UDWiki talk:Moderation/Policy Discussion/Hate Speech
|
Administration Services — Protection. This page has been protected against editing. See the archive of recent actions or the Protections log. |
Reactionary Much?
This isn't reactionary at all, is it? No, it couldn't be: it isn't like anything like OWS or OBS has happened lately. Nope, this is not in response to anything. --Gage 21:37, 13 August 2006 (BST)
- The Lord God researched some of the past cases and finds some of them to be reactionary in nature. After all, who would propose a policy with no immediate need? This should have been a rule for a very long time. Thus spake the Lord God. -- (GOD) † God 21:44, 13 August 2006 (BST)
- Gage, does it really matter much if it's reactionary or not? If it's a good policy, why do you care? –Bob Hammero Mod•B'crat•T•A 04:40, 14 August 2006 (BST)
Discussion
Initially seems good. There should be a provision the pre-existing stuff is only deleted, and not sent to vandal banning. The deletions of this should also be noted at Speedy Deletions, maybe with a new criteria. Then I got to the part about only mods getting to vote to add and remove from the list. Unless there is a way for generic wiki users to have a say, I'm not wholly in favor of this. The mods don't really have accountability to regular users - it would be hard to go to Misconduct to protest a modly vote on this issue. I don't really think that adding a way to "impeach" mods to make them a bit more accountable is the right thing to do at all. But I think the regular community needs a voice, even the trolls. Maybe the way to do it is to have a parallel community Agree / Disagree vote, with it being worth a total of 3 mod votes - to be split as with the breakdown of community voters. Thoughts? --Darth Sensitive 
W! 22:06, 13 August 2006 (BST)
- Their should be initial voting, because if you don't you run the risk of this policy being a "delete first and ask questions later" policy. If not voting at the beginning, then anyone should be able to vote on the misconduct page. --Gage 22:17, 13 August 2006 (BST)
- Gage, what are you talking about? –Bob Hammero Mod•B'crat•T•A 04:47, 14 August 2006 (BST)
- Your idea about things that already exist just being deleted is a good one. I'm not sure why the deletions would need to be noted on Speedy Deletions, though, since they'd already be noted on the Vandal Banning page. Interesting idea about the community voting as well — I thought about it, but wasn't sure the right way to do it initially, which is why I left it out. What if the community could vote as well, but each person's vote was only worth half of one vote? The reason I'm going for decreased community input at all, by the way, is that the issue of making certain content allowable or not allowable is a touchy one, and very prone to organized groups banding together and skewing a vote against the real community wishes. –Bob Hammero Mod•B'crat•T•A 04:47, 14 August 2006 (BST)
- I would put it on Speedy Deletions because they are deletions that go without community vote. Basically, it's the place to see what things have disappeared. I think that having each vote be woth half is too much, as you can still get the "group flood". I think doing the community votes by percentage has some potential for abuse, but not nearly as much as the other. --Darth Sensitive
W! 04:56, 14 August 2006 (BST)
- Okay, I can see your point about Speedy Deletions. Here's an idea: what if the community has a vote, and the simple majority community vote is taken at one third the value of the total number of moderator votes (rounded down)? For example: if the simple majority of the community is Agree, and there are nine moderator votes, then the community vote will be worth three moderator votes? –Bob Hammero Mod•B'crat•T•A 05:11, 14 August 2006 (BST)
- That seems like it would work to me. --Darth Sensitive W! 05:12, 14 August 2006 (BST)
- We could limit the community vote to users with certain ammount of edits only, instead of limiting their votes value in favor of moderators (that I think it's a bit too much). --Matthew Fahrenheit YRC | T | W! 05:47, 14 August 2006 (BST)
- The problem with that is that not only would someone have to verify that every voter had the required number of edits, and that those edits were somehow substantive, but given that the wiki history is periodically wiped, someone could claim that all of their earlier edits were simply erased from the history. –Bob Hammero Mod•B'crat•T•A 08:39, 14 August 2006 (BST)
- We could limit the community vote to users with certain ammount of edits only, instead of limiting their votes value in favor of moderators (that I think it's a bit too much). --Matthew Fahrenheit YRC | T | W! 05:47, 14 August 2006 (BST)
- That seems like it would work to me. --Darth Sensitive
- Okay, I can see your point about Speedy Deletions. Here's an idea: what if the community has a vote, and the simple majority community vote is taken at one third the value of the total number of moderator votes (rounded down)? For example: if the simple majority of the community is Agree, and there are nine moderator votes, then the community vote will be worth three moderator votes? –Bob Hammero Mod•B'crat•T•A 05:11, 14 August 2006 (BST)
- I would put it on Speedy Deletions because they are deletions that go without community vote. Basically, it's the place to see what things have disappeared. I think that having each vote be woth half is too much, as you can still get the "group flood". I think doing the community votes by percentage has some potential for abuse, but not nearly as much as the other. --Darth Sensitive
Some things to keep in mind:
- Freedom of speech doesn't exist as a totality, but this could reduce the freedom of speech on the wiki.
- If people are doing racist or discriminatory stuff on UD, what is the point have having it banned from the wiki? Then they can carry it out in secrecy better.
- Who decides what is offensive? If I am Latino, do I get more pull that twenty white people in what I find offensive? What if a whole lot of straight people aren't offended by something that is anti-gay, but one gay player is?
- Sexuality needs to be on there. Why isn't it?
- I think that social and economic background should not be on there. Firstly, someone could argue that that would cut down on the freedom of speech of any group that is anti-capitalist or critical of capitalism. It would affect socialist and anarchist survivor groups, as well as many zombie groups like 'Eat the Rich.'
- Groups or entries that offend, as we have seen, are often FOR something as opposed to openly AGAINST something. OWS claims to be pro-white, ICB claims to be pro-purity and uses nazi imagery, some groups use southern confederacy imagery, how would this policy deal with them?
Those are just some thoughts to ponder. I do not oppose nor support this policy as of yet. Personally, I think prejudice and hate has no place in the world, but since it exists in the world, I cannot be sure that sanitizing this wiki is the best option. Something more proactively anti-hate might make more sense. --Luigi Galleani 18:07, 14 August 2006 (BST)
- He brings up a good point. This gets my against vote if sexual orientation is not on there. --Gage 19:49, 14 August 2006 (BST)
- Yes, this would reduce freedom of speech, in the same way that a ban on threatening speech reduces freedom of speech. Since I can't see any legitimate reason that someone would need to violate this policy, I don't see this as being an issue.
- Why does the possibility of people acting badly in the game mean that we shouldn't stop it on the wiki?
- The community as a whole decides what is offensive, the same way that most things work on the wiki and in the real world. If I make a page titled "I hate nigger faggots," is that inappropriate? Of course. Things that are in the gray area will always be harder to determine, but I believe the community as a whole will be able to decide properly most of the time.
- I'll add on sexuality. I simply didn't think of it when I was first writing the policy.
- I'm not talking about, for example, anti-capitalism groups (if there are any). I'm talking about things like "you're stupid because you're capitalist" or "poor people need to die."
- If a group truly crosses the line, then in its claiming that it is staunchly for something, it will also display something else as being inferior, and that is how it can be attacked.
