NationStates Rules Are Too Strict

[El-Amin Caliphate]

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).

Well yes, advocating for the friggin holocaust is messed up, people should be banned for that

[Reploid Productions]

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?

We are not going to give you a bunch of answers to hypothetical scenarios. Context is a vital component of making any ruling, hence we don't rule on hypotheticals. People manage to discuss almost everything without breaking the site rules (there are some obvious exceptions,) and the vast majority of our players manage to play the game and use the forums without ever running afoul of the site rules. It's not that difficult.

[Khataiy]

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).

Well yes, advocating for the friggin holocaust is messed up, people should be banned for that

Not on a forum that claims any idea can be supported, whilst supporting X idea can get you banned, its dumb the rules effectively make it impossible to support certain positions because you can't even argue for them and if you do you have to do so in a very careful manner. If this forum wasn't an open one, and it openly states that you may not support X idea or be of Y ideology then yes you would be right, but this isn't the case.

[Mexican Liberation]

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.

Literally no one is stopping you from arguing about whether or not the Holocaust happened or if it was as bad as people say it was IF you can argue it effectively (or in other words, show that you genuinely mean it and aren't just trying to get a reaction). You will be ridiculed or have hundreds of rebuttals, because that is the other side of the free speech/thought coin.

When you start to wonder about how gays are not people, or the Jews truly did deserve it, how do you think your words weigh against the lives of the people reading that post? What good of an argument is that, to just debate without a purpose?

[Catsfern]

Page three, not blocked.

[Kyrusia]

Well yes, advocating for the friggin holocaust is messed up, people should be banned for that

Not on a forum that claims any idea can be supported, whilst supporting X idea can get you banned, its dumb the rules effectively make it impossible to support certain positions because you can't even argue for them and if you do you have to do so in a very careful manner. If this forum wasn't an open one, and it openly states that you may not support X idea or be of Y ideology then yes you would be right, but this isn't the case.

We're not a completely open forum, or site. To quote the FAQ:

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.

Are we generally open, insofar as most topics can be discussed, and even highly-controversial topics and opinions? Yes, within reason - reasons laid-out in our rules and T&CoU. But is this 4chan/8chan/half-a-dozen other websites that'll let you post just whatever people want? Nah.

TLDR: You can argue just about any opinion or position, insofar as such is done in a manner that doesn't break our rules. Arguing "we should kill all $group_of_people" isn't a position that's going to ever be able to be effectively argued, because it fundamentally breaks our rules. I don't ever see that changing.

[El-Amin Caliphate]

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.

Actually, homosexuality can be and is discussed here.

[El-Amin Caliphate]

Page three, not blocked.

Why should it be?

[Khataiy]

Not on a forum that claims any idea can be supported, whilst supporting X idea can get you banned, its dumb the rules effectively make it impossible to support certain positions because you can't even argue for them and if you do you have to do so in a very careful manner. If this forum wasn't an open one, and it openly states that you may not support X idea or be of Y ideology then yes you would be right, but this isn't the case.

We're not a completely open forum, or site. To quote the FAQ:

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.

Are we generally open, insofar as most topics can be discussed, and even highly-controversial topics and opinions? Yes, within reason - reasons laid-out in our rules and T&CoU. But is this 4chan/8chan/half-a-dozen other websites that'll let you post just whatever people want? Nah.

TLDR: You can argue just about any opinion or position, insofar as such is done in a manner that doesn't break our rules. Arguing "we should kill all $group_of_people" isn't a position that's going to ever be able to be effectively argued, because it fundamentally breaks our rules. I don't ever see that changing.

I know that, it does say there is no free speech but there is nothing claiming to be a rule against ideas or ideology or arguing for them, but if you do argue for them given the lack of free speech this effectively makes it impossible to support certain positions.

[Qwertyuioplkjhgfd]

...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.

My point is that the six elements which must be avoided, especially threatening and malicious, are opinion. To religious people, talking about homosexuality in and of itself is obscene and cannot be discussed, like the death of a certain group which The Free Joy State says. To others, even discussing how homosexuality is a sin (comparable to being a Jew is a sin) is just outright wrong and threatening to the homosexual community in a malicious way.

What if there was a group of people, say a small religious group of humans, around a 100,000, conspired to letting loose all the nuclear weapons of the world and making humanity extinct (for religious cult purposes, they do do that stuff to reach a state of eternal consciousness, or because their God commanded). Say one of those 100,000 was on this site, and people deemed it morally just to talk about killing that specific group of people. That religious group would find it offensive that people on NS are talking about why that religious group should be killed, and the moderators aren't doing anything (or would they?)

Do you see the irony?

[Qwertyuioplkjhgfd]

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?

We are not going to give you a bunch of answers to hypothetical scenarios. Context is a vital component of making any ruling, hence we don't rule on hypotheticals. People manage to discuss almost everything without breaking the site rules (there are some obvious exceptions,) and the vast majority of our players manage to play the game and use the forums without ever running afoul of the site rules. It's not that difficult.

