NationStates Rules Are Too Strict

[Qwertyuioplkjhgfd]

it seems like your issue isn't with the rules but with how they're enforced and with the people who enforce them

maybe this should be retittled to "NS mods are too strict" instead of the rules.

btw why did u make this post? to rabblerouse? if this is actually like NK you're just digging your own grave man

Yeah, you're right. But if I mentioned the mods in the title so they could see it clearly I feel like it would be deleted more quickly (instead of like half an hour later).

[Catsfern]

well hey the thread made it to a second page.

[El-Amin Caliphate]

Yeah, those are mostly for specific instances, correct me if I'm wrong. This is mostly about the general phenomenon.

Yeah you can still post there for general stuff. As for questions about mod rule, you could/should also post using the Appeals Process

[Nakena]

People on NSG tend to overestimate the relevance of NSG.

Everywhere else its mostly seen as a containment board.

[Bluelight-R006]

it seems like your issue isn't with the rules but with how they're enforced and with the people who enforce them

maybe this should be retittled to "NS mods are too strict" instead of the rules.

btw why did u make this post? to rabblerouse? if this is actually like NK you're just digging your own grave man

Yeah, you're right. But if I mentioned the mods in the title so they could see it clearly I feel like it would be deleted more quickly (instead of like half an hour later).

Mods see everything. They are from different time zones thus they can check the forums topic at a time. In fact, this thread is so active they’d have seen it by now. If I were a mod I’d also have came here in suspicion.

[Qwertyuioplkjhgfd]

I believe it is comparable to saying that if a person does not like slavery in the U.S. they can leave the U.S., or if a black did not like the segregation policies they can go back to African later in U.S. history.

it isn't at all comparable because while you can leave nationstates.net and go to another website the slaves didn't have that liberty to leave their country
also kind of offensive to compare something so trivial to slavery not gonna lie

In the times of Jim-Crow they did have that liberty, there weren't slaves. I should have focused on the Jim-Crow laws where there were actual movements to leave the U.S. and go to Liberia. And again, this makes my point, just because it is trivial and I'm comparing it to slavery, I don't think automatically it's a delete.

[Qwertyuioplkjhgfd]

Yeah, you're right. But if I mentioned the mods in the title so they could see it clearly I feel like it would be deleted more quickly (instead of like half an hour later).

Mods see everything. They are from different time zones thus they can check the forums topic at a time. In fact, this thread is so active they’d have seen it by now. If I were a mod I’d also have came here in suspicion.

I don't think that's quite right. They're volunteers, I saw in some rules or moderation post, so there are instances where they may not immediately see stuff, even if they are different time zones I don't think there is always a mod. Maybe I'm wrong.

[El-Amin Caliphate]

Huh, it wasn't locked, just moved.
Welp, let's have it, y'all

[Bluelight-R006]

Mods see everything. They are from different time zones thus they can check the forums topic at a time. In fact, this thread is so active they’d have seen it by now. If I were a mod I’d also have came here in suspicion.

I don't think that's quite right. They're volunteers, I saw in some rules or moderation post, so there are instances where they may not immediately see stuff, even if they are different time zones I don't think there is always a mod. Maybe I'm wrong.

You definitely are wrong. Everywhere and everytime there is a mod to respond to rulebreakers. Never once have I seen a plea for help been prolonged for up to half an hour before the mods can respond.

And hey, they also saw this because they moved it to Moderation.

[Reploid Productions]

Thread towed to the appropriate forum.

A vague "rules are too strict" is not much of a useful discussion starter however, so I'm not optimistic that this will be a particularly productive discussion of the site rules.

[The Free Joy State]

Not a mod but when you signed up for the site you agreed to follow the rules. If you're not happy with the T&Cs you signed on for, you don't have to stay.

This is a PG-13 site (which is stated in the rules), which means that what goes on Instagram does not go on here.

Most people quite like being on a site where flaming and trolling are policed. If you would rather that not happen, you are free to go find a more permissive nation simulator (or start one yourself).