- –Bob Hammero Mod•B'crat•T•A 04:58, 15 August 2006 (BST)
- Well, these were simply points, some that I feel strongly, others I just thought people should think about. I can accept (but not adore) your response to the first one, I don't think you fully read into my point on the second one, I fully support your answers to my third and fourth questions/points, and I am unsatisfied with the fifth response. For example, what about a group like "Eat the Rich"? I really think economics should be brought out of this- most of the other things you are born into and will die in, but economic status is different. Exactly who do you think would be offended by 'economically discriminatory language'? If there is a group that is a rich people's club, they should be allowed to exist just as much as Eat the Rich. And your last resonse I guess I'll have to accept because it's a difficult terrain to maneuver. But I'm still hung-up on the question of 'socio-economic status', which I don't think belongs on this anti-discrimination policy.--Luigi Galleani 15:23, 15 August 2006 (BST)
- Eat The Rich is a song by Aerosmith. Are you going to say The Guns of Brixton are bad too since it is a song? Sonny Corleone WTF RRF ASS 18:33, 15 August 2006 (BST)
- Well, these were simply points, some that I feel strongly, others I just thought people should think about. I can accept (but not adore) your response to the first one, I don't think you fully read into my point on the second one, I fully support your answers to my third and fourth questions/points, and I am unsatisfied with the fifth response. For example, what about a group like "Eat the Rich"? I really think economics should be brought out of this- most of the other things you are born into and will die in, but economic status is different. Exactly who do you think would be offended by 'economically discriminatory language'? If there is a group that is a rich people's club, they should be allowed to exist just as much as Eat the Rich. And your last resonse I guess I'll have to accept because it's a difficult terrain to maneuver. But I'm still hung-up on the question of 'socio-economic status', which I don't think belongs on this anti-discrimination policy.--Luigi Galleani 15:23, 15 August 2006 (BST)
What about National oringin or locale ? As written the policy might allow discrimination toward a particular state or region. --Dunnigan Taggart 10:42, 15 August 2006 (BST)
- Good point. I'll broaden the wording for that part. –Bob Hammero Mod•B'crat•T•A 02:49, 16 August 2006 (BST)
- What? Does this mean I'm going to have to remove my "Nuke the n00bs. Or France." thing from my sidebar? –Xoid S•T•FU! 13:14, 16 August 2006 (BST)
- Doubtful. You're not saying "French people suck," or "I'm a moderator, but I won't help the French." –Bob Hammero Mod•B'crat•T•A 19:35, 16 August 2006 (BST)
- What? Does this mean I'm going to have to remove my "Nuke the n00bs. Or France." thing from my sidebar? –Xoid S•T•FU! 13:14, 16 August 2006 (BST)
It seems to me that what we are dancing around is the broad issue of trolling. The deliberate pushing of buttons to evoke anger and irritation in others. Race, sexual orinetation, economic status, etc. are just the buttons that trolls press to bait people's anger. If we ban racism and sexism, trolls will employ more subtle ways to agitate people. The OWS is mainly a pro-white group, and does not directly belittle any other group, yet its function is still seemingly to piss non-white people off. Banning racism (which I am in favor of) will not impact the OWS page, as it is not overtly racist, just inflammatory. But, if one were to accept my premise (that we're dealing with trolls who use hot button issues), then we are left with a much larger and stickier problem - how do you legislate civility in the wiki? I will vote in support of any policy that reduces trolling. I'd like folks to consider how we can make this broader, but expect my support. --Kiki Lottaboobs 00:32, 16 August 2006 (BST)
- I think you are exactly right. Unfortunately, I have yet to see a single moderately popular community website that is not plagued by trolls. I think the best we can do is make it difficult and clearly frowned upon to troll, and deal with the ones who are clever enough to slip through the cracks on an individual basis. Ultimately, I don't think it's possible to get rid of disruptive behavior entirely, but if you or anyone else can think of a way to prove me wrong, I would be more than happy to hear it. –Bob Hammero Mod•B'crat•T•A 02:49, 16 August 2006 (BST)
This only affects people, right? I would still be able to hate all the noobs as much as I can? --Niilomaan GRR! 12:17, 17 August 2006 (BST)
- Yep. It really shouldn't impact any legitimate interaction on the wiki, just things that any reasonable person would frown upon anyway. –Bob Hammero Mod•B'crat•T•A 03:50, 18 August 2006 (BST)
Beards
Do Beards fall under Discrimination? Sonny Corleone WTF RRF ASS 04:51, 14 August 2006 (BST)
- Beards? What do you mean? There's nothing discriminatory about having a beard. –Bob Hammero Mod•B'crat•T•A 05:07, 14 August 2006 (BST)
- Ok. Just making sure. Sonny Corleone WTF RRF ASS 05:10, 14 August 2006 (BST)
- Okay. What caused you to ask that? –Bob Hammero Mod•B'crat•T•A 05:11, 14 August 2006 (BST)
- Why, I'd imagine it was pure curiosity. Cyberbob Talk 05:12, 14 August 2006 (BST)
- You got AIM? Sonny Corleone WTF RRF ASS 05:13, 14 August 2006 (BST)
- MSN and email. Email would be best, actually, because I'm a bit busy at the moment. bobhammero@hotmail.com. –Bob Hammero Mod•B'crat•T•A 05:15, 14 August 2006 (BST)
- Well Cyberbob and myself are on MSN right now. Whenever you can get on that would be great. Sonny Corleone WTF RRF ASS 05:17, 14 August 2006 (BST)
- MSN and email. Email would be best, actually, because I'm a bit busy at the moment. bobhammero@hotmail.com. –Bob Hammero Mod•B'crat•T•A 05:15, 14 August 2006 (BST)
- You got AIM? Sonny Corleone WTF RRF ASS 05:13, 14 August 2006 (BST)
- Why, I'd imagine it was pure curiosity. Cyberbob Talk 05:12, 14 August 2006 (BST)
- Okay. What caused you to ask that? –Bob Hammero Mod•B'crat•T•A 05:11, 14 August 2006 (BST)
- Ok. Just making sure. Sonny Corleone WTF RRF ASS 05:10, 14 August 2006 (BST)
Stricter punishment?
Just a thought: I was thinking, surely something as bad as racism etc. (i.e. all those on the list) should just be a straight ban for whoever created it? Or at least more than just a warning - I mean, the way the current system is, they can do it three times, wait a day, do it again, wait two days and do it again without any real sort of deterrant. Maybe jumping straight to a week ban, with an email to tell them it's not accepted, then if they do it again a permenent ban? Jonny12 W! 22:20, 15 August 2006 (BST)
- no, the M/VB system works fine. --Gage • ASS 00:16, 16 August 2006 (BST)
- If they are that persistent, they will quickly reach the one year ban. –Bob Hammero Mod•B'crat•T•A 00:24, 16 August 2006 (BST)
- With things like this, are there instances where someone could take greater offense than was intended? I could see how some things (like a group who used the confederate flag as their standard) that aren't overtly racist could be viewed by the majority as such. In such an instance, are people open to the unofficial warning and deletion/revert/modification or the offending comment? Could moderators say that certian content has been reported and that if changes are not made, then Vandal proceedings will be carried out? I'm for this ant-ism rule, but can we give offenders a chance to change it voluntarily to avoid a warning/ban? Is it a bad idea to let them correct or clarify before action is taken? --Kiki Lottaboobs 00:41, 16 August 2006 (BST)
- Hmm, interesting point. I'm not sure about making a blanket provision for allowing changes before warnings, though, because it would let the truly hateful people have just that little bit more time to spread their propaganda around. I could add some text suggesting that people request changes before reporting to Vandal Banning, however; that might get at what you're suggesting while still allowing the really egregious stuff to be eliminated quickly. Moderators could theoretically ask people to change their content before acting on the warning, but there's a pretty small window in which we can warn or ban people (I don't think it's written anywhere, but it's sort of an unwritten rule for which there is tons of precedent). I'd be interested in hearing other people's thoughts on your idea too. –Bob Hammero Mod•B'crat•T•A 02:54, 16 August 2006 (BST)
- With things like this, are there instances where someone could take greater offense than was intended? I could see how some things (like a group who used the confederate flag as their standard) that aren't overtly racist could be viewed by the majority as such. In such an instance, are people open to the unofficial warning and deletion/revert/modification or the offending comment? Could moderators say that certian content has been reported and that if changes are not made, then Vandal proceedings will be carried out? I'm for this ant-ism rule, but can we give offenders a chance to change it voluntarily to avoid a warning/ban? Is it a bad idea to let them correct or clarify before action is taken? --Kiki Lottaboobs 00:41, 16 August 2006 (BST)
I am in favor of this policy change
In particular, OWS is tasteless. As someone whose field is Civil Rights, and enforcing the laws on the books, the current broadcasts on the UD game and on this weekend are unacceptable.
