Not enough moderation at the political section/Freedom of Speech

[Archer]

I added "Freedom of speech" to the title since these two issues are closely connected.

To be clear about the claims that all members can say whatever they want under the "Freedom of Speech" law.

Freedom of Speech means that you can say whatever you want without having to worry about gettingthrown in jail. However, just like anywhere else in the world, there are rules and etiquettes online.
Every club, group or website has their own set of rules and guidelines. There are set depending on the environment they're trying to create. Some websites/groups/clubs don't allow any political conversations, others don't allow any swearing or some allow members and users to totally lash out at each other.
If you visit an Elivs fanclub, you can't just go there and say deragotary and hateful things about the King and expect that the people accept that behavior. It's obvious it is their right and discretion to set the tone for their community and just saying that "I'm practicing my Freedom of Speech" isn't a valid statement. It's just not the right place for you, it would make more sense to find a "I hate Elivs Presley" page to share your opinion and thoughts.

The same applies to this forum. We don't allow attacks towards other forum members, particular groups or believes. It is okay to question and critcize if it's done in a constructive manner. It is up to the Mods to make the final call if a comment or post is questionable using their best judgement. We set the forum rules and every member need to agree to them when registering and if that's not what they were looking for then they should find a website that suits their needs and believes or start their own community. And this is not a call for those to leave the forum I just want to be clear that "Freedom of speech" doesn't apply in this case, that's a legal issue so you won't be thrown in jail.

I just want the rules to apply to everyone in an equal way. If I get an infraction because I called something (not even a person) '' amateur '', another person should also get an infraction because he called a specific member '' loony ''.

 

[Archer]

Re: Not enough moderation at the political section

Dear mods - is it appropriate to insult every official document as "propaganda material", while name every other hypothesis the one and the only?

Please explain your insults toward individuals as I stated above after all.

 

[r3gg13]

I think this thread's discussion topic is getting beyond its designated topic.

As for the politics thread: Mods and admins do look at that thread quite a lot. IMO, it is the members' responsibility, along with mods and admins', to keep the threads on topic. We all talk in the politics forum, it's our responsibility as members of this forum and as users of the political threads to keep ourselves composed and post responsibly. What we as mods and admins do is keep everyone in that political forum in check, we make sure that people are not being completely offensive and off the line without limiting their capabilities to express their differing political opinions.

I tend to be the more liberal type when it comes to "censorship". I do look at more questionable posts more than once and see whether it requires removal, warning, etc. It has happened on multiple occasions that I've removed posts and banned people in the politics section, but that only happens on really severe instances. The reason I tend to be liberal on banning and removing posts is because I want the members to feel welcomed to post their opinions in political subjects. If it gets out of hand, then that is something else.

 

[SpZ]

Now just to make myself clear (as i made the topic). I am strongly against any sort of censorship. However by more moderating I mean using other means (like done now with the split) to keep the discussion on topic. That and censoring are distinctively different as I am favour of discussion, but in the right places. If there would be a widespread deletion of posts, or closing of certain topics I would be the 1st one to bitchwhine like I have done in the past.

 

[AdelAdel]

I just want the rules to apply to everyone in an equal way. If I get an infraction because I called something (not even a person) '' amateur '', another person should also get an infraction because he called a specific member '' loony ''.

You said that a country was amateur, in fact, my country. And since when supporters of mass murders are NOT loonies?

 

[SpZ]

Re: Not enough moderation at the political section

The post in question that you are so outraged by was made by a person who is trolling the forum and the person knows that. I gave that person a fair chance to redeem himself. The leadership team is very well aware of that individual's actions and intent. Before making such accusations towards the leadership team, it may be a good idea to consider the fact that there are a lot of stuff available to us that are not available to you.

And pointing out that if you meant Archer, then I don't see him trolling the forum more than other people

 

[Archer]

You said that a country was amateur, in fact, my country. And since when supporters of mass murders are NOT loonies?

I think anti-abortion conservatives supporting the tradition of beating children is a much worse act of looniness.

 

[SpZ]

You said that a country was amateur, in fact, my country. And since when supporters of mass murders are NOT loonies?

Pointing out that there are many mass murderers who have widespread support. For example Oliver Cromwell. Even if supporting them is generally something normal people don't do, then so what? People have right for opinion. If we'd call anyone in the political forum loonies, then it would be the 1 liner crowd who throws statements into air without any analysis or logical explanations (at least for them) whatsoever. Don't think we should continue with the name calling though.

 

[AdelAdel]

I think anti-abortion conservatives supporting the tradition of beating children is a much worse act of looniness.

I never, ever said that. On the contrary - I said that it is bad and should be punished by law.
Can someone ban this guy for spreading these lies?

 

[AdelAdel]

Pointing out that there are many mass murderers who have widespread support. For example Oliver Cromwell. Even if supporting them is generally something normal people don't do, then so what? People have right for opinion. If we'd call anyone in the political forum loonies, then it would be the 1 liner crowd who throws statements into air without any analysis or logical explanations (at least for them) whatsoever. Don't think we should continue with the name calling though.

I believe that people, who support mass murderers are in fact loonies, but hey - it's my opinion (and most people's anyway).

 

[Archer]

I believe that people, who support mass murderers are in fact loonies, but hey - it's my opinion (and most people's anyway).

So why are you complaing like this:

So why is swearing and insulting people forbidden? Following your logic, isn't this freedom of speech?

 

[MyHeartIsYours]

I think anti-abortion conservatives supporting the tradition of beating children is a much worse act of looniness.

You support chopping children's foreskin's off so I dont think anti-abortionists have much to worry about

 

[Archer]

I never, ever said that. On the contrary - I said that it is bad and should be punished by law.
Can someone ban this guy for spreading these lies?

I misunderstood then, sorry.

And can you show me a rule stating that spreading lies is banned ?

 

[SpZ]

Can we (and by we I pretty much mean AdelAdel and Archer) at least try to act less childish for a while?

 

[Archer]

You support chopping children's foreskin's off so I dont think anti-abortionists have much to worry about

I support it due to the scientific recommendations. Do you have any scientific reasons about why abourtions should be banned, except exaggerated emotionalism ? don't you feel ashamed of being in the same side with the countries you loathe and curse everywhere ?

 

[Archer]

Can we (and by we I pretty much mean AdelAdel and Archer) at least try to act less childish for a while?

 

[AdelAdel]

So why are you complaing like this:

OMG, you cannot even distinguish sarcasm from serious things. I asked this as a sarcasm...

 

[Archer]

OMG, you cannot even distinguish sarcasm from serious things. I asked this as a sarcasm...

I see that that was a sarcasm, but you agree with the fact that insulting should be forbidden. But you insult people yourself.

 

[AdelAdel]

I see that that was a sarcasm, but you agree with the fact that insulting should be forbidden. But you insult people yourself.

You insult religion and people who had died because of bloody dictators. That's enough.

 

[Archer]

You insult religion and people who had died because of bloody dictators. That's enough.

Gotta ask for proof that I insulted religion. And I have nothing to do if you interpret my words the way you want.