That is why I didn't intend this to be in moderation, just because it discusses site rules, I am not expecting answers from them. This is purely hypothetical and debatable in its nature, and I didn't intend to make any changes to site rules. It's my opinion.

[The Democratic Marxists]

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?

Why the thirst for the freedom to make inflammatory remarks? NSG is a place for a respectful trade of ideas, not a playground for insults and offensive comments. This isn’t a country. This is a privately established community that has created its own rules; nobody has a “constitutional right” to something like freedom of speech. The goal is to engage in civil discussion. If you have a problem with civility, well, that seems like a you problem, and it shouldn’t be brought to this forum.

To try to answer your question: of course any topic, including homosexuality, can be “discussed”. The manner of discussion is what is regulated. If your argument is one about the impact of homosexuality on the family unit, yes, I’ve seen many conservatives discuss that on the site. If you’re not making generalizations, offensive comments about individuals or the community, or calling for genocide, all intelligent debate is permitted. I don’t see what’s unreasonable about that.

[El-Amin Caliphate]

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.

My point is that the six elements which must be avoided, especially threatening and malicious, are opinion. To religious people, talking about homosexuality in and of itself is obscene and cannot be discussed, like the death of a certain group which The Free Joy State says. To others, even discussing how homosexuality is a sin (comparable to being a Jew is a sin) is just outright wrong and threatening to the homosexual community in a malicious way.

What if there was a group of people, say a small religious group of humans, around a 100,000, conspired to letting loose all the nuclear weapons of the world and making humanity extinct (for religious cult purposes, they do do that stuff to reach a state of eternal consciousness, or because their God commanded). Say one of those 100,000 was on this site, and people deemed it morally just to talk about killing that specific group of people. That religious group would find it offensive that people on NS are talking about why that religious group should be killed, and the moderators aren't doing anything (or would they?)

Do you see the irony?

The mods don't discuss hypotheticals. Also, as I said before, homosexuality can be discussed here.

[Kyrusia]

[...]

We're not getting into hypotheticals; you've already been told that. Read the FAQ, once again:

Another player posted something offensive!

People get offended at different things, so first make sure it falls into one of the above categories [as mentioned also here]. If it does, please report it to the game moderators using the Getting Help page, or if it's in the forums, to the Moderation forum.

Because our moderators are players who have volunteered to help out of the goodness of their hearts, please deal with lesser disputes without involving them. For example, if someone in your region is annoying you, your region's Founder or WA Delegate can eject them.

I know that, it does say there is no free speech but there is nothing claiming to be a rule against ideas or ideology or arguing for them, but if you do argue for them given the lack of free speech this effectively makes it impossible to support certain positions.

It's the player's responsibility to argue their positions in a rule-abiding fashion. It's not our job to hold folk's hands and make their arguments for them.

[Qwertyuioplkjhgfd]

We're not a completely open forum, or site. To quote the FAQ:


Are we generally open, insofar as most topics can be discussed, and even highly-controversial topics and opinions? Yes, within reason - reasons laid-out in our rules and T&CoU. But is this 4chan/8chan/half-a-dozen other websites that'll let you post just whatever people want? Nah.

TLDR: You can argue just about any opinion or position, insofar as such is done in a manner that doesn't break our rules. Arguing "we should kill all $group_of_people" isn't a position that's going to ever be able to be effectively argued, because it fundamentally breaks our rules. I don't ever see that changing.

I know that, it does say there is no free speech but there is nothing claiming to be a rule against ideas or ideology or arguing for them, but if you do argue for them given the lack of free speech this effectively makes it impossible to support certain positions.

That is slowly the idea I am getting at.

[The Democratic Marxists]

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.

My point is that the six elements which must be avoided, especially threatening and malicious, are opinion. To religious people, talking about homosexuality in and of itself is obscene and cannot be discussed, like the death of a certain group which The Free Joy State says. To others, even discussing how homosexuality is a sin (comparable to being a Jew is a sin) is just outright wrong and threatening to the homosexual community in a malicious way.

What if there was a group of people, say a small religious group of humans, around a 100,000, conspired to letting loose all the nuclear weapons of the world and making humanity extinct (for religious cult purposes, they do do that stuff to reach a state of eternal consciousness, or because their God commanded). Say one of those 100,000 was on this site, and people deemed it morally just to talk about killing that specific group of people. That religious group would find it offensive that people on NS are talking about why that religious group should be killed, and the moderators aren't doing anything (or would they?)

Do you see the irony?

That’s an oddly specific scenario and a big leap from “let’s argue for killing the Jews.”

[El-Amin Caliphate]

Also, what people think doesn't influence the rules of this site. So some people thinking that opposing homosexuality is offensive won't cause discussion of homosexuality to be banned here.

[Qwertyuioplkjhgfd]

Also, what people think doesn't influence the rules of this site. So some people thinking that opposing homosexuality is offensive won't cause discussion of homosexuality to be banned here.

Actually I believe it's the opposite. What is obscene, threatening, malicious, and defamatory is pretty much opinion. The rules intended to prevent flaming and trolling, so it's funny (to me, my opinion) how some people would find any discussion of homosexuality offensive (just like any discussion of Jews people think it's offensive) so it's banned. It's all human thought and relative.