The fact that I am also a member of the CDF, a group which some members are falsely claiming supports this event makes me only want this policy that much more.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Steele Glovier (talk • contribs) .
- I agree with you wholeheartedly. As soon as I feel that I have adequate feedback, I'll revise the policy with the changes that have been suggested, and put it up to a vote. Hopefully it'll bring us one step closer to having a more civil wiki. –Bob Hammero Mod•B'crat•T•A 02:50, 16 August 2006 (BST)
Traits to take off, to add
I think this issue requires a separate topic. Firstly, you have already agreed to eventually add sexuality/sexual orientation. On the other hand, I strongly oppose including Social or economic background or status because I feel that it is too vague and distinct from the other 'traits' you have listed. Anybody else feel this way, or want to add other traits? --Luigi Galleani 05:39, 16 August 2006 (BST)
- Yep, I'm going to add sexuality when I make all the other changes. I'll make all the revisions at once right before I bring this to voting, just to keep everything consistent. –Bob Hammero Mod•B'crat•T•A 06:16, 16 August 2006 (BST)
- I haven't read the policy. At all. (Shock) I agree with Luigi. (Horror) Social or economic background or status is simply too vague. If, for example I said any of the following:
- Bill Gates is a filthy rich dumbfuck.
- The Queen is another one of them snooty royals.
- Look at that inbred hillbilly!
- etc.
- Would that be discriminatory content? Perhaps if I made a group? Maybe if I drew some parallels between how a zombie smells bad and how hillbillies smell bad. Maybe if I continued with the analogy? Hillbillies are braindead and your average zombie is pretty much the same. Exactly how far would someone need to go with this before it could be considered discriminatory?
- It seems to me that including social or economic background or status is only going to increase the number of grey areas. –Xoid S•T•FU! 13:13, 16 August 2006 (BST)
- Hm. I'm seeing quite a bit of dissent over that one point, so I will probably end up removing it, just to err on the side of caution. –Bob Hammero Mod•B'crat•T•A 19:37, 16 August 2006 (BST)
Another Suggestion
Personally I think the criteria of Religion should be removed. If it was enacted then a lot of groups that are faux pro- or anti- "yadda yadda" like the Church of the Ressurection or Section XIII or Queer Jew would have to be cracked down on. Because frankly (with the exception of born Jewish Hebrew/Israeli persons) you really have a lot of choice when it comes to religion, it's not something you're born with or can't make up your own mind about. I know a lot of people would argue with me on that, but remember, I'm American and most of us, more or less, can figure out what we want to and do not want to believe.
Also, when you knock something that's anti-(insert issue of your choice here), you have to knock all the ones that are pro-(same issue). You can't play favorites. That means if all the anti-Latino/Black/Asian groups have to go (providing there are any, this is just an example) then all the pro-Latino/Black/Asian groups have to go too. --GrayscaleRain 20:13, 16 August 2006 (BST)
- Please enlighten me as to how any of the groups you listed are against a particular religion.
- Your comment about "born Jewish Hebrew/Israeli persons" is frankly pretty rude (and wrong), and borders on racist.
- You don't explain how "knocking" anti-something groups means you have to do the same to pro-something groups. Fallacies get you nowhere.
- –Bob Hammero Mod•B'crat•T•A 20:28, 16 August 2006 (BST)
- Okay....
- "Please enlighten me as to how any of the groups you listed are against a particular religion."
- I didn't say they were, I'm just saying fair is fair, having groups with religious overtones might be considered offensive to some (as silly as that sounds).
- "Your comment about "born Jewish Hebrew/Israeli persons" is frankly pretty rude (and wrong), and borders on racist."
- How is that racist? o.o I was trying to be as correct as possible there.
- "You don't explain how "knocking" anti-something groups means you have to do the same to pro-something groups. Fallacies get you nowhere."
- Fair is fair. If you have to crack down on one you can't have the other. You can't disallow a white-supremacist group and allow a black-supremacist group. It doesn't work.
- "Please enlighten me as to how any of the groups you listed are against a particular religion."
- I hope that cleared things up. ^ ^; --GrayscaleRain 20:44, 16 August 2006 (BST)
- Ah. I think I understand you better now, thanks.
- Well, this policy wouldn't disallow groups with religious overtones. Rather, it would disallow groups that attack another religion. Example of fictional good group: "The Jewish Zombies." Example of fictional bad group: "Catholic Survivors against Muslim Zombies."
- Your phrasing is what I was getting at. Not to mention that if you're born into any religious family, chances are that you'll be raised in their religion. However, you are somewhat correct, although not entirely. It is possible to convert to another religion from Judaism (the faith), although it obviously isn't possible to convert from Judaism (the ethnicity) to something else. I hope that's what you were trying to get at.
- I think you misunderstand me. Obviously the white supremacist and black supremacist groups would both be against the rules. However, a true pro-whatever group would be allowed. Contrived good example: "Hindu Zombies for the Destruction of Malton." Contrived bad example: "Hindu Zombies for the Crushing of Whites."
- I don't think we're actually in that much disagreement, I just think we may have misunderstood each other. –Bob Hammero Mod•B'crat•T•A 20:54, 16 August 2006 (BST)
- Ah. I think I understand you better now, thanks.
- I hope that cleared things up. ^ ^; --GrayscaleRain 20:44, 16 August 2006 (BST)
- Ah... *nods* I think it was just a bit of a misunderstanding then. You pretty much got the idea on that part then. As long as you understand, I didn't want you to think I was a racist or something. I understand what you mean now for points 1&3 and you are right on what I meant for point 2. I'm sorry if it came out sounding really bad. XD
- I suppose it just matters with the heavy-handedness (or restraint) of the moderator enforcing it. I suppose if you guys could enforce it with the amount of understanding demonstrated, then there'd be no problem keeping the clause in there. ^_^ I just wanted to bring up that point to prevent some rather bad loopholes (which tend to get exploted, or at least pressed a lot on some of the messageboards I go to/work on)
- PS: Note my lack of mastery of the English language... things just don't come out right sometimes. XD --GrayscaleRain 21:00, 16 August 2006 (BST)
So eh... It would be rasict to say "We are Finnish and we'll kill every French!", and it would also be rasict to say "We are Finnish and we'll kill anyone not Finnish!", but it wouldn't be to say "We are Finnish and we kill everybody!"? --Niilomaan GRR! 12:34, 17 August 2006 (BST)
- Not racist per-se, but essentially yes. One is advocating killing anyone who is or is not a specific nationality, while another is advocating people in general. The difference comes from the fact that the "reasoning" behind the first two examples has to do with someone's nationality. –Bob Hammero Mod•B'crat•T•A 03:30, 18 August 2006 (BST)
The Policy's ultimate goal
I think that the goal of the whole thing needs to be clarified. So, for me, there is nothing wrong with real world issues coming into the game, that's inevitable. Racism, sexism, religious war, fascism, conservatism, etc etc are all somewhat inevitable in the game for any number of reasons. But where I support this (wiki-only) policy the most is in its obstruction of using the wiki to spread hate and recruit bigots in the real world. It is entirely possible that the ACM, for instance, might be able to recruit a player to a racist cause. Now, I'm not gonna rail against a player group for luring someone into becoming a Republican or Tory, but luring them into Stormfront or some other extremist grouping is another thing. There are two goals I can find as helping to shape this policy, and I personally think they are the only two goals that make me potentially support this: 1) To prevent the spreading of hate and recruitment of people into real world hate groups, and 2) To attempt to create a relative safe space on the wiki for people. I also have some misgivings about it, but I think I might support it depending on the modifications when BH is ready to make them. --Luigi Galleani 15:19, 17 August 2006 (BST)
- Please post a link where any one has ever recruited for Stormfront on the wiki. I don't think anyone has.Jjames 19:06, 18 August 2006 (BST)
This is a bad idea.