I also believe that rules can be changed and made better. I believe it is comparable to saying that if a person does not like slavery in the U.S. they can leave the U.S., or if a black did not like the segregation policies they can go back to African later in U.S. history. My comment on Instagram was in response to someone saying NS is like instagram, which I was saying it isn't, like you said. I also agree flaming and trolling should be moderated. It is just people purpose try to find any instance in a debate when something could be considered a flame or troll. For instance, my whole argument can be a flame towards all the mods. The rules says "anything with an intention to offend."That can be so many things in a debate. Why wouldn't nationstates creator Max Barry be offended with my argument?

If you wish, specifically, to appeal, I suggest you make a thread to do just that in Moderation (again -- not a mod), as this general discussion is not the way to appeal any moderation decisions.

As for your argument: being told you can leave a website is not like being told you can leave the country of your birth, and not being able to post threads on defecation and its merits on one specific website is not being like forced into servitude. Please, try to remain proportionate.

The rules on flaming are actually quite laid out, and the Mods here are proportionate in their interpretation.

Flaming is:

Personal attacks against other players, expressed via OOC (out-of-character) comments; insults, swearing and anything posted with intent to offend. In-character remarks can be interpreted this way as well; watch what you post if other posters are unaware you're not serious. Erudite slams while maintaining a veneer of politeness can also be considered flaming. Repeated instances of flaming directed at the same player can be considered harassment, a more serious offense.

Flaming is not merely saying something that someone doesn't wish to hear or discussing the rules (you are allowed to attack an argument, for example). Though, again, if your aim is merely to overturn a punishment you received, this is not the way to go about it.

[LiberNovusAmericae]

Huh, it wasn't locked, just moved.
Welp, let's have it, y'all

I'm not surprised. You can discuss the rules of NS within reason, as long as it is in the right board.

[Catsfern]

well a mod has responded and yeah i probably this conversation going nowhere but hey who knows.

[Qwertyuioplkjhgfd]

I also believe that rules can be changed and made better. I believe it is comparable to saying that if a person does not like slavery in the U.S. they can leave the U.S., or if a black did not like the segregation policies they can go back to African later in U.S. history. My comment on Instagram was in response to someone saying NS is like instagram, which I was saying it isn't, like you said. I also agree flaming and trolling should be moderated. It is just people purpose try to find any instance in a debate when something could be considered a flame or troll. For instance, my whole argument can be a flame towards all the mods. The rules says "anything with an intention to offend."That can be so many things in a debate. Why wouldn't nationstates creator Max Barry be offended with my argument?

Your whole argument against moderation is what I wouldn’t consider flaming. You have reasons and you don’t question their intelligence nor sanity. Also, I think if the moderators thought this was not legal, they’d have shut it down already.

And intention to offend is anything that shoves opinions down any players’ throat, or questioning their right to exist... sort of things that are out of topic and just questions the person itself and not his/her opinion.

Don’t forget, the rules protect you. If I called you a contemptuous noun, i’d be warned or punished.

That's the whole thing: I'm being ultra concerned with my language. Debate should be free thought, not so excessive to cause cyberbullying, but not so that I'm thinking so much about how to be polite and kind and just. And that is you, maybe if I argued for slavery with reasons and not questions intelligence, if I argued for killing Jews with reasons and not questioning neither the Jews nor the Nazis' intelligence nor sanity, I would still get shut down (the Jews example was in the rules). Talking about killing Jews is certainly pg-13 I would think if it was just a philosophical discussion (in my school we recreated the Nuremberg trials as a project, some people in that will say offensive things about jews).

[Mexican Liberation]

Your whole argument against moderation is what I wouldn’t consider flaming. You have reasons and you don’t question their intelligence nor sanity. Also, I think if the moderators thought this was not legal, they’d have shut it down already.

And intention to offend is anything that shoves opinions down any players’ throat, or questioning their right to exist... sort of things that are out of topic and just questions the person itself and not his/her opinion.

Don’t forget, the rules protect you. If I called you a contemptuous noun, i’d be warned or punished.