[El-Amin Caliphate]

Also, what people think doesn't influence the rules of this site. So some people thinking that opposing homosexuality is offensive won't cause discussion of homosexuality to be banned here.

Actually I believe it's the opposite. What is obscene, threatening, malicious, and defamatory is pretty much opinion. The rules intended to prevent flaming and trolling, so it's funny (to me, my opinion) how some people would find any discussion of homosexuality offensive (just like any discussion of Jews people think it's offensive) so it's banned. It's all human thought and relative.

Discussion of homosexuality isn't banned. I've said this around 3 times now.

[The Free Joy State]

Also, what people think doesn't influence the rules of this site. So some people thinking that opposing homosexuality is offensive won't cause discussion of homosexuality to be banned here.

Actually I believe it's the opposite. What is obscene, threatening, malicious, and defamatory is pretty much opinion. The rules intended to prevent flaming and trolling, so it's funny (to me, my opinion) how some people would find any discussion of homosexuality offensive (just like any discussion of Jews people think it's offensive) so it's banned. It's all human thought and relative.

Kyrusia has already explained that they don't take action over any things that people find offensive, but over things that are broadly offensive.

And it's not against site rules to discuss Judaism. It's against site rules to argue Jewish people should be murdered. There's a huge difference.

[The Democratic Marxists]

Also, what people think doesn't influence the rules of this site. So some people thinking that opposing homosexuality is offensive won't cause discussion of homosexuality to be banned here.

Actually I believe it's the opposite. What is obscene, threatening, malicious, and defamatory is pretty much opinion. The rules intended to prevent flaming and trolling, so it's funny (to me, my opinion) how some people would find any discussion of homosexuality offensive (just like any discussion of Jews people think it's offensive) so it's banned. It's all human thought and relative.

You don’t think there’s a difference between “discussion”, more importantly intelligent, civil discussion, and calling for genocide? Wouldn’t that be an unacceptable view in our ideal world? NSG tries to maintain a respectful atmosphere, why are you against that?

[Qwertyuioplkjhgfd]

"People get offended at different things, so first make sure it falls into one of the above categories [as mentioned also here]." as it says.

That in and of itself is impossible. There's no way to make sure it falls into one of those 6 categories. That's opinion, putting ideas into one of those categories. Illegal is U.S. legislation; Spam is continous repetitive posts. Those are defined. The others, not so much. I can give example as well.

Again, as the OP, my intent was for it to be hypothetical and discussion, and that was why I didn't open this in Moderation.

What is "broadly" offensive is what the moderators think is offensive. Who defines what is "broadly" offensive? Not the six elements in the site rules for sure (in my opinion).

[El-Amin Caliphate]

"People get offended at different things, so first make sure it falls into one of the above categories [as mentioned also here]." as it says.

That in and of itself is impossible. There's no way to make sure it falls into one of those 6 categories. That's opinion, putting ideas into one of those categories. Illegal is U.S. legislation; Spam is continous repetitive posts. Those are defined. The others, not so much. I can give example as well.

Again, as the OP, my intent was for it to be hypothetical and discussion, and that was why I didn't open this in Moderation.

What is "broadly" offensive is what the moderators think is offensive. Who defines what is "broadly" offensive? Not the six elements in the site rules for sure (in my opinion).

Max Barry is Australian, not American, so technically "illegal" would be Austrialian legislation, not American.

[The Free Joy State]

"People get offended at different things, so first make sure it falls into one of the above categories [as mentioned also here]." as it says.

That in and of itself is impossible. There's no way to make sure it falls into one of those 6 categories. That's opinion, putting ideas into one of those categories. Illegal is U.S. legislation; Spam is continous repetitive posts. Those are defined. The others, not so much. I can give example as well.

Again, as the OP, my intent was for it to be hypothetical and discussion, and that was why I didn't open this in Moderation.

What is "broadly" offensive is what the moderators think is offensive. Who defines what is "broadly" offensive? Not the six elements in the site rules for sure (in my opinion).

You want to discuss changing site rules. That belongs in Moderation. General is for matters of General world interest.

To find out more about the rules' definitions, I suggest you read the One-Stop Rule Shop and General's Rules to Pay Attention To, which should clarify things.

The rules are really not as vague as you try to make them out to be.

Also, the site's founder, Max Barry is Australian, not American.

[Dangine]

Actually I believe it's the opposite. What is obscene, threatening, malicious, and defamatory is pretty much opinion. The rules intended to prevent flaming and trolling, so it's funny (to me, my opinion) how some people would find any discussion of homosexuality offensive (just like any discussion of Jews people think it's offensive) so it's banned. It's all human thought and relative.

Discussion of homosexuality isn't banned. I've said this around 3 times now.

I'm pretty sure the point he is trying to make is that people find a discussion about Jews offensive and that get's banned. By using that same logic people having a Discussion about homosexuality should be banned too because people can find that offensive.