If you are actually concerned about combating racism (as I am), then you should allow it to be expressed. Racism thrives when it is supressed. It makes the ideas seem taboo, forbidden, and dangerous. If you want to defeat ideas, then promote better ideas. Counter racism and bigotry with facts and logic. When you limit any freedom of speech (that does not infringe on others rights such as langauge calling for violence) then every one suffers. Including those who are victims of it. We should not be suppressing bigotry, but exposing it. I think if people see both sides of the issue fully expressed, they will choose to work against racism on their own. The people who responded to OWS in a racist fashion (OBS,OYS, and the superflys to name a few) were probably already racist. Their ignorance was just exposed by the event. In conclusion, I fear for the wiki if this policy passes.Jjames 00:00, 18 August 2006 (BST)
- Shut up you stupid poor lonely nazi hippie! This wiki shall be free from rasicts like yourself! For Freedom! /very bad sarcasm... (Sorry.) --Niilomaan GRR! 00:09, 18 August 2006 (BST)
- Jjames, please don't troll. Thanks. –Bob Hammero Mod•B'crat•T•A 03:33, 18 August 2006 (BST)
- I fucking hate to say it, but I do agree with Jjames on this. I just don't see any plausible way of limiting hate speech without limiting the ability of people to make valid criticism, or to express their opinion. –Xoid S•T•FU! 08:56, 18 August 2006 (BST)
- I have to say, I strongly disagree. It's entirely possible to limit hate speech and still allow people to express their opinions and criticize, as long as they're not expressing hate speech in their opinions and criticisms. I urge you to read about hate speech, equal opportunity, the Miller test, and affirmative action, all of which I drew upon when writing this policy. –Bob Hammero Mod•B'crat•T•A 09:04, 18 August 2006 (BST)
- I'm not trolling, bob. The reason I haven't backed down from this is because I do take free speech seriously. Your links point out that even "hate speech" is widely allowed in the US as long as it doesn't carry threats of violence. I really believe that we must combat prejudice with truth, not censorship.Jjames 19:05, 18 August 2006 (BST)
- Okay Jjames, I'll bite. I actually happen to agree with you, just so you know, but I do not see the majority of the people on this wiki as acting responsibly enough with their "right" to free speech (which is hardly a right on the Internet on a server hosted in another country). Take Operation White Storm, for example: how can you honestly tell me with a straight face that it was created to celebrate whites, and not created to stir up drama and possibly create real racial tension? –Bob Hammero Mod•B'crat•T•A 19:15, 18 August 2006 (BST)
- He doesn't have to. It's the internet, where we all get to hide behind a screen. It's easier to make a lie that way. I wish jjames would just come out and admit what he is. --Luigi Galleani MAC | BB 19:19, 18 August 2006 (BST)
- It was honestly created to parody racism in one its more mild, but still offensive forms. It was meant to explore in game and on the wiki the fallcies of racism that would be expressed in support and rejection of the event. I came up with the idea and let scinfaxi take credit, buy I never intended to drag the cdf into it. If they hadn't (predictably) overreacted, scinfaxi wouldn't have kept pushing it. He obcviously like active targets. You probably noticed that the most vehement racism and prejudice came from those trying to silence us or paint the event as something it wasn't. I only recall one person pointing out that race isn't even a genetic category, but a social one. OWS wouldn't be covered under this new rule, but I still think OWS was offensive. We don't have the right not be offended, however. Sometimes what's offensive is the most important to explore. If we silence free speech, bigots will only declare victory.Jjames 19:25, 18 August 2006 (BST)
- That is perhaps the most serious post I've seen from you on this. So you agree, OWS was racist and offensive? But that for you it was a joke. And was I the only one saying race isn't genetic? I'm sure there were others. But if you did want to use it to confront racism, couldn't you have done so a much better way? And what of your constant defenses of 'white pride'? Do you retract them or stand by them? --Luigi Galleani MAC | BB 19:37, 18 August 2006 (BST)
- The ideas behind OWS were racist and offensive, but I feel OWS itself was not. When satarizing racism, you must take on its attributes (see Spike Lee's Bamboozled) to convey the ridiculousness of them. The "contributions" included things clearly not white in origin, things that were more negative than positive, and obvious jokes like "water" and "God". It makes racism appear ignorant and ridiculous, which it is. As for "white pride", I don't think it's always equal to supremacy, and in this case it wasn't presented as such. However, it is often code for supremacy and at the very least it is arbitrary and almost certainly exclusionary. That said, I do support minority pride because despite sharing the same limitations as white pride, minorities are not operating from a position of equality and it is sometimes necessary to rely on imperfect ideals in order to unite and work against status quo. s long as they keep the eye on the goal of equality for everyone (including the one time opressors), I think it can be a positive good. I also think we should respect the rights of those who choose to be racist and show respect to them as well. Despise their values and challenge them. Perhaps you will be able to find a convert. Remember that bigotry is a default position and that we are all susceptible to weakness. We need to help each other.Jjames 21:57, 18 August 2006 (BST)
- That is perhaps the most serious post I've seen from you on this. So you agree, OWS was racist and offensive? But that for you it was a joke. And was I the only one saying race isn't genetic? I'm sure there were others. But if you did want to use it to confront racism, couldn't you have done so a much better way? And what of your constant defenses of 'white pride'? Do you retract them or stand by them? --Luigi Galleani MAC | BB 19:37, 18 August 2006 (BST)
- Okay Jjames, I'll bite. I actually happen to agree with you, just so you know, but I do not see the majority of the people on this wiki as acting responsibly enough with their "right" to free speech (which is hardly a right on the Internet on a server hosted in another country). Take Operation White Storm, for example: how can you honestly tell me with a straight face that it was created to celebrate whites, and not created to stir up drama and possibly create real racial tension? –Bob Hammero Mod•B'crat•T•A 19:15, 18 August 2006 (BST)
- I'm not trolling, bob. The reason I haven't backed down from this is because I do take free speech seriously. Your links point out that even "hate speech" is widely allowed in the US as long as it doesn't carry threats of violence. I really believe that we must combat prejudice with truth, not censorship.Jjames 19:05, 18 August 2006 (BST)
- I have to say, I strongly disagree. It's entirely possible to limit hate speech and still allow people to express their opinions and criticize, as long as they're not expressing hate speech in their opinions and criticisms. I urge you to read about hate speech, equal opportunity, the Miller test, and affirmative action, all of which I drew upon when writing this policy. –Bob Hammero Mod•B'crat•T•A 09:04, 18 August 2006 (BST)
Little issue about the policy
Isn't the way to M/M too direct here? I mean, if a troll (like every troll we know) creates that kind of pages on purpose, before he gets effectively banned (And I'm calling an "effective ban" those that are from 1 month or more, effectively holding the influence of an user for a time) he will make 5 pages and open 4 misconduct cases. Couldn't that be changed to some kind of request on an especialized page before it goes to Misconduct? --Matthew Fahrenheit YRC | T | W! 09:07, 18 August 2006 (BST)
- Well, it's too late to alter the policy now. However, that's not a bad idea. I don't think it will be much of an issue though, because unless the troll actually has a case, the misconduct cases will just be thrown out. –Bob Hammero Mod•B'crat•T•A 09:22, 18 August 2006 (BST)
Safe Space Pledge
I have finally created an alternative means of opposing hate and prejudice on the wiki, one that I had been planning since the advent of the OWS. Please check it out, and maybe help me with the template. It is called the Safe Space Pledge, and the hope is that as many users and groups as possible will use the template once it is completed as a more grassroots means of combatting hate in UD. Still, I will keep my vote where it is on this particular policy. --Luigi Galleani MAC | BB 18:14, 19 August 2006 (BST)
Hypothetical Question
Operation White Storm doesn't denegrate any other races, so it would be still allowed right? What about calling another player a sinner? If it's part of my religion that some one will go to Hell unless they repent from sin, don't I have the right to state that opinion. It isn't attacking other religions, merely expressing my own. What about my group name. The faggots are not in any way homophobic and refer to a bundle of sticks as a symbol of strength through unity. Would we be targeted by those with a vendetta? This policy seems like it is so vague as to be potentially applied to almost anything.Jjames 18:58, 19 August 2006 (BST)