That's the whole thing: I'm being ultra concerned with my language. Debate should be free thought, not so excessive to cause cyberbullying, but not so that I'm thinking so much about how to be polite and kind and just. And that is you, maybe if I argued for slavery with reasons and not questions intelligence, if I argued for killing Jews with reasons and not questioning neither the Jews nor the Nazis' intelligence nor sanity, I would still get shut down (the Jews example was in the rules). Talking about killing Jews is certainly pg-13 I would think if it was just a philosophical discussion (in my school we recreated the Nuremberg trials as a project, some people in that will say offensive things about jews).

You actually CAN debate that stuff. There have been a LOT of controversial debates on this site. You're probably worried about offending the entire community right? No one here is offended by that stuff, they only get offended when someone doesn't cite their sources or makes it into a rant instead of an actual debate question (eg. I think this is good because this is good.).

You probably got the Jew part from the custom field section of the rules. No swastikas or Hitler on your flag or motto etc. Why? To stop people from trolling (offending others on purpose just to be offensive, no debates or anything)

[Bluelight-R006]

Your whole argument against moderation is what I wouldn’t consider flaming. You have reasons and you don’t question their intelligence nor sanity. Also, I think if the moderators thought this was not legal, they’d have shut it down already.

And intention to offend is anything that shoves opinions down any players’ throat, or questioning their right to exist... sort of things that are out of topic and just questions the person itself and not his/her opinion.

Don’t forget, the rules protect you. If I called you a contemptuous noun, i’d be warned or punished.

That's the whole thing: I'm being ultra concerned with my language. Debate should be free thought, not so excessive to cause cyberbullying, but not so that I'm thinking so much about how to be polite and kind and just. And that is you, maybe if I argued for slavery with reasons and not questions intelligence, if I argued for killing Jews with reasons and not questioning neither the Jews nor the Nazis' intelligence nor sanity, I would still get shut down (the Jews example was in the rules). Talking about killing Jews is certainly pg-13 I would think if it was just a philosophical discussion (in my school we recreated the Nuremberg trials as a project, some people in that will say offensive things about jews).

Yeah well, I prefer to be kind to everyone because ‘do unto others what you want them to do unto you.’ I also want to stay out of the way of the banhammer, and not take any risks. It’s the two only things stopping me from spouting out harsh words about your opinion that may offend you, but it’s still within legality because I don’t question your existence and all that offensive stuff. Other players tend to go more extreme, but they are still within accordance of the law.

That's the whole thing: I'm being ultra concerned with my language. Debate should be free thought, not so excessive to cause cyberbullying, but not so that I'm thinking so much about how to be polite and kind and just. And that is you, maybe if I argued for slavery with reasons and not questions intelligence, if I argued for killing Jews with reasons and not questioning neither the Jews nor the Nazis' intelligence nor sanity, I would still get shut down (the Jews example was in the rules). Talking about killing Jews is certainly pg-13 I would think if it was just a philosophical discussion (in my school we recreated the Nuremberg trials as a project, some people in that will say offensive things about jews).

You actually CAN debate that stuff. There have been a LOT of controversial debates on this site. You're probably worried about offending the entire community right? No one here is offended by that stuff, they only get offended when someone doesn't cite their sources or makes it into a rant instead of an actual debate question (eg. I think this is good because this is good.).

[Marxist Germany]

Your whole argument against moderation is what I wouldn’t consider flaming. You have reasons and you don’t question their intelligence nor sanity. Also, I think if the moderators thought this was not legal, they’d have shut it down already.

And intention to offend is anything that shoves opinions down any players’ throat, or questioning their right to exist... sort of things that are out of topic and just questions the person itself and not his/her opinion.

Don’t forget, the rules protect you. If I called you a contemptuous noun, i’d be warned or punished.

That's the whole thing: I'm being ultra concerned with my language. Debate should be free thought, not so excessive to cause cyberbullying, but not so that I'm thinking so much about how to be polite and kind and just. And that is you, maybe if I argued for slavery with reasons and not questions intelligence, if I argued for killing Jews with reasons and not questioning neither the Jews nor the Nazis' intelligence nor sanity, I would still get shut down (the Jews example was in the rules). Talking about killing Jews is certainly pg-13 I would think if it was just a philosophical discussion (in my school we recreated the Nuremberg trials as a project, some people in that will say offensive things about jews).

