eachother names, flame, troll, or use slurs.

[shnip].

That's *precisely* what it would mean. NS is already fairly lax. Pretty much everything currently not allowed falls into one of those categories, and, even then, slurs aren't really banned anyway. There have been several posts that have been blatantly racist that were ruled not actionable because they didn't fall under flaming or trolling, with the justification being that users aren't barred from holding or expressing disgusting/crass/offensive views, so long as they express said views appropriately (in accordance with site rules).

Yeah. I mean, in many ways we already have free speech on here.

[Illegal Planets]

On nationstates there has constantly been the presence of the problematic ban hammer facing anybody who dares to veer close to the edgy or the right.

That's *precisely* what it would mean. NS is already fairly lax. Pretty much everything currently not allowed falls into one of those categories, and, even then, slurs aren't really banned anyway. There have been several posts that have been blatantly racist that were ruled not actionable because they didn't fall under flaming or trolling, with the justification being that users aren't barred from holding or expressing disgusting/crass/offensive views, so long as they express said views appropriately (in accordance with site rules).

Yeah. I mean, in many ways we already have free speech on here.

The problem is that right wing opinions are more policed and censored than leftist or progressive opinions. Nationstates has, in my experience (i've been playing since 09), more lefties and liberals than righties.

[The New California Republic]

On nationstates there has constantly been the presence of the problematic ban hammer facing anybody who dares to veer close to the edgy or the right.

Yeah. I mean, in many ways we already have free speech on here.

The problem is that right wing opinions are more policed and censored than leftist or progressive opinions. Nationstates has, in my experience (i've been playing since 09), more lefties and liberals than righties.

Not really. I have seen a few examples of left wingers advocating death on the forums. The Mods descended on said users like a ton of bricks.

[Illegal Planets]

The problem is that right wing opinions are more policed and censored than leftist or progressive opinions. Nationstates has, in my experience (i've been playing since 09), more lefties and liberals than righties.

Not really. I have seen a few examples of left wingers advocating death on the forums. The Mods descended on said users like a ton of bricks.

There are lefties advocating for the destruction of America on the forums right now lol. But say, for example, a conservative who criticizes LGBT folks must be very careful when doing so

EDIT: To be fair, I don't much care either way. I don't really come to NS to argue. I'm more into the roleplays. I do my debating elsewhere, specifically because the views I hold could be considered inflammatory be a sensitive person.

[New Greater Netherlands]

On nationstates there has constantly been the presence of the problematic ban hammer facing anybody who dares to veer close to the edgy or the right.

Yeah. I mean, in many ways we already have free speech on here.

The problem is that right wing opinions are more policed and censored than leftist or progressive opinions. Nationstates has, in my experience (i've been playing since 09), more lefties and liberals than righties.

Not really, i have once criticised the refugee crisis in the European Union (and the immigration policy in my country) and i didn't get smacked for that, and what NCR said: There were liberals who advocated death who got smacked

[New Greater Netherlands]

Not really. I have seen a few examples of left wingers advocating death on the forums. The Mods descended on said users like a ton of bricks.

There are lefties advocating for the destruction of America on the forums right now lol. But say, for example, a conservative who criticizes LGBT folks must be very careful when doing so.

Maybe taking a look at LGBTQ and religion thread in General? There the LGBT people get criticised and no mods smacked anyone

[The New California Republic]

Not really. I have seen a few examples of left wingers advocating death on the forums. The Mods descended on said users like a ton of bricks.

There are lefties advocating for the destruction of America on the forums right now lol. But say, for example, a conservative who criticizes LGBT folks must be very careful when doing so.

Advocating the destruction of a thing =/= advocating death.