- And thats what Arbitration is for. Once more, User Talk pages would be exempt, you can call someone a sinner on your personal talk page, but you would not be able to create a group that would target specific people/race/class/ et al. admittedly you get to a very fine line in the RP arena but one must make a judgement call and hope that the majority of other players understand the purpose. I could create a Wiki example page of how to get to that line without crossing it if you would like. Conndrakamod T CFT 20:53, 19 August 2006 (BST)
- Isn't it discriminating against religion not to allow someone to express it? It is an established matter of Christian doctrine that sinners will be cast in the lake of fire. Why wouldn't someone be allowed to form a group that killed zombies and tried to convert jews, athiests, muslims, buddhists, etc? Isn't it discrimination to say they can't?Jjames 22:35, 24 August 2006 (BST)
- Although some of my peers would disagree, the commonly held docterine is to say thus: We beleive "X" and it is our beleif that "Y" will result. Injunctions and restrictions have been placed on religious groups allowing them to express their views but not necessarily in an open area. For example In Kansas a Preacher who goes by the name of "God Hates Fags" was known to hold celebrations and anti-gay protests at the funerals of those who had died of AIDS (regaurdless if the person that had died was homosexual or not.) and even more recently had started throwing similar celebrations at the gravesides of Iraq war dead (spouting that Americas suport of the "Homosexual Agenda" causes God to frown on our Military.) Now although he and his particular baptist sect have first amendment protections, they are not allowed to preach their "Message" in certain areas. Likewise this policy will not keep people from holding or expressing their views, they just wont be able to do it in a forum where such expressions might impinge on a persons right to not be persecuted. Conndrakamod T CFT 00:35, 25 August 2006 (BST)
- Exactly. Or, to put it succinctly: my right to swing my fist ends at your nose. What's sad is that so many of the people who are voting on this policy seem to have no idea what is and is not protected speech. –Bob Hammero Mod•B'crat•T•A 01:03, 25 August 2006 (BST)
- That metaphor is used to prevent yelling fire in a theater were none exists or calling for violence against groups. There is no court ruling supporting your claims and many to condradict them. White Supremacy is allowed on the internet for cring out loud. What you are saying is no one has the right to say anything if it offends someone else, well it offends me that I can't express freedom of religion. That qualifies as persecution as well. Bob, this is only going to cause more drama. The Faggots will be the first group reported for at least a couple of things including OWS and our name. How often do you guys want to be in arbitration? You are causing more drama and problems for the wiki to solve a problem which really doesn't exist with a solution that won't work.Jjames 19:46, 25 August 2006 (BST)
- Um the courts have overturned that haven't they? Because it is clearly unconstitutional. You guys really fail to understand free speech entirely.Jjames 19:46, 25 August 2006 (BST)
- Is this a response to the Kansas preacher mention? Because it has not been overturned, it has been increasing state-by-state. And free speech exists no where. No where. There are six billion people on this planet and most have no voice (including no internet). No country actually practices free speech, and every country that claims to makes loads of 'exceptions'. --Luigi Galleani M(A)C | M(A)F 20:24, 25 August 2006 (BST)
- Well no courts have upheld these restrictions yet and I doubt they will. What's your point anyway? A lot of places don't have free speech and everyone places some restrictions on it so any arbitrary rule we make is okay? What kind of anarchist supports censorship anyway?Jjames 21:45, 26 August 2006 (BST)
- Actually, the Courts have refused to hear the appeals as the Supreme Court ruled that "Protests" can and may be restricted to certain areas. I don't have the case file in front of me but needless to say it's why White Supremmicist Groups (and virtually any other group in the US) Must Get a permit to assemble in publicly held properties (i.e. courthouses, public parks, public streets et al...) But it doesnt aply here anyway... We are a free association and therefore the intrests of the general public (in these terms the users of the UD wiki)out weigh the desire or right for an individual to express him or herself. If you want to spout your views, go start another wiki. That was determined in 1957 once again I don't have the case in front of me...Now let us get to the crux of the mater: INTERNATIONAL law i.e. International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights which is binding upon over 150 nations states in Art 19,sec3,subsec:a states that speech may be restricted on the grounds that it cannot impinge on the rights or reputations of others. Article 20 goes through even more particulars and lays out that Hate speech is NOT protected under international guidlines and is in fact subject to the prohibition of law. you can find the text HERE. Anyway once the dust settles the conclusion is this: No You Don't have the right to say anything you want. Period. End of Discussion, because the only guidlines and protections you have on this wiki, are the ones that are given you by what ever authority operates the Wiki (in this case the general user base.) And since I have been unable to find anything on this Wiki's policies that Grant you the right of free speech on this wiki, there is one obvious awnser. You dont have one. Now My head hurts and I still have to begin writing my Seminar paper. Conndrakamod T CFT 09:39, 27 August 2006 (BST)
- Did you even read what you linked to. The speech has to incite to be banned. So I could say. "I hate koalas. Koalas are stupid and cause all the worlds problems" but I can't say. "Let's lock up the koalas. Kill all koalas. Koalas shouldn't be allowed to vote. Anyway it's a moot point as we're discussing whether this policy is practically and ideaolically sound, not whether it's supported by international law. Free speech is vital to human rights. We must tolerate racists the way we want them to tolerate other races.Jjames 03:23, 28 August 2006 (BST)
- To incite it mearly has to be a statement that would cause the "Party" to be induced to response. ergo If you said "Koalas are stupid and cause all the worlds problems" and it would cause a Koala to respond with a feeling of persucution or retalitory violence, then saying "Koalas are stupid and cause all the worlds problems" would not be protected speech. Conndrakamod T CFT 03:33, 28 August 2006 (BST)
- That's not what incite means in that context. You have to be specific. You are wrong in a matter that is irrelevant to the point at hand and yet you continue to argue it because for some reason you are afraid to argue about free speech. Sad.Jjames 03:42, 28 August 2006 (BST)
- No Whats Sad JJames is that you have no desire to admit your wrong... The fact that my persuit of studies includes all of Social Sciences i.e. Governemnt, Education, and Vocational ministy. This Wiki doesn't give you any rights... Yes you have the right of Free expression but the respionsibilities that are inherent in that right prevent you (or anyone else)from spouting thinly veiled hate-mongering. Feel Free to pay 15000 a year (more or less) to learn the difference or understand that "in adition to social freedoms, one must also accept social responsibility"-(Thomas Jefferson) Conndrakamod T CFT 05:27, 28 August 2006 (BST)
- You are arguing nonissue about responsibility. Our responsibility is to protect free speech so that the free exchange of ideas can flourish. Censorship based soley on what is deemed hateful or offensive is socially irresponsible both in theory and practice. Especially on the wiki. The reason we have come as far as we have in race realtions is due to freedom of speech. If we allow censorship there is always the risk of the clock turning back. Also, as someone whose pursuit of studies includes History allow me to save you some time and money with this advice. In a debate over racial insensitivity the best person to quote isn't someone who fucked his slaves. Just saying.Jjames 01:52, 29 August 2006 (BST)
- Yes I'm sure the person who invented the concept of codifying free speech (along with Madison and Monroe) is the person you wouldn't want to quote. I'm sure... Really. The man who's writings influenced virtually every constitution written in the world since 1784, and the man who other than except perhaps John Locke, has influenced the worlds view and definitions of freedom more than any other. yea... I'm done with your foolishness. Conndrakamod T CFT 05:00, 29 August 2006 (BST)
- Jefferson also hated the press, so I wouldn't quote him on the limitations of free speech do to his well established bias. If I wanted to overlook that I would still not use him in a discussion concerning racial sensitivity because he fucked his slave. Why not quote someone else to support your flimsy strawman argument made by people that did not allow blacks to have free speech because they thought they weren't really human? Please respond with another scathing rebuttal as I'm sure it helps fill the against roster everytime people see the thinking behind this policy.Jjames 19:30, 29 August 2006 (BST)