Calling for the death of people isn't a very acceptable opinion. You are free to express your opinion without insults, slurs, or advocating death.

[Kyrusia]

...if I argued for killing Jews...

Arguing "for killing $group" is never going to be acceptable on this forum; we pretty much don't care what reasons you provide. It qualifies as malicious under our Terms & Conditions of Use. More specifically, it qualifies as "advocating death," a subset we roll under the rule against trolling. If that's what your idea of a "philosophical discussion" is, then I'll point out you have absolutely no free speech here, and can have that sort of "philosophical discussion" on a site willing to tolerate it.

There's a difference between advocating for, say, the death penalty or even acts of war, and arguing for genocide/ethnic cleaning/overall exterminating any given $group_of_people. And yes. There's a difference between talking about genocide, and "[arguing] for killing" a group of people.

[Katganistan]

If you really want to say things about killing a whole subset of our posters, you can say it on a site that allows that.

Which is not here.

Also, it's rather entitled to come to a website and demand it changes the rules it's had for fifteen+ years because you don't care for them.

Stay, and stay within the rules for civil/debate and not trolling, or go somewhere more to your liking. No one is throwing you out, nor are they putting a gun to your head to make you stay.

Your experience here is pretty much governed by how much you want to be a part of the community. If you don't want to follow the rules, it will be significantly less fun for you.

[Mexican Liberation]

...if I argued for killing Jews...

Arguing "for killing $group" is never going to be acceptable on this forum; we pretty much don't care what reasons you provide. It qualifies as malicious under our Terms & Conditions of Use. More specifically, it qualifies as "advocating death," a subset we roll under the rule against trolling. If that's what your idea of a "philosophical discussion" is, then I'll point out you have absolutely no free speech here, and can have that sort of "philosophical discussion" on a site willing to tolerate it.

There's a difference between advocating for, say, the death penalty or even acts of war, and arguing for genocide/ethnic cleaning/overall exterminating any given $group_of_people. And yes. There's a difference between talking about genocide, and "[arguing] for killing" a group of people.

Oh dang, yeah, forgot about that. There is free thought on this forum if you follow guidelines, but if to you, free thought means giving others a way to let out their hostile fantasies, yeah...not gonna fly here.

[Reploid Productions]

That's the whole thing: I'm being ultra concerned with my language. Debate should be free thought, not so excessive to cause cyberbullying, but not so that I'm thinking so much about how to be polite and kind and just. And that is you, maybe if I argued for slavery with reasons and not questions intelligence, if I argued for killing Jews with reasons and not questioning neither the Jews nor the Nazis' intelligence nor sanity, I would still get shut down (the Jews example was in the rules). Talking about killing Jews is certainly pg-13 I would think if it was just a philosophical discussion (in my school we recreated the Nuremberg trials as a project, some people in that will say offensive things about jews).

You actually CAN debate that stuff. There have been a LOT of controversial debates on this site. You're probably worried about offending the entire community right? No one here is offended by that stuff, they only get offended when someone doesn't cite their sources or makes it into a rant instead of an actual debate question (eg. I think this is good because this is good.).

Eh... actually, there is no way to argue in favor of killing <IRL group> that isn't considered trolling. Because pretty much any way you say it, "members of X group should die/be killed/etc" is an inflammatory statement that runs afoul of one or more of the big six guidelines that the site rules are derived from:

What can't I post?

Any content that is:

• obscene
• illegal
• threatening
• malicious
• defamatory
• spam

[Qwertyuioplkjhgfd]

That's the whole thing: I'm being ultra concerned with my language. Debate should be free thought, not so excessive to cause cyberbullying, but not so that I'm thinking so much about how to be polite and kind and just. And that is you, maybe if I argued for slavery with reasons and not questions intelligence, if I argued for killing Jews with reasons and not questioning neither the Jews nor the Nazis' intelligence nor sanity, I would still get shut down (the Jews example was in the rules). Talking about killing Jews is certainly pg-13 I would think if it was just a philosophical discussion (in my school we recreated the Nuremberg trials as a project, some people in that will say offensive things about jews).

