View Topic

Again, you miss my point. If not you then someone else will always push an arbitrary line on "offensive speech". You cannot guarantee that if the precedent is set that violence is an acceptable response to the wrong opinion that it will end with only the most heinous viewpoints. Hence my viewpoint that violence is never an acceptable response to mere speech or opinion. You yourself say that the line where violence becomes acceptable is a line you cannot specify. That terrifies me that you say violence is acceptable but when it can and cannot be used you will not specify because it sounds remarkably like "violence is acceptable whenever I arbitrarily say it is ok".

And if you also cannot specify lines that cannot be crossed for speech you think is ban worthy but you still think that bans can and should be leveled anyway then I cannot agree with such a viewpoint.

Yes, and the reason violence is not an acceptable response is to protect everyone, you included. If someone attacked you for your political views then they are clearly in the wrong. But if you say violence is ok under the right circumstances then who knows? I am loathe to think what a society that thinks that violence is an acceptable response to the wrong opinion would be like to live in.

Okay, so if someone came in here and was completely civil but it came out they thought it was okay to rape and murder children, you'd just be totally cool with that? Let's have a discussion about it, maybe you're right? I mean, as long as they are respectful.

I'd ask why they thought that. I'd use my judgement to try and figure out if they were trolling or not. If possible, yes, I would discuss with them (for the record, being a former law enforcement officer, I do think that rape and child murder is never ok and I do have VERY strong opinions on them. When you have to see a dead baby a mother threw into a train station toilet on your first month of patrol you will, inevitably, get strong opinions on the matter) and lay out my viewpoints. But if they kept going on about it, every topic became the child murder and rape variety hour, if they constantly harassed people like you or me about it then I would support banning them. By going through the UH and passing a bill, not by summary banning.

I'd ask why they thought that. I'd use my judgement to try and figure out if they were trolling or not. If possible, yes, I would discuss with them (for the record, being a former law enforcement officer, I do think that rape and child murder is never ok and I do have VERY strong opinions on them. When you have to see a dead baby a mother threw into a train station toilet on your first month of patrol you will, inevitably, get strong opinions on the matter) and lay out my viewpoints. But if they kept going on about it, every topic became the child murder and rape variety hour, if they constantly harassed people like you or me about it then I would support banning them. By going through the UH and passing a bill, not by summary banning.

I would submit to whatever authority a request to ban the individual. On the basis of "thinks it's okay to rape and murder children".

I'd ask why they thought that. I'd use my judgement to try and figure out if they were trolling or not. If possible, yes, I would discuss with them (for the record, being a former law enforcement officer, I do think that rape and child murder is never ok and I do have VERY strong opinions on them. When you have to see a dead baby a mother threw into a train station toilet on your first month of patrol you will, inevitably, get strong opinions on the matter) and lay out my viewpoints. But if they kept going on about it, every topic became the child murder and rape variety hour, if they constantly harassed people like you or me about it then I would support banning them. By going through the UH and passing a bill, not by summary banning.

I would submit to whatever authority a request to ban the individual. On the basis of "thinks it's okay to rape and murder children".

If you wish to go to the UH, that is your right as a citizen. You have every right to demand that action be taken. But I do not support the idea that it is ok to summarily ban him without at least a vote on the matter.

If you wish to go to the UH, that is your right as a citizen. You have every right to demand that action be taken. But I do not support the idea that it is ok to summarily ban him without at least a vote on the matter.

I'm not a citizen, I just live here.

If you wish to go to the UH, that is your right as a citizen. You have every right to demand that action be taken. But I do not support the idea that it is ok to summarily ban him without at least a vote on the matter.

I'm not a citizen, I just live here.

Apologies, I meant Resident.

I'm glad that my topic has spawned so much debate, because this is a topic about something that could very well happen here in Wintreath. I don't think the odds of it are high, because let's face it, most of those characters don't want to try a region that promotes its LGBT community in its recruitment message, but it's not impossible.

The standard response to something like this in most major NationStates regions is to ban them administratively as potential threats to the community, but I've never seen the issue as that black and white. I don't think you can make disagreeable beliefs go away by banishing or diminishing the people who have them...at best that sweeps the problem under a rug and pushes those people to fringe communities that reinforce those beliefs. I think to change hearts you have to engage them as people...certainly challenge those beliefs through debate, but also challenge their assumptions by engaging with them as a person. There's a lot of studies that show when people come to know an actual person in a group their prejudiced against, they come to overcome those prejudices because they know them as people now instead of caricatures. But if you ban them at the first sign of prejudice, how can that ever happen?