- Yes I'm sure the person who invented the concept of codifying free speech (along with Madison and Monroe) is the person you wouldn't want to quote. I'm sure... Really. The man who's writings influenced virtually every constitution written in the world since 1784, and the man who other than except perhaps John Locke, has influenced the worlds view and definitions of freedom more than any other. yea... I'm done with your foolishness. Conndrakamod T CFT 05:00, 29 August 2006 (BST)
- You are arguing nonissue about responsibility. Our responsibility is to protect free speech so that the free exchange of ideas can flourish. Censorship based soley on what is deemed hateful or offensive is socially irresponsible both in theory and practice. Especially on the wiki. The reason we have come as far as we have in race realtions is due to freedom of speech. If we allow censorship there is always the risk of the clock turning back. Also, as someone whose pursuit of studies includes History allow me to save you some time and money with this advice. In a debate over racial insensitivity the best person to quote isn't someone who fucked his slaves. Just saying.Jjames 01:52, 29 August 2006 (BST)
- No Whats Sad JJames is that you have no desire to admit your wrong... The fact that my persuit of studies includes all of Social Sciences i.e. Governemnt, Education, and Vocational ministy. This Wiki doesn't give you any rights... Yes you have the right of Free expression but the respionsibilities that are inherent in that right prevent you (or anyone else)from spouting thinly veiled hate-mongering. Feel Free to pay 15000 a year (more or less) to learn the difference or understand that "in adition to social freedoms, one must also accept social responsibility"-(Thomas Jefferson) Conndrakamod T CFT 05:27, 28 August 2006 (BST)
- That's not what incite means in that context. You have to be specific. You are wrong in a matter that is irrelevant to the point at hand and yet you continue to argue it because for some reason you are afraid to argue about free speech. Sad.Jjames 03:42, 28 August 2006 (BST)
- To incite it mearly has to be a statement that would cause the "Party" to be induced to response. ergo If you said "Koalas are stupid and cause all the worlds problems" and it would cause a Koala to respond with a feeling of persucution or retalitory violence, then saying "Koalas are stupid and cause all the worlds problems" would not be protected speech. Conndrakamod T CFT 03:33, 28 August 2006 (BST)
- Did you even read what you linked to. The speech has to incite to be banned. So I could say. "I hate koalas. Koalas are stupid and cause all the worlds problems" but I can't say. "Let's lock up the koalas. Kill all koalas. Koalas shouldn't be allowed to vote. Anyway it's a moot point as we're discussing whether this policy is practically and ideaolically sound, not whether it's supported by international law. Free speech is vital to human rights. We must tolerate racists the way we want them to tolerate other races.Jjames 03:23, 28 August 2006 (BST)
- Actually, the Courts have refused to hear the appeals as the Supreme Court ruled that "Protests" can and may be restricted to certain areas. I don't have the case file in front of me but needless to say it's why White Supremmicist Groups (and virtually any other group in the US) Must Get a permit to assemble in publicly held properties (i.e. courthouses, public parks, public streets et al...) But it doesnt aply here anyway... We are a free association and therefore the intrests of the general public (in these terms the users of the UD wiki)out weigh the desire or right for an individual to express him or herself. If you want to spout your views, go start another wiki. That was determined in 1957 once again I don't have the case in front of me...Now let us get to the crux of the mater: INTERNATIONAL law i.e. International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights which is binding upon over 150 nations states in Art 19,sec3,subsec:a states that speech may be restricted on the grounds that it cannot impinge on the rights or reputations of others. Article 20 goes through even more particulars and lays out that Hate speech is NOT protected under international guidlines and is in fact subject to the prohibition of law. you can find the text HERE. Anyway once the dust settles the conclusion is this: No You Don't have the right to say anything you want. Period. End of Discussion, because the only guidlines and protections you have on this wiki, are the ones that are given you by what ever authority operates the Wiki (in this case the general user base.) And since I have been unable to find anything on this Wiki's policies that Grant you the right of free speech on this wiki, there is one obvious awnser. You dont have one. Now My head hurts and I still have to begin writing my Seminar paper. Conndrakamod T CFT 09:39, 27 August 2006 (BST)
- Well no courts have upheld these restrictions yet and I doubt they will. What's your point anyway? A lot of places don't have free speech and everyone places some restrictions on it so any arbitrary rule we make is okay? What kind of anarchist supports censorship anyway?Jjames 21:45, 26 August 2006 (BST)
- Is this a response to the Kansas preacher mention? Because it has not been overturned, it has been increasing state-by-state. And free speech exists no where. No where. There are six billion people on this planet and most have no voice (including no internet). No country actually practices free speech, and every country that claims to makes loads of 'exceptions'. --Luigi Galleani M(A)C | M(A)F 20:24, 25 August 2006 (BST)
- Exactly. Or, to put it succinctly: my right to swing my fist ends at your nose. What's sad is that so many of the people who are voting on this policy seem to have no idea what is and is not protected speech. –Bob Hammero Mod•B'crat•T•A 01:03, 25 August 2006 (BST)
- Although some of my peers would disagree, the commonly held docterine is to say thus: We beleive "X" and it is our beleif that "Y" will result. Injunctions and restrictions have been placed on religious groups allowing them to express their views but not necessarily in an open area. For example In Kansas a Preacher who goes by the name of "God Hates Fags" was known to hold celebrations and anti-gay protests at the funerals of those who had died of AIDS (regaurdless if the person that had died was homosexual or not.) and even more recently had started throwing similar celebrations at the gravesides of Iraq war dead (spouting that Americas suport of the "Homosexual Agenda" causes God to frown on our Military.) Now although he and his particular baptist sect have first amendment protections, they are not allowed to preach their "Message" in certain areas. Likewise this policy will not keep people from holding or expressing their views, they just wont be able to do it in a forum where such expressions might impinge on a persons right to not be persecuted. Conndrakamod T CFT 00:35, 25 August 2006 (BST)
- Isn't it discriminating against religion not to allow someone to express it? It is an established matter of Christian doctrine that sinners will be cast in the lake of fire. Why wouldn't someone be allowed to form a group that killed zombies and tried to convert jews, athiests, muslims, buddhists, etc? Isn't it discrimination to say they can't?Jjames 22:35, 24 August 2006 (BST)
First of all lets start on this side of the page again shall we. Where in the world did you get the Idea that Jefferson Hated the press? He had issues with certain publishers and certain papers in general but not the press as a whole, May I suggest Infomous Scribblers A lovely detailed work on the United States early media. Next, since you aren't refuse to accept Jeffersons impact on free speech (of which there would not be without his influence regardless of the issues suronding him at the time.. May I suggest Jefferson: A Man for All Times. ) Lets try and find a source that you might be willing to accept How about Amnesty International? a bit quote so you wont have to read the WHOLE thing "However, the right to freedom of expression is not absolute -- neither for the creators of material nor their critics. It carries responsibilities and it may, therefore, be subject to restrictions in the name of safeguarding the rights of others. In particular, any advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence cannot be considered legitimate exercise of freedom of expression. Under international standards, such "hate speech" should be prohibited by law. " Other Articles for your purusal include This. Conndrakamod T CFT 00:02, 30 August 2006 (BST)
A Note on Cennsorship
The few NO votes this policy is getting is based on the belief that this policy is designed to be a form of censorship forced upon the wiki and its denizens. It is my belief that although there are some restrictions placed upon what can and cannot be said on the Group/Location/General Pages, this policy does not constitute Censorship (note the big "C"). Your personal Talk pages are still open ground for your personal views and Ideas; you simply cannot express them in a venue where the general public may be offended by your rhetoric.