You actually CAN debate that stuff. There have been a LOT of controversial debates on this site. You're probably worried about offending the entire community right? No one here is offended by that stuff, they only get offended when someone doesn't cite their sources or makes it into a rant instead of an actual debate question (eg. I think this is good because this is good.).

You probably got the Jew part from the custom field section of the rules. No swastikas or Hitler on your flag or motto etc. Why? To stop people from trolling (offending others on purpose just to be offensive, no debates or anything)

This is what I'm talking about. If you saw Marxist Germany's last post, I wouldn't think you are right. He does not think the death of Jews can be discussed in an actual debate just because it is controversial. It's just like some people think homosexuality can't be debated: it's a given anyone can be gay if they feel like it and offensive to even discuss it. Not according to anyone deeply religious.

[The Free Joy State]

Your whole argument against moderation is what I wouldn’t consider flaming. You have reasons and you don’t question their intelligence nor sanity. Also, I think if the moderators thought this was not legal, they’d have shut it down already.

And intention to offend is anything that shoves opinions down any players’ throat, or questioning their right to exist... sort of things that are out of topic and just questions the person itself and not his/her opinion.

Don’t forget, the rules protect you. If I called you a contemptuous noun, i’d be warned or punished.

That's the whole thing: I'm being ultra concerned with my language. Debate should be free thought, not so excessive to cause cyberbullying, but not so that I'm thinking so much about how to be polite and kind and just. And that is you, maybe if I argued for slavery with reasons and not questions intelligence, if I argued for killing Jews with reasons and not questioning neither the Jews nor the Nazis' intelligence nor sanity, I would still get shut down (the Jews example was in the rules). Talking about killing Jews is certainly pg-13 I would think if it was just a philosophical discussion (in my school we recreated the Nuremberg trials as a project, some people in that will say offensive things about jews).

Debate doesn't need to be completely free on this site. From the FAQs:

It's free speech, so I can post whatever I like here, right?
Ahahahaha! Hahaha! Free speech! No, it's not. I run this web site, see, so you have to play by my rules. It's like my own Father Knows Best state.
[…]
What can't I post?
Any content that is:

• obscene
• illegal
• threatening
• malicious
• defamatory
• spam

Pretty sure Thanks to Reppy, now absolutely certain that reasons you'd like to murder X-group -- no matter how eruditely phrased -- would come under one of those categories (possibly malicious and/or threatening, depending on how you put it).

Again, these are the terms you signed on for. Which is why I always suggest reading conditions before you register for a website. I'm sure there are many out there that allow you (general "you") to discuss reasons for killing X-group.

[Qwertyuioplkjhgfd]

You actually CAN debate that stuff. There have been a LOT of controversial debates on this site. You're probably worried about offending the entire community right? No one here is offended by that stuff, they only get offended when someone doesn't cite their sources or makes it into a rant instead of an actual debate question (eg. I think this is good because this is good.).

Eh... actually, there is no way to argue in favor of killing <IRL group> that isn't considered trolling. Because pretty much any way you say it, "members of X group should die/be killed/etc" is an inflammatory statement that runs afoul of one or more of the big six guidelines that the site rules are derived from:

What can't I post?

Any content that is:

• obscene
• illegal
• threatening
• malicious
• defamatory
• spam

Then can homosexuality be discussed? Some people would think discussing that is trolling and no way can you discuss that because homosexuality like race or religious to an extent can't be controlled. To some, there is no way of saying it's wrong and a sin to be gay without be threatening. But this is not the death of homosexuals. Just if it's a sin, which that cannot be discussed, or can it?

[Kyrusia]

...just because it is controversial.

You can discuss all manner of controversial topics.* How you discuss it, however, matters, and it's your responsibility to ensure it adheres to our rules that you agreed to adhere to upon the moment of account creation. The onus is on you to follow the rules, and us to enforce them.

*The only "topic" that has a general moratorium in NSG is pedophilia, as I recall.