That said, as an administrator I believe there are limits to what can be accepted, and that limit is when disagreeable beliefs turn into disagreeable action. We have rules against personal insults, attacks, and swears (flaming), repeated unwelcome and unreasonable actions against other members (harassment), and actions specifically made to upset or provoke others (trolling). Generally when someone crosses the line we first tell them as much, then issue warnings and temp bans (depending on the platform) if issues exist and then finally permanent bans. However, in situations that reveal an immediate threat to the community an immediate permanent ban would be justified, as has happened once in this community.

At the end of the day, the objective of administration is to make sure Wintreath remains a safe community for everyone to be a part of, which is especially important when you remember that we have groups here who may not feel safe in society in general. That shouldn't require us to punish people for their believes, but it's certainly possible those beliefs could fuel actions that would have to be handled to maintain a safe community.

To keep my opinion short and sweet, we're a website, not a government. We can have hefty restrictions on freedom of speech.

To keep my opinion short and sweet, we're a website, not a government. We can have hefty restrictions on freedom of speech.

I agree heavily. As a private entity, we are able to monitor whatever speech we want. Businesses can and should get that same protection, too. The first amendment only protects against government intervention, not private.

But what about the spirit of freedom of speech? Yes, we are a website, yes, we are a private group but the argument goes beyond "can we?" into "should we?". And for all the reasons I have already said I do not think that setting the precedent that we can is a good idea.

And note, Barnes, I never quoted the US Constitution so your point about the First Amendment is misplaced.

But what about the spirit of freedom of speech? Yes, we are a website, yes, we are a private group but the argument goes beyond "can we?" into "should we?". And for all the reasons I have already said I do not think that setting the precedent that we can is a good idea.

And note, Barnes, I never quoted the US Constitution so your point about the First Amendment is misplaced.

You're right. "Should we" becomes the spirit of the question. In my opinion, yes, but that's all I have to say.

My first amendment comment was because this site is hosted in the US and because most arguments over speech suppression tend to come from there. It's also where most people don't seem to understand the difference between government intervention and private intervention.

My god, what a horrible world it must be to live in where dissent must be crushed, where the wrong opinion is punished, a world that slowly eats itself alive piece by piece, a world where the only opinion you hear is your own over and over again.

That's not what I'm saying, and that's exactly why I refrained from contributing by now. I just don't want to take part in a community that will attack me or others for who they are, that's all. The right to free speech and free association means I get the choice of which communities I spend time in. And if those communities allow racism and homophobia to be validated, I will have no part of it.

If someone refuses to ban a user who is racist or homophobic, I would leave. And in my opinion, that refusal would say more about the site administrator than me leaving would.

I know this topic is a visceral and emotional one, which is why any dissent feels personal. But imagine the consequences: people's lives are at stake because of the actions taken by some with racist or homophobic opinions. If people create a space for themselves that removes them from that, is that evil?

I refuse to engage with this any further, precisely because of how personal it is to me. I've said my piece and I'm leaving the thread. Sorry to disappoint.

Well, I'm sorry. I truly am. I disagree with your view on this topic, nothing more. My view is certainly clear, I hope, and I will leave it at that.

I have nothing against you, Barnes, and Evelynx, for that matter. This, to, is a very personal topic for me. I apologize if I crossed the line.

So now that I'm thinking about this more carefully, I guess I personally just go with the idea of "innocent until proven guilty."  If someone is being pleasant enough regardless of their own personal views, then I see no reason why they need to be banned.  If they're flaming a member with racist or homophobic views, then it should be treated the normal way we should be treating flaming behavior: a warning, and then a revocation +png or something similar through storting/trial if it continues.  Or if the person is really bad, then instant action from the monarch.

Likewise, this should apply for certain topics if they're advocating for violence/death of a specific people, or are encouraging outright hatred against a people.

If a person's actions are harmful in that way, they should be dealt with calmly and carefully, not with retaliation.  Warn the user if it's on chat that the behavior isn't tolerated on Wintreath and that warning is their only warning, or warn them in the topic that they're spouting off in...or delete the topic altogether and warn them in PM if it's a topic instilling hatred/advocating violence or death.

And again, if it continues then take action at that point based on the level.

Since it is a pretty big offense of any level, the punishment could again be a revocation/png declaration through trial or storting vote if a warning doesn't fly.  Or hell, even a temporary ban for a set period of days.  But an outright official permaban without trial/vote should be left for the extreme cases, such as the Sci incident, where others were actually involved and affected pretty negatively outside of  racial/homophobic slurs.