By broadest definition Censorship is The practice of suppressing a text or part of a text that is considered objectionable according to certain standards. Since all standards on this wiki are determined by general consensus, the standards by which something falls into this category is subject to the 60-30-10 rule (I'll explain if anyone wants to know what that is later, request on my talk page.) In other words, you are entitled to your opinion; you may express your opinion freely on your talk pages, but doesn’t post something on an open page because any shit storm that develops weakens the community as a whole. You want to post something on an open page rather than your talk page then do it by doing this My Opinion and going on from there. This allows you to maintain a discourse and a dialog without treading upon the sensitivities of others in the wide open. Just my .02 Conndrakamod T CFT 21:15, 19 August 2006 (BST)
What would happen to god?
Would the user "God" be banned each time they sign? Anyone could quite easily say that God's signiture is blasphemous and thus degrades the religion they belive in. Hence as you can see the user God would get a one year ban in no time flat. Or at least several warnings. - Jedaz 03:53, 20 August 2006 (BST)
- I doubt he'd get slammed for that. I personally find his signature annoying, and his whole faux persona ridiculous and utterly inane, but he's not saying that he's better than other religions, or anything like that. Now, if he started putting other deities down, you had damn well better believe there would be consequences. It would be like if someone created a Hitler account and then started attacking the Jews. I'd ban him in an instant, misconbitration or not. There are some things you just don't do. –Bob Hammero Mod•B'crat•T•A 05:31, 20 August 2006 (BST)
- I don't know, honestly if someone came to me with a case saying that they were offended by Gods attitude and signiture because it's blasphemous I would have to agree with them and warn God. It's just the same as if I started parading around saying that I'm Jesus Christ when obviously I'm not, it's in bad taste and would result in a warning/banning according to this policy. The only difference is the user name, why have double standards? - Jedaz 05:52, 20 August 2006 (BST)
- The Lord God does not belittle or attack anyone's beliefs. He merely speaks as the Lord. He is not the specific God of any exact religion, so there would be little cause for any warning. Username does not matter. Conduct in regards to treatment of other people's beliefs matters. If you read the Lord's userpage you will see that it is very pro-God and pro-religion. Humorous tidbits are placed to draw in the unbelievers, may they be saved. -- (The Lord God) † Pray 05:58, 20 August 2006 (BST)
- Yet I still can claim that my beliefs of not beliving in a supreem being are being attacked by your very presence. Am I not correct in this? Anyway as you have said just now you speak as the lord, correct me if I'm wrong but by saying that didn't you infer that you are the "God" of the Christan, Jewish ect faiths? Thus if you don't conduct yourself in the way that people expect you to then you are degrading their faith and hence are breaking this policy. - Jedaz 06:08, 20 August 2006 (BST)
- To answer your question, no you are not correct in this. The Lord God is not the God of Christian or Jewish faith. Instead he is the God of a secret religion you know nothing about that loves when their Lord talks on wikis and gives a thumbs-up as a matter of faith. As you can see, a username cannot be painted as illegal as easily as you would like. Were there to be an altercation, The Lord would simply change his userpage to represent a small boy whose given name happens to be God, and the Lord God would conduct himself as such. Would you go as far as to say that a small boy is offensive? If so, there is perhaps no username that would be safe from you, should you dislike the owner of that name. Your name is Adam? Well that offends people because of the story of Adam & Eve. You are banned! ... Doesn't work. I think we all know the intent and text of this policy, and no amount of spin-doctoring will change that. Thus spake the Lord God. -- (The Lord God) † Pray 06:15, 20 August 2006 (BST)
- So now you are saying that all of the other religions are incorrect? Anyway I wouldn't base it on the username but the persona that the user is taking. Are you, or are you not taking a persona of a supreme ruler of existance? I deem how you are acting to be in violation to the policy which is purposed here. - Jedaz 06:30, 20 August 2006 (BST)
- The Lord God never said any religion was incorrect. What was that about? I deem you to be in violation by saying the Lord is violating something. God is infallable, so if you are accusing him of being wrong, you are basically insulting the framework of entire religions. Anyway, good luck with all that witch hunting. The Lord God thinks you should submit a "No one can be God on this wiki" policy, since this one does not cover that. -- (The Lord God) † Pray 06:34, 20 August 2006 (BST)
- There is only one true religion, and thus by saying that you are the God of a secret religion you have indirectly said that all of the other religions are incorrect. Anyway just to let you know God is as infallable as Man. I don't care if I insult the framework of entire religions, after all religions can't explain the one ultimate question. What created the very first thing? I bet you will fail to fully comprehend that question and will be unable to answer it. - Jedaz 06:42, 20 August 2006 (BST)
- The Lord God believes that there are many religions which are correct. You have offended the Lord's beliefs. In light of this and your remark that God is fallable, you shall be reprimanded. ... Not really, but do you see how silly you sound, mortal? As for what created the very first thing, the answer is simple. Scientists, who shipped it back in time using elaborate machines. -- (The Lord God) † Pray 07:00, 20 August 2006 (BST)
- Ha, I don't care if I offeneded you. You call me a mortal but you fail to realize that I'm infact immortal, my body is not immortal but the soul that resides inside it is. You also failed to fully comprehend the question. Think about it logicaly, if scientists shipped something back in time to the very beginning then there would have had to be something there for it to exist in, which obviously there wouldn't have been, and if there was then it wasn't the very first thing now would it? - Jedaz 07:15, 20 August 2006 (BST)
- The Lord doesn't think that you and he are having the same conversation any longer. Besides, the 'first thing' would obviously be the 'something to exist in' you speak of. It's a question easily answered any number of ways. The fact that you're asking it pretty much seals the deal. This conversation is dead. So speaketh the Lord. -- (The Lord God) † Pray 07:19, 20 August 2006 (BST)
- Yet something would have to create the something to exist in. I can see why you want to end the conversation because your lack of forethought is showing. Anyway none the less getting back on topic I still think that your attitude is offensive in relation to religion and I'll be more then happy to serve a vandalism case against you because of it. - Jedaz 07:27, 20 August 2006 (BST)
- How silly you are, mortal. It's a good thing that you're currently by yourself in this intense need to persicute the Lord based on his name. Perhaps you'd like to pick from one of the other many reasons people dislike him. The Lord God looks forward to your vandalism report, the opportunity to change his page if the case is supported, and the hearty laugh he will enjoy thereafter. Your question is flawed by nature. Any answer from "Nothing", to "Its creator", to "The Lord" fits the bill. Unfortunately you need to feel superior, so the Lord God will allow you to dismiss any and all answers in order to achieve this. -- (The Lord God) † Pray 07:30, 20 August 2006 (BST)
- He he, if you missed it (which you obviously have) it's not your name which I dislike you for but your holier then thou attitude. The question only seems flawed because there is no true definite answer and there are many questions exactly like that. The question seems flawed because only something may create something, but that first something must have been created by something else and so on. Anyway this conversation ends here as you obviously can not see the glaring truth that you don't have all of the right answers even though you do attempt so hard to try and shed light on certain subjects. Don't like how I ended it?, fine add a comment or whatever. I will not respond to this discussion as it's now over. - Jedaz 07:47, 20 August 2006 (BST)
- On the contrary, the question is flawed because it makes an unknowable property sound like it is knowable. The Lord contends that you pretty much didn't accomplish anything here, aside from sounding a little unhinged and smug. -- (The Lord God) † Pray 07:49, 20 August 2006 (BST)
- Lay off my Lord our God. It's funny and inoffensive. And, as we can see from the top, the first thing you attacked was God's signature, not attitude. --Luigi Galleani MAC | BB 07:53, 20 August 2006 (BST)
- On the contrary, the question is flawed because it makes an unknowable property sound like it is knowable. The Lord contends that you pretty much didn't accomplish anything here, aside from sounding a little unhinged and smug. -- (The Lord God) † Pray 07:49, 20 August 2006 (BST)
- He he, if you missed it (which you obviously have) it's not your name which I dislike you for but your holier then thou attitude. The question only seems flawed because there is no true definite answer and there are many questions exactly like that. The question seems flawed because only something may create something, but that first something must have been created by something else and so on. Anyway this conversation ends here as you obviously can not see the glaring truth that you don't have all of the right answers even though you do attempt so hard to try and shed light on certain subjects. Don't like how I ended it?, fine add a comment or whatever. I will not respond to this discussion as it's now over. - Jedaz 07:47, 20 August 2006 (BST)
- How silly you are, mortal. It's a good thing that you're currently by yourself in this intense need to persicute the Lord based on his name. Perhaps you'd like to pick from one of the other many reasons people dislike him. The Lord God looks forward to your vandalism report, the opportunity to change his page if the case is supported, and the hearty laugh he will enjoy thereafter. Your question is flawed by nature. Any answer from "Nothing", to "Its creator", to "The Lord" fits the bill. Unfortunately you need to feel superior, so the Lord God will allow you to dismiss any and all answers in order to achieve this. -- (The Lord God) † Pray 07:30, 20 August 2006 (BST)
- Yet something would have to create the something to exist in. I can see why you want to end the conversation because your lack of forethought is showing. Anyway none the less getting back on topic I still think that your attitude is offensive in relation to religion and I'll be more then happy to serve a vandalism case against you because of it. - Jedaz 07:27, 20 August 2006 (BST)
- The Lord doesn't think that you and he are having the same conversation any longer. Besides, the 'first thing' would obviously be the 'something to exist in' you speak of. It's a question easily answered any number of ways. The fact that you're asking it pretty much seals the deal. This conversation is dead. So speaketh the Lord. -- (The Lord God) † Pray 07:19, 20 August 2006 (BST)
- Ha, I don't care if I offeneded you. You call me a mortal but you fail to realize that I'm infact immortal, my body is not immortal but the soul that resides inside it is. You also failed to fully comprehend the question. Think about it logicaly, if scientists shipped something back in time to the very beginning then there would have had to be something there for it to exist in, which obviously there wouldn't have been, and if there was then it wasn't the very first thing now would it? - Jedaz 07:15, 20 August 2006 (BST)
- The Lord God believes that there are many religions which are correct. You have offended the Lord's beliefs. In light of this and your remark that God is fallable, you shall be reprimanded. ... Not really, but do you see how silly you sound, mortal? As for what created the very first thing, the answer is simple. Scientists, who shipped it back in time using elaborate machines. -- (The Lord God) † Pray 07:00, 20 August 2006 (BST)
- There is only one true religion, and thus by saying that you are the God of a secret religion you have indirectly said that all of the other religions are incorrect. Anyway just to let you know God is as infallable as Man. I don't care if I insult the framework of entire religions, after all religions can't explain the one ultimate question. What created the very first thing? I bet you will fail to fully comprehend that question and will be unable to answer it. - Jedaz 06:42, 20 August 2006 (BST)
- The Lord God never said any religion was incorrect. What was that about? I deem you to be in violation by saying the Lord is violating something. God is infallable, so if you are accusing him of being wrong, you are basically insulting the framework of entire religions. Anyway, good luck with all that witch hunting. The Lord God thinks you should submit a "No one can be God on this wiki" policy, since this one does not cover that. -- (The Lord God) † Pray 06:34, 20 August 2006 (BST)
- So now you are saying that all of the other religions are incorrect? Anyway I wouldn't base it on the username but the persona that the user is taking. Are you, or are you not taking a persona of a supreme ruler of existance? I deem how you are acting to be in violation to the policy which is purposed here. - Jedaz 06:30, 20 August 2006 (BST)
- To answer your question, no you are not correct in this. The Lord God is not the God of Christian or Jewish faith. Instead he is the God of a secret religion you know nothing about that loves when their Lord talks on wikis and gives a thumbs-up as a matter of faith. As you can see, a username cannot be painted as illegal as easily as you would like. Were there to be an altercation, The Lord would simply change his userpage to represent a small boy whose given name happens to be God, and the Lord God would conduct himself as such. Would you go as far as to say that a small boy is offensive? If so, there is perhaps no username that would be safe from you, should you dislike the owner of that name. Your name is Adam? Well that offends people because of the story of Adam & Eve. You are banned! ... Doesn't work. I think we all know the intent and text of this policy, and no amount of spin-doctoring will change that. Thus spake the Lord God. -- (The Lord God) † Pray 06:15, 20 August 2006 (BST)
- Yet I still can claim that my beliefs of not beliving in a supreem being are being attacked by your very presence. Am I not correct in this? Anyway as you have said just now you speak as the lord, correct me if I'm wrong but by saying that didn't you infer that you are the "God" of the Christan, Jewish ect faiths? Thus if you don't conduct yourself in the way that people expect you to then you are degrading their faith and hence are breaking this policy. - Jedaz 06:08, 20 August 2006 (BST)
- The Lord God does not belittle or attack anyone's beliefs. He merely speaks as the Lord. He is not the specific God of any exact religion, so there would be little cause for any warning. Username does not matter. Conduct in regards to treatment of other people's beliefs matters. If you read the Lord's userpage you will see that it is very pro-God and pro-religion. Humorous tidbits are placed to draw in the unbelievers, may they be saved. -- (The Lord God) † Pray 05:58, 20 August 2006 (BST)
- I don't know, honestly if someone came to me with a case saying that they were offended by Gods attitude and signiture because it's blasphemous I would have to agree with them and warn God. It's just the same as if I started parading around saying that I'm Jesus Christ when obviously I'm not, it's in bad taste and would result in a warning/banning according to this policy. The only difference is the user name, why have double standards? - Jedaz 05:52, 20 August 2006 (BST)
First, let me say I am a Christian, who in addition to pursuing my teaching certs, am getting my VoccMinn degree. My first instinct with "God" is to break out the thats blasphemous stick. Then on reading many of the posts I had to take the following stance: Anyone who claims to be God is either God, or Not. If he is God then who am I to say he's not. If he is not (which something tells me this is the case... call me crazy) As long as he is no threat to himself or others he's mostly harmless. Now, the Sig has absolutly no determining factor in offensive speach or actions... And most of those who would be offended by the Sig God are going to have a lot more to complain about i.e. the fact this is a Zombie Game, Churchs have no in-game significance, and the Entirety of the Church of the Resurrection. In otherwords, If someone has issues they can take it up in arbitration, and if it is an honest issue then "God" can face the same scruitainty as anyone else. Conndrakamod T CFT 08:45, 20 August 2006 (BST)
Small Point
Just re-reading the policy and one little point I have noticed but it's not really major. The policy on the vote says that the moderator who proposed the policy shall not vote. From my understanding this was Bob Hammero but he has voted? Am I barking up the wrong tree or has Bob made a small oversight? Pillsy 11:28, 25 August 2006 (BST)
- That would be for changes to the protected categories of people. So if Xoid proposed that we protect blondes as a category, he couldn't vote on the issue. --Darth Sensitive W! 11:40, 25 August 2006 (BST)
- Sweet, cheers for clearing it up for me. Pillsy 12:56, 29 August 2006 (BST)
Question on Why Policy was withdrawn.
Ummm Why? Conndrakamod T CFT 02:46, 30 August 2006 (BST)
- It was clearly not going to pass, and rather than wait around for it to collect a few more Againsts and then die, I just killed it. –Bob Hammero Mod•B'crat•T•A 02:51, 30 August 2006 (BST)
